Upload
politecnico-di-milano
View
137
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Joon Sang Baek's PhD thesis on Socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Citation preview
A SOCIO-TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE
SERVICES: DESIGNING A DIGITAL PLATFORM FOR
COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES
by Joon Sang Baek
February 2011 © Copyright by Joon Sang Baek, 2011
2
3
Politecnico di Milano
Dipartimento Indaco
Dottorato di Ricerca in Disegno Industriale e Comunicazione Multimediale
XXIII ciclo
A Socio-Technical Framework for Collaborative Services
Designing a digital platform for collaborative communities
PhD Candidate Joon Sang Baek
Tutor and relatore Ezio Manzini
Co-relatore Anatoliy Gruzd
4
5
Abstract
A collaborative service, which is defined as a service where final users are actively involved and
assume the role of service co-designer and co-producers based on peer-to-peer and collaborative
relationships, produces two elements – technical solutions to user needs and social relations
between people who collaborate. If designed successfully, a collaborative service can provide
solutions to contemporary social, economical and environmental problems and create social
fabrics and relational qualities essential to a sustainable society. The two elements of
collaborative service are in a virtuous cycle in which production of one element facilitates the
production of the other. Information communication technologies (ICTs) amplify the virtuous
cycle by providing technical support that empower people to fulfill their needs (technical
intervention); and by facilitating enrichment of social networks, mainly weak ties.
Democratization of ICTs has brought to collaborative individuals and communities ample
opportunities to enhance their collaborative services. Digital platforms that support social
innovations in both real and virtual spaces are rapidly increasing but there are few studies on
systematic use of them. Existing methods adopted from human-computer interaction and user-
centered tend to focus on providing technical intervention and consider the production of social
networks as a byproduct that can only be anticipated and not designed. However, several social
network studies demonstrate that social and technical intervention can facilitate formation of
social networks and stimulate their transformation (Haythornthwaite 2002, Kavanaugh 1999,
Wellman 2001).
In this context, a systematic approach to develop a digital platform that provides socio-technical
intervention for collaborative service and effectively addresses users’ social needs is proposed.
Based on the studies of existing collaborative services on digital platform and the analysis of the
process to design them, a methodology to investigate users’ social needs was developed. It was
applied to an ongoing project called ‘Nurire Milano’ which aims to create a sustainable food
network that connects local producers and consumers in Milan. The methodology includes three
methods – sense of community index, degree of collaboration analysis and social network
analysis – to analyze users’ implicit social needs. In the end, findings from the project were
applied to a wider framework and a socio-technical framework for collaborative service was
proposed. The framework integrates the development process of a digital platform into service
design process and provides service designers with a systematic approach to design a
collaborative service on digital platform that supports a collaborative community with socio-
technical intervention.
Keywords: service design, social innovation, sustainability, social networks, ICTs, socio-
technical intervention
6
!"#
$%& '()*+ ,-. /0 12$ $%&3 4)+56 78)3 9:; <= &&>3 ?@A
BCDEFGH $%&A IJK ,-. $%&L MN. ,-. $%&H '() ?@A BCDOH PQ.
=RS+LT U V WHX +A <= ,-YH 'Z* [3 '\. /0LH ]8^+ _7MN.
`a.b> 4)cd ,-. $%&H ef'\3 gh.!'\.!ig. #hA =RYT jk l1GmM
'\2 n!M a-o3p; q`YHX PrMN. ,-. $%&3 s Gl Rt^, u PQ. =RSt
'\. /0H $>3 7`; vwDOH xyi /0+N. z)G ,-2 {|G }H !c; h~=
,-+ vw}� '\. /0G _7YT, +> c= Ä>Å ,-3 P\G _7YP Ç#+N. ÉÑT
+ÖM xyi /0H Üá<àPQ+LH âäoA <= ãåç V WN. !éf Üá<àPQè ,-2
n!M PQ. lê; ë (PQ. äí) t -D2 ìîïñó, jk Granovetter (1973) G òM "M
ôf/03 q`; vwDöb>õ ,-. $%&3 78; ãfDúN ('\. äí).
Üá<àPQ3 fùûH ,-. $%&3 '()*+ $%&A äx: V WH P\A haYü +> c=
'\†à; lêYH 4l° ¢£§+ •¶ß ãGYT WN. 4l° ¢£§ '(3 ãGH +A
®t.+T o0.b> '(: V WH ©™2 fM !™> +KlHX +ÖM ©™G ´l ¨è ≠+
eÆ+N. IØ.b> '\†à; ∞M ¢£§ h±2 '(}H ≤>≥&*è P¥3 HCI (c[ µ∂∑
c∑∏π human-computer interaction) +F '() ù∫ 4)c2$ '(YH ≠*>, +*; $%&3
PQ. lê, u $%&3 ƪ; äxYHX º> Ωæ; ø¿T WN. Ø�2 ,-. $%&2$ _7YH
'\. /0H $%&A ƪY�$ _7YH ]8^> [º}ü +A vwYH o0. ¡¬√+ ´l ¨N.
ÉÖF rÖ '\ƒ ©™*; <= ≈ V W∆+ ìîïñóè '\.!PQ. äí; <= q` « »ûG
GmYN (Haythornthwaite 2002, Kavanaugh 1999, Wellman 2001).
+ÖM … 2$ À ©™H '\PQ. äí; <= ,-. $%&A lêYT jk '()3 '\.
?@A ®t.b> BCDà V WH 4l° ¢£§3 ä_; Õ.b> MN. Œ œ0>, P¥2 4l°
¢£§; –(M ,-. $%&2 fM '—©™A wªY“T ,-. $%&A ∞M 4l° ¢£§3 ä_
≤>≥&A ”‘Y“N. +A ’÷b> ,-. '()3 '\. ?@A ”‘YH ¡¬√; ä_Y“N. +
¡¬√è e◊ wª ùc ‘Nutrire Milano (Nurture Milan)’ ≤>ÿñ2 .(}ŸN. À ≤>ÿñH $%&
4)c; <= ⁄L€3 ì%)6 ‹∫›fi 78)A ©Rëb>õ l1GmM fl~Ñ ïñó;
4)cYHX É Õ.+ WN. À ¡¬√è ≥Gl ¡¬ – a-o3p c‡& (Sense of community index),
,- V· ”‘, ìîïñó ”‘ – ; –(= 78)6 ì%)*3 /0. ?@A ‚„Y“N. ≤>ÿñ
RtA ’÷b> ‰Â.b>H ,-. $%&A lêYH '\PQ. ≤ÊÁó; hSY“N. À
≤ÊÁó3 jËè NÈt ÍN: ŒÎ, 4l° ¢£§ ä_ ≤>≥&6 $%& 4)c ≤>≥&A <ÏYT,
ÌÎ, '()3 /0. ?@A ”‘YH Ó; haëb>õ $%& 4)+5G ,-. $%&A ∞M
4l° ¢£§; ä_YP ∞M o0. Ô›¬; haMN.
!"#: $%&'(), *+,-, ./012, 34567, 89:-;<, *+;<= >?
7
Abstract
Un servizio in collaborazione, ovvero un servizio dove gli utenti finali sono attivamente coinvolti e
assumono il ruolo di co-progettista e co-produttore del servzio sulla base di una logica peer-to-peer e
di rapporti di collaborazione, produce due elementi: soluzioni tecniche che rispondono ai bisogni
dell'utente e relazioni sociali tra le persone che collaborano. Se progettato correttamente, un servizio
collaborativo può fornire soluzioni ai problemi sociali contemporanei, economici e ambientali. Può
creare tessuti sociali e qualità relazionali essenziali per una società sostenibile. I due elementi del
servizio collaborativo fanno parte di un circolo virtuoso, nel quale la produzione di un elemento
facilita la produzione dell’altro. Le tecnologie di informazione e (ICT) amplificano questo ciclo
virtuoso, fornendo un supporto tecnico che consente agli utenti di soddisfare i propri bisogni
(intervento tecnico), e facilitando l'arricchimento delle reti sociali, soprattutto consolidando i legami
deboli.
La democratizzazione delle ICT ha portato agli individui e comunità collaborative ampie opportunità
per migliorare i propri servizi collaborativi. Le piattaforme digitali che supportano le innovazioni
sociali, sia in spazi reali e che virtuali, sono in rapido aumento. Eppure pochi sono gli studi sull'uso
sistematico di tali piattaforme. Gli attuali metodi adottati dall’interazione uomo-computer (HCI) e
user-centered design tendono a concentrarsi sulla fornitura di interventi tecnici e considerano la
produzione di reti sociali come un sottoprodotto che può essere anticipato e non progettato. Tuttavia,
diversi studi sulle reti sociali dimostrano che l' intervento sociale e tecnico può facilitare la
formazione di reti sociali e stimolare la loro trasformazione (Haythornthwaite 2002, Kavanaugh
1999, Wellman 2001).
A partire da questo contesto di riferimento, viene qui proposto un approccio sistematico per
sviluppare una piattaforma digitale che offra un intervento socio-tecnico per il servizio collaborativo
e affronti in modo efficace i bisogni sociali degli utenti. Sulla base dei casi studio relativi ai servizi
collaborativi esistenti su piattaforma digitale e l'analisi del loro processo di progettazione, è stata
sviluppata una metodologia per indagare i bisogni sociali degli utenti. Tale metodologia è stata
applicata a un progetto in corso chiamato 'Nurire Milano', che mira a creare una rete alimentare
sostenibile che colleghi i produttori locali e consumatori a Milano. La metodologia prevede tre
tecniche – l’indice del senso di comunità, il grado di collaborazione e l’analisi di rete sociale – con
l’obiettivo di analizzare i bisogni impliciti relazionali degli utenti '. Alla fine, i risultati del progetto
sono stati applicati a un contesto più ampio e a un quadro socio-tecnico per il quale il servizio di
collaborazione è stato proposto. Questo quadro di ricerca e intervento integra il processo di sviluppo
di una piattaforma digitale nel processo del design dei servizi e fornisce ai designer dei servizi, che
possiedono un approccio sistematico alla progettazione, un servizio collaborativo su piattaforma
digitale in grado di supportare una comunità collaborativa attraverso un intervento di tipo tecnico-
sociale.
Paroli chiavi: design sevizi, innovazione sociale, sostenibilità, rete sociale, ICTs, intervento socio-
tecnico
8
9
Table of Contents
!"#$%&'()*+#,-.#,$$%&,/0#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1!!
!"!"#%)+),%/0#.)*,-.+#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1!!!"1"#%)+),%/0#23)+45&-+6#07$&40)+)+#,-.#*)40&.+#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#11!!"8"#+59-5:5/,-/)#,-.#(5*54,45&-+#&:#40)#+43.7#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#18!!";"#+4%3/43%)#&:#40)#40)+5+#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1;!
1"#%)<5)=+#&:#40)&%)45/,(#,-.#*)40&.&(&95/,(#%)+),%/0#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1>!
1"!"#.)+59-#:&%#+&/5,(#5--&<,45&-#4&=,%.+#+3+4,5-,'5(547#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1?!"#$#$#!%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+%.!%/%-)(+)0(*(-1!)+2!23%(4+!############################################################################!"5!"#$#"#!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!)+2!0/0367%!2()*&4(')*!86(+'(8*3!######################################################!"9!"#$#:#!('-%!)%!3+)0*(+4!%&*/-(&+%!;&6!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!##########################################################!:<!1"1"#+&/5,(#-)4=&%@#40)&%5)+#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#8!!"#"#$#!%-63+4-=!&;!>3)?!-(3%!)+2!2(;;/%(&+!&;!(+;&6@)-(&+!###############################################################!:$!"#"#"#!%-/2(3%!&+!%&'()*!+3->&6?%!)+2!('-%!##############################################################################################!:"!1"8"#/&**3-547#40)&%5)+#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#8>!"#:#$#!%3+%3!&;!'&@@/+(-1!#################################################################################################################################!:5!"#:#"#!,(6-/)*!%3--*3@3+-!#################################################################################################################################!:A!"#:#:#!'=)+4(+4!+&-(&+!&;!'&@@/+(-1!(+!)!+3->&6?32!%&'(3-1!##########################################################!:B!1";"#.5+/3++5&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#;A!"#C#$#!*(@(-)-(&+%!&;!-=3!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3!@&23*!0)%32!&+!2()*&4(')*!86(+'(8*3!##########!C<!"#C#"#!2()*&4(')*!86(+'(8*3!)+2!-=3&61!&;!-=3!%-63+4-=!&;!>3)?!-(3%!###########################################!C$!"#C#:#!)!+3>!@&23*!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3!###########################################################################################!C"!
8"#/,+)#+43.5)+#&:#/&((,'&%,45<)#+)%<5/)#&-#.5954,(#$(,4:&%*#""""""""""""""""""""#;>!
8"!"#5-4%&.3/45&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#;?!:#$#$#!')%3!86&;(*3%!###############################################################################################################################################!C5!:#$#"#!@3-=&2%!########################################################################################################################################################!CA!8"1"#%)+3(4#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#;B!:#"#$#!*(4=-!;&6@)-!###############################################################################################################################################!CB!:#"#"#!(+D238-=!;&6@)-!########################################################################################################################################!EA!8"8"#.5+/3++5&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#?C!:#:#$#!2/)*!86&2/'-(&+!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!#################################################################################!5A!
10
;"#.)+59-#$%&/)++#&:#/&((,'&%,45<)#+)%<5/)+#&-#.5954,(#$(,4:&%*#""""""""""""#CD!
;"!"#',/@9%&3-.#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#BA!;"1"#/,+)#+43.7#5E#.)+59-#&:#/&((,'&%,45<)#+)%<5/)+#&-#.5954,(#$(,4:&%*#"""""""""""""""""""""""""#BA!C#"#$#!(+-6&2/'-(&+!##############################################################################################################################################!B<!C#"#"#!86&'3%%!##########################################################################################################################################################!B$!C#"#:#!63%/*-%!##########################################################################################################################################################!B5!;"8"#/,+)#+43.7#1E#5*$()*)-4,45&-#&:#.5954,(#$(,4:&%*+#:&%#/&((,'&%,45<)#+)%<5/)+#""#D1!C#:#$#!(+-6&2/'-(&+!##############################################################################################################################################!9"!C#:#"#!86&'3%%!##########################################################################################################################################################!9C!C#:#:#!63%/*-%!##########################################################################################################################################################!9A!;";"#.5+/3++5&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!A8!C#C#$#!23%(4+!86&'3%%!)+2!-&&*%!###################################################################################################################!$<:!C#C#"#!3,)*/)-(&+!###############################################################################################################################################!$<A!
>"#,#*)40&.&(&97#:&%#5-<)+459,45-9#+&/5,(#-)).+#&:#,#/&**3-547#""""""""""#!!A!
>"!"#40)#-34%5%)#*5(,-&#$%&F)/4#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!!!!E#$#$#!)(@%!)+2!%-6)-34(3%!##############################################################################################################################!$$"!E#$#"#!-=3!;(6%-!8(*&-!86&F3'-G!/846)2(+4!)!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!(+!@(*)+!########################################!$$:!>"1"#*)40&.+#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!!;!>"8"#%)+3(4#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!!B!E#:#$#!23@&46)8=('!(+;&6@)-(&+!#################################################################################################################!$$B!E#:#"#!%3+%3!&;!'&@@/+(-1!##############################################################################################################################!$":!E#:#:#!%&'()*!+3->&6?!)+)*1%(%!####################################################################################################################!$"A!E#:#C#!-=3!234633!&;!'&**)0&6)-(&+!###########################################################################################################!$:$!>";"#.5+/3++5&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!;A!E#C#$#!%3+%3!&;!'&@@/+(-1!##############################################################################################################################!$C<!E#C#"#!234633!&;!'&**)0&6)-(&+!###################################################################################################################!$C5!E#C#:#!%&'()*!+3->&6?!)+)*1%(%!####################################################################################################################!$CB!
?"#,#+&/5&G4)/0-5/,(#:%,*)=&%@#:&%#/&((,'&%,45<)#+)%<5/)#"""""""""""""""""""""""#!>!!
?"!"#',/@9%&3-.#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!>1!?"1"#,#/&-/)$43,(#:%,*)=&%@#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!>8!5#"#$#!86&46)@@(+4!###########################################################################################################################################!$EC!5#"#"#!2)-)!'&**3'-(&+!#####################################################################################################################################!$5<!
11
5#"#:#!)+)*1%(%!#####################################################################################################################################################!$5:!5#"#C#!%1+-=3%(%!###################################################################################################################################################!$5E!
/0,$4)%#C"#/&-/(3+5&-#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!C8!
'5'(5&9%,$07#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!C?!
,$$)-.5H#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!B>!
,"!"! +&/5,(#*).5,#$)%+&-,(5I,45&-6#&$)--)++#,-.#)H$&+3%)#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!B>!,"1"! /,+)#+43.5)+#:&%*,4#"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#!DA!,"8"! +3%<)7#:&%*,4+#""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#1A!!
12
List of figures
;(4/63!"#$!-=3!(+-36836%&+)*!)+2!&836)-(&+)*!2(@3+%(&+%!&;!%36,('3!H'(8&**).!"<<AI!##############################!"9!;(4/63!"#"!-=3!2(;;363+'3%!03->33+!-=3!J(D-=&/K!63*)-(&+!)+2!-=3!J(D(-K!3L836(3+'3!H'(8&**).!"<<AI
!###############################################################################################################################################################################################!:<!;(4/63!"#:!8&%(-(&+(+4!&;!%36,('3%!0)%32!&+!-(3!%-63+4-=!,%#!'&**)0&6)-(&+!###################################################!C:!;(4/63!:#$!)!@&&2!0&)62!&;!46&;/+!)'-(,(-(3%!H8)6?36.!"<<BI!##########################################################################!C9!;(4/63!:#"!=&>!8*32430)+?!>&6?%!##################################################################################################################################!E<!;(4/63!:#:!8*3243%!8&%-32!&+!-=3!>30%(-3!#####################################################################################################################!E$!;(4/63!:#C!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!)!,(6-/)*!%8)'3!;&6!)!@33-/8!46&/8!###############################################################################!E"!;(4/63!:#E!3L)@8*3%!&;!@33-/8!46&/8%!###########################################################################################################################!E:!;(4/63!:#5!-=3!=&@3!8)43!&;!M36&63*)-(,&!####################################################################################################################!EC!;(4/63!:#A!23%'6(8-(&+!&;!)!634(%-3632!(-3@!#################################################################################################################!EC!;(4/63!:#B!3L)@8*3%!&;!4633+!@)8%!###################################################################################################################################!E5!;(4/63!:#9!3L)@8*3%!&;!4633+!@)8%!(+!23-)(*!#################################################################################################################!E5!;(4/63!:#$<!46&;/+!(+!-=3!8=)%3!&;!)!*&')*!46&/8!###################################################################################################!EB!;(4/63!:#$$!46&;/+!(+!-=3!8=)%3!&;!3L8)+%(&+!###########################################################################################################!EB!;(4/63!:#$"!46&;/+!(+!-=3!8=)%3!&;!)!+3->&6?!#########################################################################################################!E9!;(4/63!:#$:!(+(-()*!8=)%3!&;!8*32430)+?!########################################################################################################################!E9!;(4/63!:#$C!8*32430)+?!46&/8%!03(+4!;&6@32!#############################################################################################################!5<!;(4/63!:#$E!8*3240)+?!)-!-=3!@)-/63!*3,3*!#################################################################################################################!5$!;(4/63!:#$5!@33-/8!46&/8!*3)236%!###################################################################################################################################!5$!;(4/63!:#$A!3)6*1!8=)%3!&;!@33-/8!46&/8%!####################################################################################################################!5$!;(4/63!:#$B!@33-/8!)-!-=3!@)-/63!*3,3*!########################################################################################################################!5"!;(4/63!:#$9!'&/'=%/6;(+4!;&/+236!)+2!=(%!'&**3)4/3%!############################################################################################!5"!;(4/63!:#"<!@/-/)*!-(3%!03->33+!'&/'=%/6;36%!########################################################################################################!5:!;(4/63!:#"$!'&/'=%/6;(+4!)-!-=3!@)-/63!*3,3*!###########################################################################################################!5:!;(4/63!:#""!'&/'=%/6;(+4!46&/8!(+!@(*)+!######################################################################################################################!5C!;(4/63!:#":!'&/'=%/6;(+4!46&/8!(+!*&+2&+!##################################################################################################################!5C!;(4/63!:#"C!-=3!;&/+2(+4!@3@036%!&;!4633@!@)8!%36,('3!######################################################################################!5E!;(4/63!:#"E!)+!3)6*1!8=)%3!&;!4633+!@)8!%36,('3!######################################################################################################!55!;(4/63!:#"5!4633+!@)8!%36,('3!(+!-=3!@)-/63!8=)%3!#################################################################################################!55!;(4/63!:#"A!)!,(6-/&/%!'(6'*3!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'-(&+!&;!%&*/-(&+%!)+2!-=)-!&;!%&'()*!+3->&6?%!######!5A!;(4/63!:#"B!-=3!,(6-/&/%!'1'*3!)@8*(;(32!01!('-%!#######################################################################################################!5A!;(4/63!:#"9!-=3!%-6/'-/6)*!%1%-3@!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3!&+!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!#####################################!5B!;(4/63!:#:<!@33-/8#'&@!(%!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!-=)-!=&%-%!2(,36%3!@33-/8!46&/8%!H@33-/8.!"<$<I!######!59!;(4/63!:#:$!-3)@!;(4=-(+4!2()03-3%!@33-/8!46&/8!=&@38)43!H-3)@!;(4=-(+4!2()03-3%.!"<$<I!#############!59!;(4/63!:#:"!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!(+!@33-/8#'&@!H@33-/8.!"<$<I!##################################################################!A<!
13
;(4/63!:#::!-3)@!;(4=-(+4!2()03-3%7!=(?(+4!2)1!H-3)@!;(4=-(+4!2()03-3%.!"<$<I!#########################################!A<!;(4/63!:#:C!4)%.!-=3!%&*(2)6(-1!8/6'=)%(+4!46&/8%!)+2!-=3!4)%!>30%(-3!H46/88(!2(!)'N/(%-&!%&*(2)*3.!
"<<9I!###################################################################################################################################################################################!A$!;(4/63!:#:E!4633+!@)8!@)?36%!)+2!-=3!4633+!@)8!>30%(-3!H4633+!@)8.!"<<BI!###########################################!A"!;(4/63!:#:5!-=3!8*32430)+?!>30%(-3!H8*32430)+?.!"<<9I!#####################################################################################!A"!;(4/63!:#:A!83*)23(6&!/%36%!)+2!-=3!83*)23(6&!>30%(-3!H83*)23(6&.!"<<9I!###################################################!A:!;(4/63!:#:B!)!*&')*!,&')*%!%(+4(+4!46&/8!@&0!)+2!-=3!)'-(,@&0!>30%(-3!H)'-(,@&0.!"<<9I!##################!A:!;(4/63!:#:9!!-=3!M36&63*)-(,&!>30%(-3!HM36&63*)-(,&.!"<<9I!###############################################################################!AC!;(4/63!:#C<!'&/'=!%/6;36%!)+2!-=3!'&/'=!%/6;(+4!>30%(-3!H'&/'=%/6;(+4.!"<<9I!######################################!AC!;(4/63! :#C$! %'633+%=&-%! &;! =(-'==(?36%#&64! 8*)-;&6@G! ;6&@! -&8! *3;-! -&! '*&'?>(%3! 2(63'-(&+G!
23,3*&836%!&;!-=3!8*)-;&6@.!)!0/**3-(+!0&)62!;&6!86&8&%(+4!)!=(-'==(?3.!-=3!634(%-6)-(&+!8)43O!)!')6!8)(+-32!>(-=!-=3!=(-'==(?36%#&64!*&4&!H=(-'==(?36%.!"<$<I!###############################################################!AA!
;(4/63!:#C"!)'-(,(-(3%!&64)+(M32!01!@)8&!2/63!##########################################################################################################!AB!;(4/63!:#C:!+)0//6!>30%(-3!)+2!&+3!&;! (-%!86&F3'-!&+!-=3!'&@0)-!;&6!@)*)6()! (+!>)?(-)?).!/4)+2)!
H+)0//6.!"<$<I!###############################################################################################################################################################!AB!;(4/63!C#$!)!63*)-(&+%=(8!03->33+!)+!3,3+-.!)!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3!)+2!)+!3+)0*(+4!%&*/-(&+!##########!B$!;(4/63!C#"!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!836%&+)%!(+!%36,('3!23%(4+!H>3-/+3%.!"<<9I!#############################################################!B"!;(4/63!C#:!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!)!@&-(,)-(&+!@)-6(L!H>3-/+3%.!"<<9I!#########################################################################!B:!;(4/63!C#C!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!)!%1%-3@!@)8!H>3-/+3%.!"<<9I!########################################################################################!BC!;(4/63!C#E!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!)!%-&610&)62!H'*&-=3%!8)6-1.!"<<9I!############################################################################!BC!;(4/63!C#5!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!)!;*&>!'=)6-!H)6'(%-&8836%.!"<<9I!###############################################################################!BE!;(4/63!C#A!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!&64)+(M(+4!%&'()*!3,3+-%!-&!3L'=)+43!H'*&-=3%!8)6-1.!"<<9I!##########!B5!;(4/63!C#B!-=3!%1%-3@!@)8!&;!'*&-=3%!8)6-1!H'/@(-(+(.!,336)!P!M&'').!"<<9I!###############################################!BA!;(4/63!C#9!-=3!>30%(-3!&;!'*&-=3%!8)6-1!H'/@(-(+(.!,336)!P!M&'').!"<<9I!#####################################################!BA!;(4/63!C#$<!-=3!%1%-3@!@)8!&;!,()44()@&'(!H'3%)6)+&.!,(**(,)7.!4/-(3663M.!"<<9I!######################################!BB!;(4/63!C#$$!-=3!>30%(-3!&;!,()44()@&'(!H'3%)6)+&.!,(**(,)7!P!4/-(3663M.!"<<9I!##########################################!B9!;(4/63!C#$"!-=3!%1%-3@!@)8!&;!>3!4633+!H'6(%8&+(.!*&!@3*3!P!+&4/3%.!"<<9I!##############################################!B9!;(4/63!C#$:!-=3!>30%(-3!&;!>3!4633+!H'6(%8&+(.!*&!@3*3!P!+&4/3%.!"<<9I!#####################################################!9<!;(4/63!C#$C!-=3!%1%-3@!@)8!&;!>3-/+3%!H&+4.!*3&+.!;3663(6)!P!)6)/F&.!"<<9I!############################################!9<!;(4/63!C#$E!-=3!>30%(-3!&;!>3-/+3%!H&+4.!*3&+.!;3663(6)!P!)6)/F&.!"<<9I!##################################################!9$!;(4/63!C#$5!-=3!%1%-3@!@)8!&;!)6'(!%-&8836%!H%3@36)6&.!>/6M36.!>(**()@%!)+2!8/*(2&.!"<<9I!############!9"!;(4/63!C#$A!-=3!>30%(-3!&;!)6'(!%-&8836%!H%3@36)6&.!>/6M36.!>(**()@%!)+2!8/*(2&.!"<<9I!###################!9"!;(4/63!C#$B#!%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!(+!%'&-*)+2!(+!F/+3!"<<B!H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8.!"<$<I!###########!9:!;(4/63!C#$9 8)6-('(8)+-%!&;!-=3!%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!H2)/@ '\a+ÒP.!"<$<I!########################!9C!;(4/63!C#"<!863%3+-)-(&+!&;!-=3!(23)%!2/6(+4!-=3!&6(3+-)-(&+!H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!:5.!"<$<I!####!9E!;(4/63!C#"$!8)6-('(8)+-%!2(%'/%%(+4!-=3! %&*/-(&+!'&+'38-!)-!-=3!46&/8!@33-(+4! ! H%&'()*! (++&,)-(&+!
')@8!:5.!"<$<I!################################################################################################################################################################!9E!
14
;(4/63! C#""! 23,3*&836%! )-! -=3! ')@8!>(-=! -=3! 63@)(+(+4! -(@3! 2(%8*)132! (+! -=3! 0)'?46&/+2! H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!:5.!"<$<I!########################################################################################################################################!95!
;(4/63!C#":!23,3*&836%!=),(+4!)!2(%'/%%(&+!H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!:5.!"<$<I!##########################################!9A!;(4/63!C#"C!>(63;6)@3%!)+2!(+;&6@)-(&+!)6'=(-3'-/63!26)>+!01!23,3*&836%!H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!
:5.!"<$<I!###########################################################################################################################################################################!9A!;(4/63!C#"E!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!?(+2!0/%!H?(+2!0/%.!"<$<I!############################################################################!9B!;(4/63!C#"5!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!-=3!0)6)-(3G!;332!1&/6!83&8*3!H0)6)-(3G!;332!1&/6!83&8*3.!"<$<I
!###############################################################################################################################################################################################!9B!;(4/63!C#"A!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!;/+!6(2(+4!H;/+!6(2(+4.!"<$<I!#####################################################################!99!;(4/63!C#"B!)!%'=3@)!&;!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!@1!+3(4=0&6%!H%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!:5.!"<$<I!##!$<<!;(4/63!C#"9!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!&/6!;)6@!H&/6!;)6@.!"<$<I!######################################################################!$<<!;(4/63!C#:<!)!@&0(*3!8*)-;&6@!;&6!;(+2(+4!*&')*!-6)2(-(&+)*!@)6?3-%!H*3-Q%!@)6?3-.!"<$<I!##########!$<$!;(4/63!C#:$!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!8&8!;/+2(+4!;&6!)6-(%-%!H)6-!;/+2.!"<$<I!#########################################!$<$!;(4/63!C#:"!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!86&!0&+&!06(243!H86&!0&+&!06(243.!"<$<I!#########################################!$<"!;(4/63!C#::!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!-633(+4!H-633(+4.!"<$<I!#############################################################################!$<"!;(4/63!C#:C!23%(4+!86&'3%%!&;!-=3!%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!#################################################################################!$<E!;(4/63!C#:E!23%(4+!86&'3%%!&;!-=3!8%2!*)0!################################################################################################################!$<5!;(4/63!C#:5!-183%!&;!4&&2%!H'&&836.!"<<EI!################################################################################################################!$<B!;(4/63!E#$!86&'3%%!&;!+/-6(63!@(*)+&!86&F3'-!H+/-6(63!@(*)+&.!"<<9I!#######################################################!$$"!;(4/63!E#"!)!%'=3@)-('!86&'3%%!&;!23%(4+(+4!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!################!$$E!;(4/63!E#:!)43!&;!-=3!86&2/'36%!(+!-=3!@)6?3-!########################################################################################################!$$9!;(4/63!E#C!2(%-)+'3!;6&@!-=3!86&2/'36%7!;)6@%!-&!@(*)+!####################################################################################!$$9!;(4/63!E#E!86&2/'-%!&;;3632!01!-=3!86&2/'36%!########################################################################################################!$$9!;(4/63!E#5!%36,('3%!&;;3632!01!-=3!86&2/'36%!###########################################################################################################!$"<!;(4/63!E#A!;63N/3+'1!&;!/%(+4!-=3!(+-36+3-!H86&2/'36%I!####################################################################################!$"<!;(4/63!E#B!8/68&%3!&;!/%(+4!-=3!(+-36+3-!H86&2/'36%I!##########################################################################################!$"$!;(4/63!E#9!)43!&;!-=3!'&+%/@36%!#####################################################################################################################################!$"$!;(4/63!E#$<!*&')-(&+!&;!-=3!'&+%/@36%!#######################################################################################################################!$""!;(4/63!E#$$!32/')-(&+!*3,3*!&;!-=3!'&+%/@36%!########################################################################################################!$""!;(4/63!E#$"!%&/6'3%!-&!0/1!46&'36(3%!H'&+%/@36%I!#################################################################################################!$":!;(4/63!E#$:!23%(632!;63N/3+'1!&;!-=3!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!H'&+%/@36%I!#############################################################!$":!;(4/63!E#$C!8/68&%3!&;!-=3!(+-36+3-!/%3!H'&+%/@36%I!##########################################################################################!$":!;(4/63! E#$E! 3*3@3+-%! &;! %3+%3! &;! '&@@/+(-1! )+2! -=3(6! =18&-=3%(M32! 63*)-(&+%=(8%! H@'@(**)+! P!
'=),(%.!$9B5I!################################################################################################################################################################!$"E!;(4/63!E#$5!%&'()*!+3->&6?%!&;!86&2/'36%!)-!-=3!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!H632!+&23%!)63!(%&*)-3%I!##############!$"B!;(4/63!E#$A!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'36%!&;!-=3!%)@3!-183!&;!(-3@%!H(+!&6)+43!2&--32!*(+3I!
)+2!&;!%/88*3@3+-)61!(-3@%!H(+!4633+!%&*(2!*(+3I!##########################################################################################!$"9!
15
;(4/63!E#$B!%&'()*!+3->&6?%!&;!86&2/'36%!)-!-=3!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!*)03*32! (+!-=3!8&%-)*!'&23! ! H632!+&23%!)63!(%&*)-3%I!#####################################################################################################################################################!$:<!
;(4/63!E#$9!%&'()*!+3->&6?%!&;!86&2/'36%!)-!-=3!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!*)03*32!(+!-=3!-183!&;!%36,('3%!-=31!&;;36!#################################################################################################################################################################################!$:$!
;(4/63!E#"<!-183%!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!)'-(,(-(3%!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'36%!(+!-=3!@)6?3-!#############################!$:"!;(4/63!E#"$!2/6)-(&+!&;!-=3!86&2/'36%7!'&**)0&6)-(,3!)'-(,(-(3%!###################################################################!$::!;(4/63!E#""!%(M3!&;!-=3!86&2/'36%7!'&**)0&6)-(,3!46&/8%!####################################################################################!$::!;(4/63!E#":!;63N/3+'1!&;!(+-36)'-(&+!(+!-=3!86&2/'36%7!'&**)0&6)-(,3!46&/8%!########################################!$:C!;(4/63!E#"C!%&'()*!@32()!/%32!01!-=3!86&2/'36%!(+!'&**)0&6)-(,3!)'-(,(-(3%!###############################################!$:C!;(4/63!E#"E!-183!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!)'-(,(-(3%!-=)-!-=3!86&2/'36%!)63!3+4)432!>(-=!-=3!'&+%/@36%!$:E!;(4/63!E#"5!%(M3!&;!46&/8%!(+!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'36%!)+2!-=3!'&+%/@36%!######################!$:E!;(4/63!E#"A!*3+4-=!&;!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'36%!)+2!-=3!'&+%/@36%!###################################!$:5!;(4/63!E#"B!;63N/3+'1!&;!(+-36)'-(&+!03->33+!-=3!86&2/'36%!)+2!-=3!'&+%/@36%!##################################!$:5!;(4/63!E#"9!%&'()*!@32()!-=)-!-=3!86&2/'36%!/%3!-&!'&**)0&6)-3!>(-=!-=3!'&+%/@36%!##########################!$:A!;(4/63!E#:<!-=3!86&2/'36%7!>(**(+4+3%%!-&!8)6-('(8)-3!(+!+3>!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!##########################!$:A!;(4/63!E#:$!-183!&;!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!'&+%/@36%!)+2!-=3!86&2/'36%!########################################!$:B!;(4/63!E#:"!%(M3!&;!46&/8!(+!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!'&+%/@36%!)+2!-=3!86&2/'36%!########################!$:B!;(4/63!E#::!*3+4-=!&;!'&**)0&6)-(&+!03->33+!-=3!'&+%/@36%!)+2!-=3!86&2/'36%!###################################!$:9!;(4/63!E#:C#!;63N/3+'1!&;!(+-36)'-(&+!03->33+!-=3!'&+%/@36%!)+2!-=3!86&2/'36%!#################################!$:9!;(4/63!E#:E!%&'()*!@32()!/%32!01!-=3!'&+%/@36%!-&!'&**)0&6)-3!######################################################################!$C<!;(4/63!E#:5!-)%-(+4!*)0&6)-&6(3%!&+!'/%'/%!;6&@!@&6&''&!###############################################################################!$C"!;(4/63!E#:A!23@&+%-6)-(&+!&;!@)?(+4!=&+31!01!)+!)8('/*-/6(%-!######################################################################!$C"!;(4/63!E#:B!83&8*3!=),(+4!)!06/+'=!)-!-=3!@)6?3-!################################################################################################!$C:!;(4/63!E#:9!(+%(23!-=3!=)*(;)L!%3)8&6-!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-!H=)*(;)L!;)6@36%7!@)6?3-.!"<$<I!##############!$CE!;(4/63!E#C<!-=3!63%&/6'3%!-=)-!-=3!86&2/'36%!>&/*2!*(?3!-&!2(%'/%%!>(-=!&-=36%!-&!%=)63!################!$CA!;(4/63!E#C$!(+%-6/@3+-%!)+2!(+;6)%-6/'-/63!-=)-!-=3!86&2/'36%!)63!>(**(+4!-&!%=)63!########################!$CA!;(4/63!E#C"!'&@83-3+'3%!-=)-!-=3!86&2/'36%!)63!>(**(+4!-&!%=)63!################################################################!$CB!;(4/63!E#C:!-=3!@)6?3-!)%!)!+3->&6?!&;!-(4=-*1!?+(-!46&/8%!############################################################################!$C9!;(4/63!E#CC!-=3!@)6?3-!)%!)!+3->&6?!&;!-(4=-*1!?+(-!46&/8%!)+2!(+2(,(2/)*%!############################################!$E<!;(4/63!5#$#!)!%'=3@)-('!@&23*!&;!23%(4+(+4!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!##################!$E"!;(4/63!5#"!)!86&'3%%!&;!23%(4+(+4!)!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3!&+!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!#########################################!$EC!;(4/63!5#:!86&46)@@(+4!8=)%3!########################################################################################################################################!$EE!;(4/63!5#C!2()46)@%!-=)-!(**/%-6)-3!'&**)0&6)-(,3!+3->&6?%!)-!-=3!@)6?3-!03;&63!H-&8I!)+2!);-36!
H0&--&@I!-=3!%&'(&D-3'=+(')*!(+-36,3+-(&+!####################################################################################################!$EA!;(4/63!5#E!2)-)!'&**3'-(&+!8=)%3!###################################################################################################################################!$5<!;(4/63!5#5!)+!3L'368-!;6&@!)!%/6,31!&+!-=3!3L'=)+43!&;!63%&/6'3%!)+2!'&@83-3+'3%!H0)3?.!'&6/0&*&.!
@36&+(!P!%(@3&+3.!"<$<I!#########################################################################################################################################!$5:!;(4/63!5#A!)+)*1%(%!8=)%3!##################################################################################################################################################!$5:!
16
;(4/63!5#B!%1+-=3%(%!8=)%3!################################################################################################################################################!$5E!;(4/63!5#9!83&8*3!-61(+4!>(+3!2/6(+4!-=3!-)%-(+4!*)0&6)-&6(3%!#######################################################################!$55!;(4/63!5#$<!83&8*3!-61(+4!=&+31!&;;3632!01!)+!)8('/*-/6(%-!2/6(+4!-=3!=&+31!@)?(+4!23@&+%-6)-(&+
!############################################################################################################################################################################################!$55!;(4/63!5#$$!83&8*3!3)-(+4!-&43-=36!)-!)!%=)632!-)0*3!#########################################################################################!$55!;(4/63!5#$"!-=3!%-6/'-/63!&;!)!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!;&6!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!############################################!$A<!;(4/63!5#$:!-=3!;/+'-(&+)*!'&+;(4/6)-(&+!&;!3+)0*(+4!%&*/-(&+!@&2/*3%!###################################################!$A$!;(4/63!5#$C!)!%-6/'-/6)*!%1%-3@!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!&+!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!#####################################!$A"!
17
List of tables
-)0*3!"#$!'&@8)6(%&+!&;!%-6&+4!-(3%!)+2!>3)?!-(3%!###################################################################################################!:$!-)0*3!"#"!)+!3L)@8*3!&;!')*'/*)-(+4!-=3!%'(!###############################################################################################################!:A!-)0*3!:#$!')%3!*(%-!H2)-)!)''3%%32!;306/)61!"5.!"<<9I!###########################################################################################!CA!-)0*3! :#"! )! -18&*&41! &;! '&**)0&6)-(,3! %36,('3! &+! 2(4(-)*! 8*)-;&6@! 0)%32! &+! -=3! %&'()*! +3->&6?!
%-6/'-/63%!&;!/%36%!#######################################################################################################################################################!AE!-)0*3!C#$#!23%(4+!86&'3%%!&;!8%2!*)0!,%#!%&'()*!(++&,)-(&+!')@8!####################################################################!$<5!-)0*3!E#$!-=3!%'(!;&6!86&2/'36!)-!-=3!@)6?3-!#########################################################################################################!$$5!-)0*3!E#"!-=3!%'(!;&6!'&+%/@36!)-!-=3!@)6?3-!########################################################################################################!$$A!-)0*3!E#:!-183%!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!)'-(,(-(3%!##############################################################################################################!$$A!-)0*3!E#C!-=3!%3+%3!&;!'&@@/+(-1!*3,3*!&;!-=3!86&2/'36%!##################################################################################!$"C!-)0*3!E#E!-=3!%3+%3!&;!'&@@/+(-1!*3,3*!&;!-=3!'&+%/@36%!##################################################################################!$"C!-)0*3!E#5!86&2/'36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!@3@036%=(8!#############################################################################################!$"E!-)0*3!E#A!'&+%/@36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!@3@036%=(8!############################################################################################!$"E!-)0*3!E#B!86&2/'36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!(+;*/3+'3!#################################################################################################!$"5!-)0*3!E#9!'&+%/@36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!(+;*/3+'3!################################################################################################!$"5!-)0*3!E#$<!86&2/'36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!(+-346)-(&+!)+2!;/*;(**@3+-!&;!+332%!#####################################!$"5!-)0*3!E#$$!'&+%/@36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!(+-346)-(&+!)+2!;/*;(**@3+-!&;!+332%!#####################################!$"5!-)0*3!E#$"!86&2/'36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&+!%=)632!3@&-(&+)*!'&++3'-(&+!#####################################################!$"A!-)0*3!E#$:!'&+%/@36%7!),36)43!%'&63%!&;!%=)632!3@&-(&+)*!'&++3'-(&+!#####################################################!$"A!-)0*3!E#$C!3L)@8*3%!&;!%36,('3!%-6)-34(3%!)+2!8*)-;&6@!;3)-/63%!#################################################################!$E<!-)0*3!5#$!)!'=3'?*(%-!-&!)6-('/*)-3!)!%36,('3!'&+'38-!##########################################################################################!$EA!-)0*3!5#"!')%3%!&;!'&**)0&6)-(,3!%36,('3%!&+!-=3!2(4(-)*!8*)-;&6@!0)%32!&+!-=3(6!-18&*&4(3%!###########!$E9!-)0*3!5#:!'&@8)6(%&+!&;!%'(.!%+)!)+2!2&'!################################################################################################################!$5"!-)0*3!5#C!)!63%&/6'3D86&0*3@!@)-6(L!;&6!06)(+%-&6@(+4!%&'(&D-3'=+(')*!(+-36,3+-(&+!######################!$5C!-)0*3!5#E!06)(+%-&6@32!%-6)-34(3%!@)8832!&+-&!-=3!-18&*&41!@)8!################################################################!$5B!-)0*3!5#5!)!63%&/6'3D86&0*3@!@)-6(L!>(-=!)!06)(+%-&6@(+4!63%/*-!###############################################################!$59!-)0*3!5#A!;3)-/63%!&;!3+)0*(+4!%&*/-(&+%!;&6!-=3!+/-6(63!@(*)+&!86&F3'-!################################################!$A$!
18
Terminologies
Collaborative communities
Communities that are engaged in any form of collaborative services at the individual or
communal level.
Collaborative service
Services where final users are actively involved and assume the role of service co-designer and
co-producers based on peer-to-peer, collaborative relationships and, consequently, on a high
degree of mutual trust. Services where the produced values emerge out of relational qualities,
i.e. out of real and lively personal relationships (Jegou & Manzini, 2008, p32).
Services based on peer-to-peer, collaborative relationships and, consequently, on a high degree
of mutual trust. Services where the produced values emerge out of relational qualities, i.e. out of
real and lively personal relationships (Cipolla, 2008)
Community
Networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of
belonging, and social identity (Wellman, 2001).
Creative communities
Groups of entrepreneurial people who, without expecting to trigger general changes in the
system (economy, institutions, large infrastructures), manage to reorganize the existing state-of-
things producing something new, often innovative solutions that fulfill their individual interests
and at the same time social and environmental interests (Manzini in Meroni Ed. 2007).
Disabling systems
Systems that promote user passivity and ignorance. People and communities are less and less
able to solve problems by themselves.
Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability (DESIS)
A network of schools of design and other schools, institutions, companies and non-profit
organizations interested in promoting and supporting design for social innovation and
sustainability (www.desis-network.org).
Dual production of collaborative service
The production of technical solutions to user needs and social networks of individuals or
communities that are involved in a collaborative activity as a result of collaborative service.
19
Enabling systems
Systems of products, services and organizational tools that enable individuals or communities to
achieve a result using at best their skills and abilities (Manzini, 2008).
Product-Service System (PSS)
A marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user's needs (Van Halen,
Vezzoli & Wimmer, 2005, p21). PSS promotes a focus shift from selling just products to selling
the utility, through a mix of products and services while fulfilling the same client demands with
less environmental impact. (Manzini & Vezzoli, 2002)
Peer to peer (P2P)
A specific form of relational dynamic and is based on the assumed equipotency of its
participants organized through the free cooperation of equals in view of the performance of a
common task for the creation of a common good, with forms of decision-making and autonomy
that are widely distributed throughout the network. (Bauwens, 2005)
Relational qualities
The expressions of the “genuine dialogue” established between the participants of collaborative
service and include trust, intimacy, friendship and a common identity (Cipolla, 2007)
Service
A useful performance, the values of which are recognized by one or more persons (DeMichelis,
1996)
Social capital
The collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to
do things for each other (Putnam, 2000)
Social innovation
New ideas that work in meeting social goals (Young Foundation, 2006, p.9)
A process of change where new ideas emerge from a variety of actors directly involved in the
problem to be solved: final users, grass roots technicians and entrepreneurs, local institutions
and civil society organizations (Manzini, 2009)
Social media
A group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological
foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content
20
(Kaplan, Haenlein, (2010)., Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social
media, Business Horizons, Vol. 53, Issue 1, p. 59-68.)
Social needs
Needs relating to society or needs relating to individuals’ relations and activities with others. In
this thesis, the latter is used. Social needs are basic human needs and examples include sense of
community, friendship, family and intimacy.
A social network
A social network is a social structure made up of individuals (or organizations) called "nodes",
which are tied (connected) by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as friendship,
kinship, common interest, financial exchange, dislike, sexual relationships, or relationships of
beliefs, knowledge or prestige (Wikipedia, 2010).
Social network analysis
The mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations,
computers or other information/knowledge processing entities. The nodes in the network are
the people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes. SNA
provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of complex human systems. (Social Network
Analysis, 2010)
Socio-technical framework
In the context of service design, A Socio-technical framework is an approach to address social
and technical needs of an individual or a community with service strategies that involve social
and technical intervention.
Socio-technical intervention for service
The combination of social and technical intervention. Social intervention in a service refers to
intervention to initiate and maintain the relations of stakeholders in a direction coherent with
the service goal. Technical intervention in a service is intervention to improve the performance
of a service with necessary tools and methods.
Virtual settlement
A cyber space of virtual communities. For a cyber space to be a virtual settlement, it needs to
meet the following 4 conditions: (1) a minimum level of interactivity; (2) a variety of
communicators; (3) a minimum level of sustained membership; and (4) a virtual common-
public-space where a significant portion of interactive group-CMCs (Computer-Mediated
Communications) occur (Jones, 1997).
21
1. PROBLEMS AND APPROACH
This research proposes a socio-technical framework to design a digital platform for collaborative
service. Collaborative service is a grassroots social innovation. It is defined as a service where
final users play the role of service co-designer and co-producers to generate a solution for a
common need based on peer-to-peer, collaborative relationships and, consequently, on a high
degree of mutual trust (Jegou & Manzini, 2008). The proposed framework focuses on
addressing the social needs of collaborative communities and enriching their social networks
through socio-technical intervention.
1.1. Research demands
The research demands exist at two levels: At the macro level, there is a growing interest in social
innovations and in design for social innovations. Social innovations are emerging as alternative
solutions to economic, environmental and social problems of contemporary society. They are
defined as “new ideas that work in meeting social goals” (Young Foundation, 2006, p.9).
Social innovations tend to prevail when three conditions are met: discontent; awareness of the
gap between what people need and what is offered by governments, private firms and NGO’s;
and technologies that empower people to solve the problems (Ibid.). This makes the present a
timely moment for social innovations to prevail. In fact, social innovations have emerged as a
promising solution to reshape economies to foster sustained growth and to systematically solve
societal challenges since the global financial crisis in 2008. For example, EU President Barroso
(2009) signaled its importance for the future of Europe during the financial and economic crisis
in 2009, emphasizing its role to foster sustainable growth, secure jobs and boost
competitiveness. In US, President Obama launched the office of social innovation and civic
participation to support grassroots solutions to the nation’s challenges.
In this context, there is a growing interest in design for social innovation among social
innovators and designers. The former uses design thinking and methods to elicit user needs,
define problems, generate and present solution ideas. For the latter, it is an opportunity to
utilize their creativity and knowledge to tackle various social issues and to create a more
sustainable society. For example, designers can develop innovative product service systems that
are socially, environmentally and economically more sustainable than product-centered
business models; they can also design services that empower people to use their abilities at best
to fulfill their needs1; and design researchers can develop tools, methods and theoretical
knowledge for the practitioners. The last example leads to the research demand at the micro
level.
1 Hence such systems are called enabling systems (Manzini, 2005)
22
With the introduction of technologies that empower users to interact, collaborate and innovate
(often represented by the term web 2.0), information communication technologies (ICTs) have
been widely adopted by social innovators to organize and support various collaborative
initiatives. Among them are collaborative services empowered by digital platforms, or simply
collaborative services on digital platform. A conventional approach to designing a digital
platform for a collaborative service employs methods and processes developed in human-
computer interaction and interaction design whose primary concerns are usability and
emotional satisfaction.
A platform thus designed may effectively deal with the technical dimension of a service which
relates to the performance of a service, but it hardly addresses the social dimension which
relates to creation and reinforcement of relations among individuals who collaborate. Social
relations generated through a collaborative activity are a unique characteristic of a collaborative
service and it is also essential to the diffusion of social innovations. If a digital platform can be
designed to fulfill social needs as well as technical needs of a collaborative community, a
collaborative service will be more likely to succeed and its impact greater.
1.2. Research questions, hypotheses and methods
The main research question of the thesis is as follows: How can ICTs be incorporated into a
design process to develop a service that facilitates the enrichment of social networks of
collaborative individuals and communities? This question can be further specified into three
questions: (1) how do ICTs influence the production and diffusion of collaborative services; (2)
how do collaborative communities use ICTs to fulfill their social needs; and (3) how do
designers and developers use ICTs in the design process of collaborative services?
The first question relates to the role of ICTs in the production of collaborative services.
According to the dual dimension of service (Cipolla, 2007), a collaborative service produces two
basic elements: a solution for a social need and social networks among those who collaborate.
The question thus inquires if ICTs contribute to facilitating the production of a solution and
social networks and if so, how. It is hypothesized the production of a solution facilitates that of
social networks and vice versa, creating a virtuous cycle. ICTs amplify this virtuous cycle by
providing tools for collaboration and contributing to creation of social networks that underpin
collaborative service. This hypothesis is verified through literature studies on social networks
and ICTs.
The second question relates to which ICTs collaborative communities use and for what
purposes. Empirical knowledge shows that when people develop a digital platform for a
collaborative service, they often benchmark cases of a similar goal and select technologies that
23
serve their needs most effectively. This implies that there could be stereotypes of digital
platforms for collaborative service. Therefore, it is hypothesized that there exist a correlation
between a community’s use of ICTs and a solution and social networks it aims to produce. If
such a pattern exists and can be identified, it can be used as a reference for designers to design a
digital platform that serves best the specific needs of target users. This hypothesis is verified
through case studies of collaborative services on digital platform.
The third question concerns what kind of process do designers and engineers undergo to
develop collaborative services on digital platform and what are their needs related to this
process. It is hypothesized that considering the short history of design for collaborative service
on digital platform, there is no dedicated process and that designers and developers use
conventional approach used in interaction design and human-computer interaction. If that is
the case, their process will tend to focus on satisfying users’ cognitive and emotional needs
related to the technical aspect of a service and will lack a systematic approach addressing users’
social needs. This hypothesis is verified through investigation of two case studies conducted as
part of this thesis work.
1.3. Significance and limitations of the study
The significance of this research can summarized as the following: (1) It contemplates the notion
of collaborative service and redefines its theoretical model based on the theory of weak ties
(Granovetter, 1973). The new model is relevant in the emergence of ICTs as an enabling
solution2 for collaborative service and allows a quantitative assessment of an enabling solution;
(2) the research affirms the existence of collaborative service on digital platform and identifies
the use patterns of ICTs by collaborative communities in diverse contexts. Such patterns include
a structural system of collaborative service on digital platform and two typologies based on
service goal and social networks of users; (3) the research identifies the process of designing
collaborative service on digital platform along with methods used in each stage. It evaluates the
process from the perspective of addressing users’ technical and social needs; and (4) it proposes
a socio-technical framework for collaborative service, a systematic approach to designing a
digital platform for collaborative communities. This framework is integrated into service design
process and allows a designer to generate design strategies that responds to target user needs,
especially social ones, based on the analysis of their sense of community, degree of collaboration
and social network structure. The strategies are then fed into formulating the concept and
features of a digital platform.
2 A solution that enables individuals or communities to achieve a result using at best their skills and abilities (Manzini, 2008).
24
The framework is based on an on-going project to aims to create a sustainable food network
between local producers and consumers in Milan. Collaborative services between producers and
consumers are being designed with the first pilot case being a farmers’ market. At the same
time, a digital platform that supports the services has launched in December 2010 with features
that support the first pilot case. Designed based on the framework, its structure can be
expanded to accommodate the new services to arrive. The effectiveness of the platform has not
been evaluated and consequently, the evaluation of the framework remains as a future work.
1.4. Structure of the thesis
This thesis has the following structure: Chapter 1 identifies research demands, research
questions, hypotheses and main contribution of this research. Chapter 2 introduces the
theoretical framework of collaborative service and discusses a virtuous cycle in the dual
production of collaborative service as well as how ICTs can amplify the cycle. Chapter 3
introduces the result of case studies on the existing collaborative services on digital platform
and reveals the ICT use patterns observed in them. Chapter 4 illustrates the current process of
designing a collaborative service on digital platform and discusses its strengths and weaknesses.
In chapter 5, a project to create a sustainable food network in Milan and to design a digital
platform to support collaborative services between local producers and consumers is described.
Chapter 6 introduces a socio-technical framework for designing a digital platform that fulfills
the social needs of collaborative communities. Chapter 7 concludes the research and proposes
future works.
25
2. REVIEWS OF THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH
In this chapter, three research areas that constitute the theoretical and methodological base of
this research are introduced. The first area is design for social innovation towards sustainability.
The notion of collaborative service and enabling solution is introduced. The second one relates
to social network theories. Social network theories provide a reference to building the
conceptual model of collaborative service. They also provide methodologies to analyze and
visualize social networks of target users that are introduced in chapter 5. The third area is
community theories. They provide a theoretical framework to the notion of collaborative
community referred to in this research and metrics to measure the sense of community.
26
2.1. Design for social innovation towards sustainability
2.1.1. Social innovations, sustainability and design
Social innovations are emerging as alternative solutions to contemporary economic, social and
environmental problems and a driver towards a sustainable society. They are moving from the
margins to the mainstream in the troubled time. EU President Barroso signaled its importance
for the future of Europe, saying that “[t]he financial and economic crisis makes creativity and
innovation in general and social innovation in particular even more important to foster
sustainable growth, secure jobs and boost competitiveness” (2009). In the White House,
President Obama created the office of social innovation and civic participation to support
grassroots solutions to the nation’s challenges.
Social innovations tend to prevail when three conditions are met: discontent; awareness of the
gap between what people need and what is offered by governments, private firms and NGO’s;
and availability of the technologies that empower people to generate solutions to their needs
(Mulgan, 2006). Arguably, the situations of the contemporary society makes now a likely
moment for social innovations to prevail: problems that people confront across diverse sectors
of society such as the climate change, economic downturn, energy crisis and social division have
led to distrust of the current socio-economic systems and created demands for alternative
solutions; there is increasing awareness of the urgent need for a sustainable growth at the global
scale; and diffused technologies are democratizing power and empower ordinary people to play
proactive roles to make changes and fulfill their needs.
Several scholars have asserted that the contemporary society is going through a transition at the
center of which lie socio-technological innovations that fundamentally change the way we live,
produce and consume. According to Murray (2010, p.4), “the early years of the 21st century are
witnessing the emergence of a new kind of economy that has profound implications for the
future of public services as well as for the daily life of citizens.” This emerging economy, which
the author calls a ‘social economy’, can be observed in many fields such as environment, care,
education, welfare, food and energy. The characteristics of a social economy are the following:
the intense use of distributed networks to sustain and manage relationships enhanced by
information communication technologies (ICTs); blurred boundaries between production and
consumption; an emphasis on collaboration and repeated interactions; and a strong role for
values and missions (Murray, 2010).
Bauwens described the changes that this society is undergoing as the emergence of a society
based on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) dynamic (or simply a P2P society). In a P2P society, equipotential
members cooperate for the performance of a common task and for the creation of a common
good based on a distributed network (Bauwens, 2005). The characteristics of a P2P society are
the following: free cooperation between members based on distributed networks, merit-based
27
hierarchy and no prior selection to participation; production of use values; and participants’ free
access to the use values (Ibid.).
Lessig (2008) claimed that there are two types of economies – commercial and sharing – and
that the third type is emerging as the result of interaction between the first two types. He called
it hybrid economies. Despite seemingly contradicting concepts, commercial and sharing
economies can exist in parallel. For example in the music industry, the emergence of illegal file
sharing on p2p networks has dropped the profit of record companies by 31%, and not 100%.
What it means is that even if practically every piece of music on the market can be found on p2p
networks, some people continue to purchase music and therefore the parallel market exists
(Ibid.). According to Lessig, our economy will have more hybrids of commercial and sharing
economies in the future.
Manzini proposed that small, local, open and connected are key characters of an emergent
sustainable society (2008). The limited size of human beings – both physical and cognitive –
brings into the limited scale of a system that we can comprehend and control. Because a small
local system is easier to comprehend and control than a big centralized one, it is more
democratic. The diffusion of the Internet allows people to remain small and local while open
and connected to a bigger system where they all belong to, what he calls a ‘cosmopolitan
localism’. As the Internet has brought power back to people, grassroots social innovations will
bring more changes to our society than before in a sustainable direction.
Although the four theories come from different contexts, a social economy, a P2P society, hybrid
economies and a sustainable society share several characteristics in common: First of all, they
emphasize the rising power of small and local units in our society (e.g. individuals,
communities, SME’s) which are forming a bigger system based on a P2P or distributed network;
they often drive the innovations triggered by discontent of the current socio-economic systems
and empowered by technological innovations; ICTs, digital collaborative tools in particular,
provide an infrastructure for networking and collaboration among the small and local units; as a
result, the boundary between production and consumption is getting blurred; and finally, old
elements and new elements (e.g. market economy and social economy, P2P and centralized
network, commercial and sharing economy) coexist, implying that the contemporary society is
in a transition period.
In the center of the transition are social innovations that have expanded rapidly in the recent
years (Murray, 2010). What appear to be technological innovations – collaborative production
in the virtual space – are in fact rooted in a more fundamental change which Bauwens describes
as P2P dynamic. Due to the democratized ICTs, the virtual space has become the most vibrant
laboratory of social innovations and the result is also affecting the real world. As we will see in
28
detail in chapter 3, the characteristics of social innovations in the virtual space coincide in many
aspects with those of a sustainable society proposed by Manzini.
Manzini (2007) argues that radical innovations from bottom-up that are often motivated by
personal needs and challenge traditional ways of doing things introduce a set of new, very
different and intrinsically more sustainable solutions and these micro-transformations become
the groundwork for a greater systemic change. Among these grassroots activities are a type
service in which the final users collaborate to produce solutions to a wide range of social needs
that have failed to be met by existing solutions. For this reason, they are called collaborative
services and the people who designed them are called collaborative organizations (Jegou &
Manzini, 2008).
Bridging design and social innovation has been practiced by both designers and social
innovators: On the one side, design approaches have been adopted and used by social
innovators in user studies, ideation, building prototypes and communication. For example,
user-centered design and participatory design are used to identify user needs and to evaluate
current innovation models in social innovation process 3 . In Silatech Foundation, an
international initiative to address rapidly growing unemployment in Arab countries, user-
centered design methods such as personas is used to study the lifestyle of unemployed youth. In
Seed Foundation, participatory design is used to co-create a housing system with residents in
London (SIX teleconference, 2009). Design methods and tools are also frequently used in
concept development and prototyping. For example, in Philips, scenario design is used to
synthesize a desired future and communicate it to the public. In Silatech Foundation, the vision
of how technologies will deliver the key services in a compelling and appropriate way is
visualized in an animation (ibid.).
On the other side, there has been a growing interest in social innovation among designers
although it has been mostly confined to the academic field until now. An exemplar is the Design
for Social Innovation and Sustainability (DESIS) Network, an international network of schools
of design and other schools, institutions, companies and non-profit organizations interested in
promoting and supporting design for social innovation and sustainability (Manzini, 2009). In
Politecnico di Milano, Design Innovation for Sustainability (DIS) research unit uses service and
strategic design as a tool to create product-service systems as alternative – and often radically
different – solutions for social needs of individuals and communities. In Malmo University, Ahn
and his colleagues have used participatory design approach to design a community workspace
(SIX teleconference 2009). Philips Design developed a low-tech and low-cost stove called
Chulha for safe and healthy indoor cooking for low-income rural households in India.
3 Mulgan (2006) described the process of social innovation in 4 stages: generating ideas by understanding needs and identifying potential solutions; developing, prototyping, and piloting ideas; assessing, scaling up, and diffusing good ideas; and learning and evolving.
29
In short, there is an increasing demand among social innovators for design methods that can be
utilized at different stages of social innovation process and at the same time, social innovation is
emerging as a design topic mainly in academic institutes due to their growing significance in the
contemporary society. One approach to deal with social innovations in design is to use service
design as a tool to encourage and facilitate grassroots social innovations in a more systematic
way. In the next section, the notion of collaborative service and enabling solution is elaborated.
2.1.2. Collaborative services and Buber’s dialogical principle
Collaborative service is distinguished from other services in that it requires relational qualities
as a prerequisite to function. Relational qualities are defined as the expressions of the “genuine
dialogue” established between the participants of collaborative service and include trust,
intimacy, friendship and a common identity (Cipolla, 2007). Figure 2.1 is a diagram that
illustrates where collaborative service is positioned in relation to other services (Ibid.).
According to this model, service has two dimensions – the interpersonal and the operational –
and each dimension is polarized.
Figure 2.1 The interpersonal and operational dimensions of service (Cipolla, 2007)
Cipolla’s notion of collaborative services is based on Buber’s dialogical principle. At the
extremes of the interpersonal dimension are “I-Thou” and “I-It”. Buber defines I-Thou as a
“relation” which is unmediated and present as the interaction between them happens without
the intervention of any concept, purpose or anticipation. I-Thou relations can occur when all the
means have disintegrated (Ibid.). On the contrary, I-It is an “experience” and it is anticipated by
preconceptions and classifications that each one has established in the past. “…[I]nsofar as a
30
human being makes do with the things that he experiences and uses, he lives in the past and his
moment has no presence” (Buber as cited in Ibid., p.85).
Figure 2.2 The differences between the “I-THOU” relation and the “I-IT” experience (Cipolla, 2007)
The operational dimension of a service is defined as its manner of functioning and two polar
variables exist – “collaborative” and “professional” (Cipolla, 2007). A professional service
operates based on qualified intervention. The service flows one-way from a professional to a
client. On the other hand, a collaborative service is operated by stakeholders who work together
for a common goal.
As in Figure 2.1, a service that is collaborative based on I-Thou relations is thus called a
collaborative relational service or a community-based service4. A service that is professional and
based on I-It experiences is called a standard service. Collaborative relational service or
community-based service is also called collaborative service by Cipolla and this research uses
the term collaborative service in the same manner.
2.1.3. ICTs as enabling solutions for collaborative services
One of the roles that design can play to support social innovations is to design innovative
product-service systems that empower users to use their skills and talents at best to collaborate
and generate solutions to their problems at the grassroots level. Such a system is called an
enabling solution (Manzini, 2005). The role of an enabling solution is summarized in the
famous proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed
him for a lifetime.”
An enabling solution can be any product, service or technology that support individuals or
communities to achieve a result. In the recent years, digital platforms that incorporate
collaborative social tools have emerged as an enabling solution to promote social innovations
and sustainable lifestyles. For example, KIVA is an online microcredit system that connects 4 Cipolla’s definition of community is based on Buber’s dialogic principle, i.e., a group of people connected through I-Thou relations is a community. In this research, however, this definition is replaced with the Sense of Community theory (McMillan and Chavis, 1983).
31
investors with entrepreneurs in the developing nations. Since it was established in 2005, it has
funded over $150 million in loans to over 400000 entrepreneurs (as of August 2009); ZOES is a
social networking platform that promotes solidarity economy in Italy; and mySociety is a non-
profit organization that builds various enabling solutions through which citizens can participate
in creating democratic society in UK.
ICTs can support collaborative services in several ways: for example, they can increase the
accessibility and replicability of services, making them available to people of wider social and
economical status; they can enhance communication between service stakeholders, thereby
strengthening social fabric and making services more resilient; and ICTs, collective knowledge
and innovative business models in an open networked platform can reduce the technological,
bureaucratic and economical burden of creating and supplying collaborative services
respectively.
2.2. Social network theories
Social network theories contribute to this research by providing a reference to the social
dimension of collaborative service and diffusion of innovation. In this section, Granovetter’s
strength of weak ties and studies on ICTs and social networks are introduced.
2.2.1. Strength of weak ties and diffusion of information
Strength of weak ties theory relates to how innovations diffuse through social networks,
especially through a specific typology of interpersonal ties. Granovetter (1973) who first
introduced this concept proposed three types of interpersonal ties: strong, weak and absent. The
tie strength can be measured in combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the
intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie. Strong ties
arguably takes decades to be formed and are observed in intimate relations such as families and
cliques. On the other hand, weak ties take relatively shorter time to be formed and are observed
among friends, colleagues and acquaintances (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Comparison of strong ties and weak ties
Strong tie Weak tie • Formed between families, cliques, relatives • Takes arguably decades to be formed • Observed in a group • Information is self-contained
• Formed by any kind of interaction • Takes relatively short time to be formed • Observed in a network • Information diffuses
Haythornthwaite (2002) added another category called latent ties which exist technically but
have not yet been activated and are often observed among individuals connected via new media.
32
According to Granovetter, information tends to remain isolated in a group formed by strong ties
whereas it tends to diffuse through weak ties. It is because people connected through strong ties
share a large part of their social network and therefore form an isolated group. In such a group,
information is likely to be self-contained and inaccessible by those outside the group. On the
other hand, people with many weak ties often play a role of bridges that connect groups and it is
through these bridges that information, including difficult innovations, diffuses (Granovetter,
1973). As a result, the social network of an organization whose members are connected mainly
through weak ties forms an open network where information is widely shared among the
members while an organization whose dominant ties are strong turns into fragmented cliques.
Empirical studies of collaborative organizations reveal that the weak ties and strong ties in an
organization play distinct roles in the development process of collaborative services (Baek,
2009). The strong ties are useful when collaboration initiates and is incubated. Given its
inherent dependency on relational qualities, a collaborative service cannot exist without a group
of people who share the same value. They are usually friends, family members or long-time
neighbors. They are the ones who endure the hardship of incubating a social innovation and
strive to maintain the core values as the service grows. On the other hand, the weak ties
maintain a collaborative organization open and connected, i.e., they allow innovations to diffuse
and replicate between different organizations or within one large organization. As the
innovation diffuses through the weak ties, the collaborative organization may develop into a
network of organizations with similar a motive and a philosophy. The impact of the innovation
is thus amplified. As the innovation is adopted to a new context and incubation process begins,
strong ties are needed and the whole process repeats. In short, the diffusion of collaborative
services is an iterative process where the generation and incubation of an innovation are mainly
achieved through strong ties and the development and the diffusion are achieved through weak
ties.
2.2.2. Studies on social networks and ICTs
With the emergence of computer-supported social networks, researchers in various disciplines
including sociology, communications, media, information and computer science have studied
how ICTs, especially the Internet, have transformed people’s social networks and social capital,
the collective value of the social networks (Putnam, 2000). There are three major positions:
• The Internet increases social capital and expands people’s relationships;
• The Internet decreases social capital and shrinks people’s relationships; and
• The Internet increases social capital and supplements people’s relationships.
Wellman (2001) takes the third position and argues that the Internet supplements social capital
by reinforcing as well as creating weak ties. When computer networks, such as the Internet, link
people as well as machines, they become social networks. Behind his argument, there is a
33
hypothesis that people’s communities are transforming from tightly-knit, clearly-bounded
groups to sparsely-knit and loosely-bounded networks. This is what he terms as networked
individualism. “Rather than relying on a single community for social capital, individuals often
must actively seek out a variety of appropriate people and resources for different situations. …
The Internet promotes “networked individualism” by allowing people to seek out a variety of
appropriate people and resources.” (Boase, Horrigan, Wellman & Rainie, 2006, p.ii) Such
networks build trust among members. “Social trust, also a feature of social capital, increases as
people get to know each other … through experience doing things together.” (Kavanaugh, 1999,
p.4)
Kavanaugh (1999) makes a similar argument based on her case study in Blacksburg Electronic
Village and claims that ICTs not only reinforce the existing weak ties within a local community
but also contribute to building trust among the members by allowing them to get to know each
other and to do things together. She reports that ICTs has increased communication among
members of the overall town. Trust in social networks can be divided into three categories: thick
trust, thin trust (Williams, 1988; Newton 1977 in Kavanaugh, 1999) and abstract trust
(Wellman, 1996 in in Kavanaugh, 1999). Thick trust is generated by intensive, daily contact
between people often in socially homogeneous and exclusive communities. It is the product of
strong ties. Thin trust is less personal, based on indirect, secondary social relations and is the
product of weak ties. It is also the basis for social integration in modern, large-scale society.
Abstract trust is generated when people extend trust to others who are distant and unknown,
but share similar values or beliefs. (Wellman, 1996)
If innovations diffuse through weak ties and ICTs reinforce and creates social networks that are
mainly weak ties, it leads to a conclusion that ICTs contribute to the diffusion of innovations.
This conclusion is supported by the findings from empirical studies that collaborative
organizations that use ICTs as a platform to communicate and collaborate tend to remain at the
national or international scale while ones that are passive in the use of ICTs have a tendency to
remain at the local scale (Baek, 2009; Franquiera, 2008; Manzini & Jegou, 2007; Meroni Ed.,
2007). A collaborative organization that is passive in adopting ICTs has a limited range of
communication and the members collaborate mainly through face-to-face interaction. This
leads to strong ties and thick trust in their relations and their initiatve is contained at the local
scale. On the contrary, a collaborative organization that actively adopts ICTs is able to connect
and maintain relationships with distantly placed people. Some of them can play the role of a
local bridge and diffuse the collaborative initiative to a wider audience.
There are several reasons why some organizations are reluctant to employ ICTs and to scale up
their organization: they may not aware of the benefits ICTs can bring to them; they may not
have time, resources or knowledge to adopt technologies; they may not have access to
34
technologies at all; they may not want to accept modernity as often observed in hermetic
religious groups; or they simply work best at a small and local scale. In Franquiera’s study of
what she calls ‘creative places’5 (2008, p.149), she reports that the size of a collaborative
organization matters to the maintenance of core values and relational qualities.
“Regarding Creative Places, … most cases are small entities, with small-enterprises and
small groups of people, even if they are connected with several similar places, thus
creating a diffused knowledge. As they work based in physical peer-to-peer interaction
and local collaborative relationships, the bigger they are, the more unmanageable they
become as the number of links between people rises much faster than the number of
people themselves. … So, as groups grow it becomes impossible for everyone to interact
directly with everyone else.”
The difficulty of scaling up a creative place described above has to do with human’s cognitive
capacity to handle the complexitities a large social group. As Dunbar (1998) claims, there is a
theoretical limit to the number of people with whom on can maintain stable social relationships
(between 100 and 230) and as a group gets bigger, it can no longer be managed and the social
relationships no longer maintained in the ways it used to be.
“This problem can never be solved, only managed and in modern life the solution has
been gathering people together into organizations (Shirky, 2008). … Working together
takes time, effort and know-how, and balancing all these is the cornerstone of Creative
places, as its effectiveness is largely conditioned by the relational qualities of each
concrete initiative, which cannot be dissociated from their size.”
Therefore, new strategies are needed for a collaborative organization to remain small,
sustainable and at the same time, diffuse and connected. Manzini (2008) argues an enabling
system based on distributed network can help a collaborative organization remain small and
replicate at the same time. An enabling system is composed of a set of tangible and intangible
instruments designed to make a specific task easier in the local context. The IT industries are by
far the most dynamic environment where socio-technical innovations driven by enabling
solutions take place. Open platforms equipped with standard development toolkits for
individual designers and developers to develop and trade software have emerged as a robust
business model that is replacing a centralized and closed production platform. A similar success
can happen in the field of social innovations.
5 Creative places are defined as new type of urban spaces where groups of people collaboratively promote and manage a mix of creative initiatives in the fields of art and culture, economy and production, social services and urban regeneration (Ibid. p36).
35
In short, ICTs facilitate the creation and reinforcement of weak ties and with the aid of ICTs,
innovations that would otherwise remain at the local level can diffuse to a wider context. A
locally spread innovation can be connected with similar initiatives to form a network through
which information, knowledge and activities can be shared, thereby making it more robust and
accessible. In this process, social networks are formed among collaborative individuals and
communities and these networks provide a favorable condition for new collaborations is
created. At the same time, ICTs support the operation of collaborative service. As an enabling
system, ICTs can provide collaborative service with technical solutions that make the operation
of a service competitive and efficient – especially cost-wise – as we have seen in the case of
KIVA. By enriching of social networks and supporting operation of collaborative service, ICTs
become a catalyst in the production of collaborative service. This proposition is elaborated in the
discussion of dual production of collaborative services in chapter 3.
2.3. Community theories
This research aims to serve the needs of a community rather than individual users by providing
a framework that a designer or a community itself can use to design a digital platform for a
product-service system that function based on collaboration of the community members. Such
an approach is called community-centered design (Meroni, 2008). Meroni claims that
community-centered design is an emerging approach in design discipline as the value of a
community is being recognized as an agent of revitalizing local economies creating a sustainable
society, which is in line with the characteristics of a sustainable society (Manzini, 2008) and the
rise of the households (and a network of households) in the new social economy (Murray, 2010).
Briceno and Stagl (2004, p.167) argue that activities at the community level are most effective in
changing behaviors including unsustainable consumption.
“… [B]ehavioural changes are most effectively achieved through initiatives delivered at
the community level as they help remove the structural barriers to change and enhance
the benefits derived. In addition, social interaction has been found to exert the most
influence on attitudes and behaviour.” (Ibid.)
The importance of community in design for social innovations and sustainability is hence not
argued. What can be argued is the definition of community as there are many different versions
including the rather recent definitions that encompass the new type of communities emerging in
the digital era. For this reason, the notion of community referred to in this research is discussed
in this section.
Three community studies were adopted in this research: sense of community theory (McMillan
& Chavis, 1986), virtual settlement (Jones, 1997) and networked individualism (Wellman,
2001A; 2001B). The first one provides a definition to conditions that make an organization a
36
community and metrics of the perceived sense of community; the second one focuses on virtual
communities, the space they reside – what the author calls virtual settlement – and the
conditions for a cyber space to become a virtual settlement; the last one addresses the
emergence of a new type communities in the networked and individualized society.
2.3.1. Sense of community
The authors define sense of community as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling
that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs
will be met through their commitment to be together” (McMillan, 1976, p.9). Sense of
community is composed of four elements: membership, influence, reinforcement (integration
and fulfillment of needs) and shared emotional connection. Membership is “the feeling of
belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness”; influence is “a sense of mattering, of
making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members”; reinforcement is
“the feeling that members’ needs will be met by the resources received through their
membership in the group”; and finally, shared emotional connection is “the commitment and
belief that members have shared and will share history, common places, time together, and
similar experiences” (Ibid., p.9).
The sense of community index (SCI) is a quantitative measure of sense of community. It is based
on the theory of sense of community and composed of 12 items that inquire respondents’
perception towards their communities. 12 items are divided into 4 subgroups that measure the 4
elements: Items 1~3 are related to integration and fulfillment of needs; items 4~6 to
membership; items 7~9 to influence; and item 9~12 to shared emotional connection. Below is
the SCI format (Chavis, n.d).
Q1. I think my [block] is a good place for me to live.
Q2. People on this [block] do not share the same values.
Q3. My [neighbors] and I want the same things from the [block].
Q4. I can recognize most of the people who live on my [block].
Q5. I feel at home on this [block].
Q6. Very few of my [neighbors] know me.
Q7. I care about what my [neighbors] think of my actions.
Q8. I have no influence over what this [block] is like.
Q9. If there is a problem on this [block] people who live here can get it solved.
Q10. It is very important to me to live on this particular [block].
Q11. People on this [block] generally don't get along with each other.
Q12. I expect to live on this [block] for a long time.
37
The SCI is calculated by converting the responses into scores. For each item, true scores 1 and
false scores 0. However, false scores 1 and true scores 0 for Q2, Q6, Q8, Q11 because they are
negative questions. The average score of an item equals to the total score divided by the number
of respondents. The level of SoC is the sum of the scores of 12 items. The level of four elements
of SoC is obtained by averaging the scores of the corresponding items. Table 2.2 is an example of
calculating the SCI.
Table 2.2 An example of calculating the SCI
Items True False Average score (items) Average score (element)
1. I think this farmers’ market is a good place for me to sell my produces. 40 0 0.98
0.80 (integration and fulfillment of needs)
2. Farmers in this farmers’ market do not share the same values. 8 28 0.68
3. Other farmers and I want the same thing from this farmers’ market. 31 7 0.76
4. I can recognize most of the farmers in the farmers’ market. 27 12 0.66
0.70 (membership) 5. I feel at home in the farmers’ market. 36 2 0.88 6. Very few of farmers in the farmers’ market know me. 15 23 0.56
7. I care about what other farmers think of my actions. 26 13 0.63
0.72 (influence) 8. I have no influence over what the farmers’ market is like. 13 26 0.63
9. If there is a problem related to the market, farmers can get it solved. 37 3 0.90
10. It is very important to me to sell my produces in this market. 36 4 0.88
0.91 (shared emotional connection)
11. Farmers in this market generally do not get along with one another. 0 38 0.93
12. I expect to sell my produces in this market for a long time. 38 1 0.93
Results of prior studies have demonstrated that the SCI has been a strong predicator of
behaviors (such as participation) and a valid measurement instrument (Chavis, Lee & Acosta,
2008).
2.3.2. Virtual settlement
While the sense of community theory is valid for both territorial and relational community
(without reference to location), the study on virtual settlement focuses on communities that are
formed around shared values and interests in the virtual space. So-called virtual communities
are exploding in the virtual space with the diffusion of information communication
technologies. A virtual community is defined as “social relationships forged in cyberspace
through repeated contact within a specified boundary or place (e.g. a conference or chat line)
that is symbolically delineated by topic of interest” (Fernback & Thompson, 1995).
Jones (1997) distinguishes a cyber place within which a virtual community operates from the
community itself and calls such a place a virtual settlement. The boundary of virtual settlements
38
can be delineated by topic of interest and interactive communication. For a cyber place to be a
virtual settlement, it needs to meet the following 4 conditions: (1) a minimum level of
interactivity6; (2) a variety of communicators; (3) a minimum level of sustained membership;
and (4) a virtual common-public-space where a significant portion of interactive group-CMCs
occur.
Messages in virtual publics can be classified as broadcast, two-way, reactive, or interactive. A
virtual community is distinguished from other categories of CMC (computer-mediated
communication) without virtual settlement such as private communication where postings go
directly from one individual to another without common virtual space or an email list where
subscribers receive news and information but are not able to conduct interactive discussions
with fellow subscribers.
Virtual settlement is an evidence of the existence of virtual communities but does not determine
their existence. Jones avoids technological determinism by standing in the position that various
technologies as prerequisites for certain social formations rather than as their determinants
(Fletcher, 1995 in Jones, 1997). In virtual communities, various features of social and
collaborative tools on the Internet are prerequisites for the stable existence of certain social
structures in cyberspace.
Jones’ 4 conditions of a virtual settlement provide a reference to designing a digital platform
that reinforces the sense of community. However, they are too general to be used as a design
guideline. What is most relevant to this research is Jones’ position of viewing technologies as
prerequisites for social formations rather than determinants. A successful virtual settlement
needs have not only technical infrastructure for social interaction but also social intervention
that triggers interaction. Haythornthwaite (2002, p.393) points out that both a technical and a
social implementation are needed to bring into life a social network on the computer network.
“… a technical implementation needs to be matched with a social implementation in
order to effect connection among as yet unconnected others, and to gain a critical mass
of communications and users so that connectivity is perceived to exist.”
2.3.3. Changing notion of community in a networked society
Communities have evolved from tightly knit and clearly bounded groups to sparsely knit and
loosely bounded networks, rendering more complex social network structures than before. The
former is a door-to-door and place-to-place community while the latter is a person-to-person
and role-to-role community (Wellman, 2001A). In other words, communities are becoming less 6 Jones uses the concept of interactivity defined Rafaeli by which is the extent to which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages (Rafaeli 1984, 1988, 1990; Sudweeks and Rafaeli 1994 in Jones 1997).
39
location-based and more often formed around personal interest and value. Such transformation
is partly driven by social affordances of computer supported social networks due to
advancement and diffusion of technologies such as broader bandwidth, wireless and portable
devices, ubiquitous computing environment and personalization (Ibid.) and partly by
individualization of modern society although they are not unrelated. Wellman (2001B) titles this
emerging society as ‘a networked society’.
Characteristics of a networked society are as follows: boundaries are permeable, interactions are
with diverse people, connections switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies can be
flatter and recursive. Communities are becoming more and more far-flung and fragmented as
many people operate in multiple and weakly connected communities (Ibid.). Consequently
social network structures of a networked society are more complex than in the past when
communities were clearly bounded and less diverse and computer networks support them.
In a globalized society where a nation’s population moves dynamically and is spread across the
world, the traditional sense of location-based community is fading away. Wellman states that
community has been rarely a neighborhood phenomenon even before the introduction of
computer-mediated communities (CMC) and especially so in a networked society. He thus
expands the definition of community from a location-based social group to the networks of
interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and social
identity (2001A).
Some of the characteristics of Wellman’s networked society are as follows (Ibid.):
• The ability to connect with multiple social milieus, with limited involvement in each
milieu.
• The decreased control over inhabitants’ behavior that each milieu has.
• The decreased commitment of each milieu to its inhabitants’ wellbeing.
• Fostering “cross-cutting” ties that link and integrate social milieus, instead of such
groups being isolated and tightly-bounded.
• Increased choices in milieus in which to get involved.
• Reduced sense of palpable group memberships that provide a sense of belonging.
• Reduced identity and pressures of belonging to groups.
• Increased opportunity, contingency, globalization, and uncertainty through
participation in social networks.
• Increased emphasis on structural position in different networks—such as brokerage ties
that connect multiple networks—and decreased emphasis on group membership. Active
networking is more important than going along with the group.
40
Studies on the changing notion of community in a networked society contribute to broadening
the scope of community-centered design and collaborative service. Incorporating milieus that
are loosely knit and vaguely bounded into the definition of community expands the scope of
design activities concerning community and therefore, more people’s needs can be addressed in
design. In addition, it recognizes of the value collaborative activities based on weak ties and
triggers an effort to use ICTs to enable and enhance such activities through design intervention.
2.4. Discussion
2.4.1. Limitations of the collaborative service model based on dialogical principle
Cipolla’s collaborative service model (Figure 2.1) based on Buber’s dialogical principle has
limitations in the following aspects: first, its limited scope of collaborative service fails to
address numerous collaborative schemes proliferating in communities that are not necessarily
composed of I-Thou relation; and second, it is difficult to validate the model.
According to Cipolla’s model, I-Thou relation is a necessary condition for collaborative service,
i.e., any collaboration based on I-It is precluded from the scope of research. This proposition
raises an argument that such self-constraint may not be relevant to deal with numerous
collaborative initiatives in contemporary society where people are more individualized, have less
commitment to the communities they belong to, and are less vulnerable to strangers than in the
past but still have a big impact on society and sustainability. I-Thou is an intimate relation
(Beziehung) between two individuals characterized by total vulnerability and the absence of
preconception. For this reason, Friedman (1955) claimed that full I-Thou relationship could
only mean love. I-Thou relation is not everlasting just as genuine contemplation is not. “Every
Thou in the world is by its nature fated to become a thing, or continually to re-enter into the
condition of things. In objective speech it would be said that everything in the world, either
before or after becoming a thing, is able to appear to I as its Thou (Buber, 2008, p.17).” Besides,
I-Thou and I-It do not occur in clear succession but “often there is a happening profoundly
twofold, confusedly entangled. (Ibid., p.18)” In other words, I-Thou and I-It are a typology to
describe a momentary state of a relationship rather than a relationship as a whole. Given such
an intimate nature of I-Thou, collaborative service based on Buber’s dialogical principle is likely
to restricted to an environment where trust prevails and encounters happen face-to-face. In
other words, such a definition is sensitive to cultural (e.g. rural vs. urban or Latin America vs.
Asia), spatial (e.g. physical vs. virtual space) and chronological (e.g. ancient vs. contemporary)
contexts and it needs to be challenged if the research scope is to be broadened.
Another limitation of Cipolla’s model is that it is difficult to validate the model, i.e., to measure
if an outcome produced from a controlled environment (or an enabling system) meets the
criteria of collaborative service defined. It is difficult to measure where on the spectrum of I-
Thou or I-It lies a relationship to be defined because the dialogical principle is a religious and
41
philosophical study and there is no scientific way to measure it. If the result cannot be
measured, an enabling system that supports it cannot be assessed.
For these reasons, a new model of collaborative service is proposed. In the new model, the
dialogical principle that underpins the interpersonal dimension of service has been replaced by
the theory of the strength of weak ties. In the next section, the two theoretical models are
compared.
2.4.2. Dialogical principle and theory of the strength of weak ties
Although Buber’s dialogical principle and Granovetter’s strength of weak ties share similarities
in a sense that they use a bipolar system to describe an interpersonal relation, they have a
fundamental difference as one is rooted in religion and the other in science.
Beginning with the similarities, both models describe interpersonal relationship although the
dialogical principle is not restricted to human relation but extends to all forms of “between”, i.e.,
between human and non-human. Second, they use a continuous bipolar system to describe a
relationship and the boundary between the polarities is ambiguous. In the strength of weak ties
theory, the strength of ties is not strictly defined although some of the parameters are proposed
by the author such as the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the
reciprocal services which characterize the tie (Granovetter, 1973). Thus how strong are strong
ties and how weak are weak ties depend on the definition given by a researcher in a given
context. In any case, three types of ties – strong, weak and absent – lie on a linear spectrum. In
the dialogical principle, I-Thou and I-It compose a dichotomy, i.e., there is a clear distinction
between the two situations, but I-Thou and I-It do not represent a singular state of a relation but
a spectrum of states. For example, in I-Thou, there is a continuous spectrum of relations and the
highest form is love between God and humans.
Despite similarities, there is a fundamental difference between the two models and the
difference lies in the criteria that distinguishes on polarity from the other: In the strength of
weak ties theory, weak ties develop into strong ones arguably through shared experiences
whereas in the dialogical principle, experiences does not play such a role but one’s attitude
towards another human being does. The strength of tie is determined by a combination of the
amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal services that
characterize the tie (Granovetter, 1973), which can be summed up into a word ‘experience’.
Whether a relation is I-Thou or I-It depends on the amount of relational qualities or the
expressions of genuine dialogue such as trust, intimacy, friendship and a common identity
(Cipolla, 2007). The amount of relational qualities seems to be more related with the attitude of
persons subject to a relation than the experiences they share. If we trust someone because we
know that he is a reliable person from our experience or his reputation, if we formed a
42
friendship with someone because of a series of incidents that brought us closer, such a relation
is not I-Thou because it is based on experiences or preconceptions of that person. On the other
hand, if we trust someone or accept him or her as a friend regardless of who that person is but
because of our belief in another human being, the relation is I-Thou.
Then it needs to be asked if artificial intervention, or an enabling system, can be designed to
influence one’s attitude towards another and therefore create I-Thou relation. As Cipolla
claimed (Ibid.), a favorable condition can be designed for I-Thou relation to form but a relation
itself cannot be designed because a relation depends on factors inherent to the individuals
subject to a relation such as personal characters and cultural backgrounds. On the other hand,
weak and strong interpersonal ties can be created through design intervention with a higher
confidence than I-Thou relations if the tie strength is defined in a way to be less influenced by
individual characters and more by external factors such as the amount of time and the
reciprocal services.
2.4.3. A new model of collaborative service
Hence a new model of collaborative service is proposed (Figure 2.3). In this model, the dual
dimension of service is maintained but the dialogical principle that underpins the interpersonal
dimension is replaced with the strength of weak ties theory.
Adoption of a social network theory brings two preeminent benefits to the research on
collaborative service. First, the measurement of the interpersonal dimension becomes possible
using social network analysis. The measurement includes both quality of relations, i.e., how
strong/weak relations are, and quantity of relations, i.e., how many people are connected to one
another. Second, social network theories are especially useful in dealing with ICT-enhanced
collaborative services. In the field of social network research, there is a body of knowledge on
how ICTs influence individuals’ social networks and on how information diffuses through
different types of social networks. This allows one to identify the role of ICTs on the diffusion of
collaborative services and the formation of social networks around them in both qualitative and
quantitative ways.
43
Figure 2.3 Positioning of services based on tie strength vs. collaboration
This model categorizes services based on two variables: the strength of personal ties between
service providers and users (x-axis) and the degree of collaboration (y-axis). On the x-axis, there
are four types of tie strength – no, latent, weak and strong (Granovetter, 1973; Haythornthwaite,
2002). On the y-axis, there are two degrees of collaboration – collaborative or non-
collaborative. In a collaborative service, there is no boundary between producers and
44
consumers: Consumers are actively involved and assume the role of service co-designer and co-
producers (active). Besides, consumers work together for a common task in equipotential state
(P2P) and the common task is to generate values for their own needs (enabling) (Manzini,
2008).
Collaborative services are positioned in the green area where a service is implemented through
collaboration and involves interpersonal networks which is latent or stronger. Examples of
collaborative services based on the latent ties include flash mobs or collaborative map-making
processes such as Green Map7 or Open Map8 where participants collaborate to achieve a
common task whether it be awakening public attention or creating maps. The participants are
visible on their web-based platforms and hence potentially connected. Among collaborative
services based on the weak ties is Vicini Vicini, neighborhood parties whose aim is to promote
social conviviality of local communities and overcome individualism in cities9. Another example
is Hitchhikers.org, an initiative that promotes hitchhiking to create social networks among
travelers and to reduce their carbon footprints. Collaborative services based on the strong ties
include cohousing groups whose members live in community residences for as long as decades;
and neighborhood urban gardening in which neighbors cultivate their gardens together, share
information on urban farming and permaculture, share produce and eat together. In such cases,
strong ties are formed through long-term face-to-face interaction, common goals and tasks.
The proposed model redefines the notion of collaborative service to be dealt with in this
research. In the next chapter, cases of collaborative service on digital platform that are based
mainly on latent and weak ties are introduced. They are the examples of modern communities in
the networked society whose collaborations are empowered by digital platforms. The design of
virtual settlement plays a critical role in the success of their activities. In the end, a framework
to develop a digital platform for collaborative service is proposed. A platform thus designed is
expected to facilitate creation and reinforceent of weak ties in a collaborative community.
7 www.greenmap.org 8 www.openmap.org 9 Vicini Vicini was organized by Comune di Roma to promote social conviviality of communities in Rome by providing people with a guideline and kits to organize neighborhood parties.
45
3. CASE STUDIES OF COLLABORATIVE SERVICE ON DIGITAL PLATFORM
Chapter 3 introduces the case studies of existing collaborative services on digital platform. The
studies aimed at exploring the increasing use of ICTs in grassroots social innovation. The
studies affirmed the hypothesis that ICTs are used in collaborative services on a wide range of
topics such as health, welfare, food, transportation and politics. It also revealed patterns in the
way collaborative communities use ICTs. Based on the findings, a structural system of
collaborative services on digital platform was identified and 2 typologies of collaborative service
on digital platform were proposed in respect to the service goal and the social network structure
of users.
46
3.1. Introduction
In the last decade, peer-to-peer and collaborative production has emerged as a powerful trend in
the digital, networked industries. Just to mention a few, Wikipedia, an archive of distributed
knowledge; Google and Amazon which provide a peer-to-peer platform for sharing information
and trading products; various open-source software projects based on Creative Commons
licenses. Exhibiting characteristics of anti-rivalry and inclusiveness (Cooper, 2005),
collaborative production in digital world is distinguished from traditional ways of production in
the market economy in that it is more democratic in political aspect and more efficient in
economical aspect (Benkler, 2006). They are examples of socio-technological innovation that
are changing our ways of production and living and show possibilities that technologies,
especially ICTs, can be used an enabling solution to promote social innovation at the grassroots
level.
Collaborative service shares several aspects in common with digital collaborative production.
Both of them require collaboration rather than competition, inclusiveness rather than
exclusiveness and are based on a platform that is decentralized rather than centralized. They
also aim to improve the quality of the commons rather than privatized goods. Digital
collaborative production aims to expand the repository of digital commons that are mainly
information whereas collaborative service focuses on improving social commons such as
relational qualities and social network.
Because of the similarities between them, it can be assumed that there exist a hybrid of the two,
i.e., services designed and implemented by final users whose collaboration to fulfill their needs
is enhanced by diffused ICTs or simply collaborative services on digital platform. As the first
step to validate the assumption, case studies were conducted. The aim of the case studies was
further specified into investigating the followings aspects of ICTs: as an enabling solution for
operation of collaborative services, and as a medium for connecting individuals and
communities and diffusing social innovations. The case studies were conducted from November
2008 to July 2009.
3.1.1. Case profiles
In order to select the cases that satisfy the definition of collaborative service, over 100 cases
were reviewed based on the following criteria:
1. A service uses ICTS to promote itself and enhance communication within community.
2. A service requires collaboration in both physical and digital spheres.
3. A service must be designed and provided by users with an intention to satisfy their
unmet social needs.
47
In addition, the service area, age of service, organizational size, aim and type of the services
were also taken into consideration to give diversity to the cases. As a result, 30 cases of diverse
locations, ages and sizes were selected (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Case list (data accessed February 26, 2009)
Case Service area Since Size Hitchhikers Mainly Europe 1999 Unknown
Social invention center South Korea 2006 3365 ideas
Peladeiro Brazil 2001 32250 users
Vicini vicini Rome, Italy 1999 Not known
Green map Worldwide 1995 400 cities, 51 countries
Open green map Worldwide 2008 + 4000 sites
Grofun Bristol, UK 2007 10 people
Couch surfing Worldwide 2004 + 950000 users
Meetup Worldwide 2001 4700000 users
Pledgebank UK and 12 other countries 2005 91625 users
Katrinalist.net US 2005 4000 users
Shelfari Worldwide 2006 Six digits (confidential)
Bookcrossing Worldwide 2001 740000 users
Mapo dure South Korea 1997 + 2500 members
Activmob Kent, UK 2008 + 20 mobs
Aka aki Germany 2008 1494926 encounters
Carrotmob US 2008 Not yet launched
Economia solidale Italy 1994 4736 users No 10 Petitions UK 2006 + 5000000 participants
FixMyStreet UK Unknown 31628 problems reported
WiserEarth Worldwide 2007 Unknown Solidarius Brazil 2008 22319 users
mySociety.org Worldwide 2003 1000 users
Sistema FBES Brazil Unknown Unknown
RED Open Health Project UK 2004 509 users
Diabetics' meetup US 2009 55 users
Zerorelativo Italy 2006 217 users
Timebanks Worldwide 1980's Unknown Nabuur Worldwide 2001 36190 Neighbours, 292 Villages
Cascina Cornale Italy 1997 Unknown
3.1.2. Methods
Case studies consisted of two stages: in the first stage, 30 cases were selected from different
parts of the world and analyzed using a ‘light format’. The aim of the light analysis was
threefold: to affirm the existence of collaborative services on digital platform; to understand the
contexts and contents of the services – both qualitative and quantitative; and to investigate how
people use technologies to collaborate and to achieve their goals. The format was developed
based on a material developed by Meroni (2007) and it is included in the appendix. In the
48
second stage, 10 cases were selected from the light case studies looked in depth for the role of
ICTs in creation of social networks and diffusion of social innovations.
Methods used for the case studies were mainly content analysis. The service platforms, online
communities, social media and collaborative tools used in collaborative services were analyzed.
If necessary, the author participated in the services as a user to understand how the services
function and what is the actual user experience. Interviews were conducted selectively for
additional information and other case studies of grassroots social innovations were also used as
a reference.
3.2. Result
Due to a limited space, 5 cases are described in detail in this section: GROFUN (Growing Real
Organic Food in Urban Neigbourhoods), Pledgebank, Meetup.com, Green Map and
Zerorelativo. A full version of the case studies report is available at http://www.sustainable-
everyday.net/codi.
3.2.1. Light format
Case 1. GROFUN
Type A cooperative urban gardening group Service area (since) Bristol, UK (2007) Website http://www.grofun.org.uk/ Aim To strengthen the resilience of communities to withstand food
shortages of the future and to respond to the climate change Activity Urban gardening, permaculture, shared dinners
Background
GROFUN is a grassroots project started by Nadia Hillman in Bristol in 2007, in response to the
challenges of climate change, a series of food crises and environmental impact of industrialized
food production. It aims to strengthen the resilience of communities to withstand food
shortages of the future, as oil prices and grocery bills rise and to address problems relating to
the air miles and carbon emissions inherent in our largely imported food culture.
Service description and the aim
GROFUN describes themselves as groups of neighbors in communities to cooperatively grow
food in their own back gardens, sharing labor, skills, resources and last but not least-the
delicious home-grown produce itself (GROFUN, 2010). It wants to create a working model
which can be adopted by more communities in the future that empowers people to sustain
themselves and their families with healthy, fresh food in an ever more energy-scarce future.
49
Figure 3.1 A mood board of GROFUN activities (Parker, 2008)
Solution description
Anyone can join GROFUN if they contribute 10 hours of work to the project first by, for
example, taking part in one or more Action Days, collect compost, or deliver flyers. In return
they gain 10 ‘Greenie Points’, which can be used to book their own Action Day, and a team of
GROFUNNIES will come to transform their garden. Action Days can be easily booked via a diary
included on the project’s online Yahoo! group. On-going support is provided for thus created
gardens including watering crops while people are on holiday. All of the produce grown must be
shared amongst the group members by posting a message on the group website or arranging a
shared meal for the members. Members also have a shared library of gardening books listed on
the Yahoo group with descriptions. As of 2008, there are 10 gardens actively involved in
GROFUN, of around 25 gardens created in total, after some participants have moved house.
Although the main objective of GROFUN is to support people to grow organic food in their own
place of living, the project is evolving to offer other benefits to the community. For example,
they started a so-called ‘Learning by Growing’ scheme, for which they run gardening workshops
with primary aged children in 2 Bristol schools.
The success of GROFUN lies in the leadership of Nadia Hillman and her creative idea of
exchanging of time and agricultural produce at a community level to change unsustainable
lifestyles and to improve social conviviality.
Social, economical and environmental benefits if any
• Social benefits: GROFUN connects neighbors through collaboration that let them share
agricultural knowledge and cultivate gardens together. As the group name indicates, the
members gain pleasure from sharing their produce with other members often through a
social dinner.
50
• Economical benefits: The members save substantial amount money that goes to buying
groceries as they produce food for themselves.
• Environmental benefits: The organic gardens increase biodiversity and provide homes
for wildlife. The members also reduce the carbon footprint of the food they consume
and eliminate the need for plastic packaging.
Enabling technologies
GROFUN uses a web platform to promote the initiative and to create a virtual space for the
members to send messages, share information on the forum, organize events and make
decisions through online poll.
Case 2. PledgeBank
Type An online pledging system Where (since) Worldwide (2005) Website http://www.PledgeBank.com/ Aim To makes an idea come true with web technologies Activity Getting things done through collective efforts
Background
In many cases, good ideas do not blossom into actions because there are not enough organized
people to carry them out. PledgeBank help people get things done, especially things that require
a collective effort.
Solution description
PledgeBank is a system that allows people to make pledges that require other people’s support
to be accomplished. A pledge is a statement of the form ‘I will do something, if a certain number
of people will help me do it’. The pledger then publicizes his or her pledge and encourages
people to sign up. Two outcomes are possible: either the pledge fails to get enough subscribers
before it expires or, the better possibility, the pledge attracts enough supporters (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.3 is an example of the pledges posted on the website.
Figure 3.2 How PledgeBank works
51
Figure 3.3 Pledges posted on the website
Pledgebank is a service that makes an idea come true with web technologies. The software
behind the service is open source so one can participate in developing the service or make his or
her own service based on it (and, according to General Public License (GNU), publish the result
with others).
Social, economical and environmental benefits if any
• Social benefits: Only the pledges with benign intentions are selected. People with good
ideas can find a way to implement them thanks to aggregate power and in some cases
make a significant impact on society.
• Economical benefits: By sharing the cost as well as the benefit of a pledge, the financial
burden to the implementation of the idea is reduced.
Enabling technologies
PledgeBank is an open source platform and allows the service concept to easily replicate.
Case 3. Meetup.com
Type A social networking service Service area (since) Worldwide (2001) Website http://www.meetup.com/ Aim To facilitates offline group meetings in various localities
around the world. Activity Creating and joining groups based on interest and location
Background
Meetup was inspired by the book ‘Bowling Alone’, a work by Robert Putnam about the decline of
community in America and how people do not know their neighbors anymore. Scott Heiferman,
one of the founders, emphasized the value of local communities: “The Internet does a number of
52
wonderful things, but it treats geography as irrelevant. We still live in a world where the local
level is extremely important. … We are providing a service that revitalizes the Internet for local
communities.” (Wikipedia, 2009, para. 3)
Service description and the aim
Meetup.com is the world’s largest network of local groups. It allows users to organize locale-
based groups or join existing ones in which members interact not only in the virtually space
(Figure 3.4) but also face-to-face on a regular basis (Figure 3.5). More than 2000 groups get
together each day. Meetup’s mission is to revitalize local communities and help people around
the world self-organize. It believes that people can change their personal world, or the whole
world, by organizing themselves into groups that are powerful enough to make a difference.
(Meetup, 2009)
Figure 3.4 An example of a virtual space for a meetup group
53
Figure 3.5 Examples of Meetup groups
Solution description
Meetup allows members to find and join groups unified by a common interest, such as politics,
books, games, movies, health, pets, careers or hobbies. Users enter their ZIP code (or their city
outside the United States) and the topic they want to meet about, and once they are a member,
they can arrange a place and time to meet.
Social, economical and environmental benefits if any
• Social benefits: Meetup promotes local community-based activities by providing a
platform for people to meet, communicate and act together with their neighbors and, in
the long run, revitalizes local communities.
Enabling technologies
Meetup uses a web-based platform to provide uses with a set of features to organize meetings
and events such as calendar, online poll, blog, bulletin board, mailing list and file sharing.
Case 4. Zerorelativo
Type Online bartering community Service area (since) Italy (2006) Website http://www.zerorelativo.it Aim To promote economic activities based on exchange and not
money, thereby reducing the environmental impact caused by artificial consumption!
Activity Exchange and sharing of used products, networking
Background
Economy of scale driven by technological innovations allows industries to produce products at
dramatically low prices and using highly developed marketing techniques, companies sustain
their growth by making people consume relentlessly. Zerorelativo warns the consequences of
this consumption-led lifestyle and promotes an alternative way of consuming, barter.
Service description and the aim
Zerorelativo is the first Italian online community for bartering. The name was chosen because
each object has its own value, apart from that given by the market. The main service of
Zerorelativo is bartering but it also promotes sharing not-frequently-used products (“Il prestito
gratuito”) such as textbooks, cd/dvd players and beam projectors). Its aim is to promote
economic activities based on exchange and not money, thereby reducing the environmental
impact caused by artificial consumption.
Solution description
54
Zerorelativo is basically an e-commerce system without monetary transaction (Figure 3.6).
Users are required to register their items to exchange in order to use the service. Registered
products are shown in a separate page (Figure 3.7) where an offer for an exchange can be left.
Figure 3.6 The home page of Zerorelativo
Figure 3.7 Description of a registered item
Social, economical and environmental benefits if any
• Environmental Benefits: Less products are wasted by prolonging products’ lifecycle.
• Economical Benefits: From microeconomic perspective, users save money by not
purchasing new products.
• Social Benefits: Zerorelativo is designed to provide users with playful, active and
sensible experiences in bartering.
55
Enabling technologies
For its service, Zerorelativo uses an e-commerce platform, a blog, a calendar, a search engine, a
web radio, Facebook, Twitter and Skype.
Case 5. Green Map Service (GMS)
Type A collaborative mapmaking community Service area (since) Worldwide (1995) Website http://www.greenmap.org Aim To serve as a guide for sustainable living and to help
everyone get involved with their community’s natural and built environment.!
Activity Collaborative mapmaking, selling mapmaking tools, information sharing, socializing
Background
Green Map Service (GMS) was conceived by Wendy E. Brawer of Modern World Design who
charted NYC Green Apple Map in 1992. Stemming from experience in charting New York City’s
environment, the original Green Map concept focused on charting beneficial ‘green’ sites along
with challenging ‘toxic hot spots’ in cities and towns.
Service description and the aim
The aim of the GMS is to serve as a guide for sustainable living and to help everyone get
involved with their community’s natural and built environment. Using mapmaking as a
medium, Green Map System encourages involvement in cultivating more sustainable
communities around the world. By highlighting a community’s special places as well as its
natural, cultural and sustainability resources, Green Map expects to help local citizens
understand their community’s interdependent environmental, social and economic systems.
Green Maps provide residents, newcomers and visitors a guide to local green options; and they
also bring attention to the negative sites that challenge community wellbeing. Mapmakers share
adaptable mapmaking resources and universal icons. (Green Map, 2009)
56
Figure 3.8 Examples of green maps
Figure 3.9 Examples of green maps in detail
Solution description
Although GMS authorizes local mapmakers to use its Green Mapmaking icons and tools, every
project is independent and locally led. Grassroots and established non-profits, universities and
schools, governmental and tourism agencies use the icons and adaptable methodologies to
develop and publish their own community’s Green Map in a way that meets the needs of
residents and visitors. (Green Map, 2009)
GMS is the first endeavor to chart a sustainable map of the world through crowdsourcing and it
accomplishes its mission by providing participants with a toolkit for mapmaking. In 2009, GMS
launched a digital version of the Green Map called Open Green Map using Google Map®.
Social, economical and environmental benefits if any
• Social benefits: Social activities naturally become a part of mapmaking process. Some
Green Maps address to the climate change, disasters and healthy mobility. For example,
after the hurricane Katrina, a green map that charts different places on nourishment in
New Orleans was created. The green mapmaking is used as a didactic exercise in many
schools and as corporate social responsibility in the industries.
• Environmental benefits: Through mapmaking, participants as well as readers become
more knowledgeable local (un)sustainable sites and events.
Enabling technologies
For its service, GMS uses a blog, a forum, a map mashup and an e-commerce platform.
57
3.2.2. In-depth format
Followed by the light-format case studies, in-depth case studies were conducted, focusing on
identifying how the collaborative organizations are structured, what kind of information is
exchanged among the participants and which medium is used for their communication. As a
result, the social network structures of the cases were produced and the cases were categorized
accordingly.
Instead of the conventional social network analysis methods developed in sociology, a
qualitative method to analyze social network structures in a quick and rough way was invented
for the following reasons:
• Given the schedule and the number of cases to analyze, a quick-and-rough method to
analyze social networks was needed.
• In every case, the participants used a variety of media to communicate in addition to the
web-based platforms dedicated for this purpose. These media included mobile phone
(both voice calls and text messages), private emails, social networking services,
telephone and face-to-face meetings.
• The aim of the analysis was not only to analyze the current state of the social network
structure but also to describe its transformation over time.
The result was a hypothetical visualization of the social network structures of the selected cases.
According to this method, social networks were analyzed based on information obtained from
the case studies such as the organizational structures, service activities and the flow of
information between the stakeholders. The analysis process involved several steps as below:
1. Identify the users of a service to be analyzed.
2. Identify the activities that take place between them. Who interact with whom and what
kind of information and resources are shared in this process?
3. Identify the ICTs used by them in the process. Which social media do they use to
communicate and to collaborate?
4. Estimate the strength of ties between the users based on relevant information such as
the population size, the type of their activities, the amount of time spent together, the
type of social media used and the geographical proximity.
Using this approach, the social network structures of the cases were analyzed and visualized.
The analysis also took into consideration the change of the social network structure over time if
the relevant information was available. The result was presented in a form of a narrative.
Case 1. GROFUN
58
GROFUN is an urban gardening initiative in UK. In 2007, Nadia, a pioneering leader with a
vision of permaculture in the urban context started an innovative idea called ‘GROFUN’ with
her neighbors in Bristol. She was connected with them via strong and weak ties. GROFUN
started as a local group (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10 GROFUN in the phase of a local group
GROFUN members liked their idea and decided to do it in a larger scale. In order to diffuse their
initiative and to communicate with existing members more efficiently, Nadia launched an
official website and also created a Yahoo! Group called GROFUN. People started joining the
group from other areas of UK and even abroad. Some of them were not able to participate in the
gardening but they advocated the mission of GROFUN which is “to create a working model
which can be adopted by more communities in the future and give the people at the grass roots
the power back to sustain themselves and their families with healthy, fresh food in an ever more
energy-scarce future” (GROFUN, 2007, para. 3). As a result, GROFUN grew from a group of 10
people who garden together to a network of 120 people who shared the same value and interest
(Figure 3.11).
Figure 3.11 GROFUN in the phase of expansion
The weak ties formed in the virtual space will facilitate the diffusion of GROFUN and connect
groups with similar initiatives. As people inspired by GROFUN start new urban gardening clubs
59
in their communities and share their stories and stayed connected with other groups, a network
of urban gardening clubs will be formed. (Figure 3.12)
Figure 3.12 GROFUN in the phase of a network
Case 2. PledgeBank
PledgeBank allows users to set up pledges and then encourages other people to sign up to them.
With the slogan of “I’ll do it, but only if you’ll help”, it helps connect people who have good ideas
for society and people who are willing to participate in these ideas.
Figure 3.13 illustrates the initial phase of the service where there are not yet enough
participants. Therefore only the pledgers are shown.
Figure 3.13 Initial phase of Pledgebank
As people started joining PledgeBank, they made pledges as well as followed other people’s
pledges (Figure 3.14). In some cases, pledges required some degree of interaction between a
60
pledger and the followers, implying that weak exists between them. In the figure, each pledge is
described by a central node (a pledger) surrounded by peripheral nodes (the followers) and
dotted lines that occasionally connect them (weak ties).
Figure 3.14 PledgeBank groups being formed
As PledgeBank becomes popular, more pledges will be made and more people will follow them
(Figure 3.15). The fact that PledgeBank is an open-sourced solution and was designed to serve
local needs (e.g. offered in different languages and local pledges can be searched) will facilitate
its diffusion. So far over 100000 people from all over the world use this site (estimated in
September 2010) and similar solutions have sprouted from it.
61
Figure 3.15 Pledgbank at the mature level
Case 3. Meetup.com
Meetup is the world’s largest network of local groups. It offers a virtual space for anyone to
organize a local group or find one of the thousands already meeting up face-to-face. More than
2,000 groups get together in local communities each day, each one with the goal of improving
themselves or their communities (Meetup, 2010). The goals of Meetup groups vary from making
friends to fighting a chronic disease. But one thing they share in common is that there is a leader
who manages a group and organizes meetups and that people interact in the physical space as
well as the virtual space on a regular basis.
Figure 3.16 shows the early phase of Meetup when groups just started to form and there were
not many members yet.
Figure 3.16 Meetup group leaders
As people start to join the service, groups grew in number as well as in size (Figure 3.17). In each
group, members are connected through strong and weak ties – mostly weak ties.
Figure 3.17 Early phase of Meetup groups
62
In Meetup.com, a user can search groups based on location and topic. If one is already a
member of a group, it recommends groups that he or she may be interested in. This improves
the visibility of groups to users and thus increases chances for them to join new groups. As the
service becomes mature, more groups will be formed, more users will join groups and the
number of inter-group ties will increase (Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18 Meetup at the mature level
Case 4. Couchsurfing
Couchsurfing was developed by Casey Fenton and three other colleagues with an aim to create
an international network of people and places through mutual sharing of time and houses
(Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19 Couchsurfing founder and his colleagues
In Couchsurfing, collaboration is mutual as it takes place between two parties: a host and a
visitor(s). Figure 3.20 describes this mutual relationship. Such a relationship based on weak ties
with a potential to develop into strong ones because hosting usually lasts from a couple of days
to no more than a week and there are ample opportunities for the two parties to develop their
friendship depending on their willingness to do so. The relationship can continue on the
platform after the visit.
Casey Fenton
63
Figure 3.20 Mutual ties between Couchsurfers
As the service becomes mature, more mutual ties are expected to form. If it becomes successful,
it may induce the creation of similar services or replicate itself in a form of franchise. These
communities then will be connected to one another and form a network of Couchsurfing
communities (Figure 3.21).
Figure 3.21 Couchsurfing at the mature level
In order to verify how much the hypothetical social network structures convey the reality, a case
was selected and its social network structure was analyzed using SNA software. Then it was
visualized for comparison. Below is the visualization of the actual social network structures of
Couchsurfing groups in Milan and London. The data were collected for 3 months from May to
64
August 2010 and were analyzed using Internet Community Text Analyzer (ICTA) beta (Gruzd,
2009). Figure 3.21, Figure 3.22 and Figure 3.23 are similar in several aspects. Both have many
paired nodes indicating the mutual relationships typically observed in this service. Then there
are cliques in which all nodes are connected to the other nodes. They represent a group
composed of hosts and guests. Finally, there are active users represented by centralized nodes.
They form multiple connections with other users indicating that they actively host or visit other
Couchsurfers.
Figure 3.22 Couchsurfing group in Milan
Figure 3.23 Couchsurfing group in London
65
Other cases could not be verified likewise due to a lack of data or a lack of resources to analyze
the data. A verification of Couchsurfing suggests that the hypothetical social network structure
does not describe quantitative characteristics of actual social networks but it does convey some
of the key attributes qualitatively.
Case 5. Green Map Service (GMS)
Wendy Brawer started a Green Apple Map in 1992 and launched a worldwide Green Map
Service in 1995. GMS uses its website (Greenmap, 2008) as a platform to scale up and diffuse
the service. On the platform, users can download the toolkit to make a map, ask for advice from
or exchange information with other map makers. Figure 3.24 illustrates the group who founded
the service.
Figure 3.24 The founding members of Greem Map Service
Once the service was launched, people could start their own Green Map Projects by
downloading the toolkit. They often collaborated with their neighbors, colleagues or students10.
If anyone has already started a Green Map Project in their town, they could propose
collaboration. This is why there exists a mixture of strong and weak ties in the project groups
(Figure 3.25). GMS organized various events to connect map makers such as workshops and
tutorials. It also created a blog for map makers to exchange information and to be connected.
This effort resulted in weak ties between the project groups.
10 Many Green Map Projects were conducted in didactic environment (Green Map, 2008).
66
Figure 3.25 An early phase of Green Map Service
As the service continues to grow (and it has been), more communities will participate in map
making and the existing groups will find new people to collaborate. As a result, a network of
Green Map communities will be formed (Figure 3.26).
Figure 3.26 Green Map Service in the mature phase
There are both strength and weakness in this approach. The strength is that the pattern of
information flow can be identified in a quick-and-dirty way thus saving time and money; it can
67
be done without expert knowledge on SNA and therefore can be used by designers; it extracts
only the information necessary for discovering the pattern thus saving the resource for the
analysis. On the other hand, the weakness is that the result is subject to an error and it needs to
be verified how accurate this method is compared to the quantitative measure.
3.3. Discussion
3.3.1. Dual production of collaborative services
By definition, collaborative service results in the production of two essential elements: technical
solutions to user needs and social networks of target users. These two elements are interlinked
and support the production of each other thereby creating a virtuous cycle: In the process of
collaboration, social networks are formed and reinforced among users. Social networks, in turn,
create a favorable environment to induce new collaborations (Figure 3.27).
Figure 3.27 A virtuous circle between the production of solutions and that of social networks
In chapter 2, literature studies showed that ICTs contribute to creation and reinforcement of
weak ties and that it is the weak ties that social innovations diffuse. Case studies of collaborative
services on digital platform demonstrated that democratized ICTs, more specifically web
platforms, are an integral part of delivering solutions to various needs such as a need for
democratized society, a need for sharing mobility, a need for creating a world map of sustainable
sites or a need for revitalizing local communities. Enhanced production of social networks and
solutions through ICTs implies the facilitation of the virtuous cycle and therefore the production
of collaborative service (Figure 3.28).
Figure 3.28 The virtuous cycle amplified by ICTs
Production of solutions
Production of social networks
Production of solutions
Production of social networks
68
The following question is if there exists a pattern in the way ICTs support the dual production of
collaborative service. If there is and if it can be identified, it can be incorporated into the design
process of collaborative service on digital platform and guide designers and developers how to
design an effective enabling system. Therefore, the following questions were formulated and
answers were sought through analysis of the cases:
1. How do ICTs11 support the functioning of collaborative services?
2. How do ICTs enrich the social networks of collaborative individuals and communities?
The results were threefold: First, despite the diversity in nature and context of the cases, a
pattern existed in the way collaborative services are structured on digital platforms; second, the
cases were categorized into 7 types based on the meta-objective of the services; and finally, the
cases were categorized into 6 types based on the social network structures of the users.
3.3.1.1. The structural system of collaborative services on digital platform
The investigated cases have a common characteristic regarding the environment where they are
formed and develop – the structural system of collaborative service on the digital platform. It
consists of 4 elements: a platform, an enabling solution, a collaborative service and an event
(Figure 3.29).
Figure 3.29 The structural system of collaborative service on digital platform
1. A platform. A platform is a base of the structure that hosts multiple enabling solutions. It is
what Jones (197) calls a cyber region/locale that contains many virtual communities. An
example of a platform is Meetup.com, a social networking service that provides a set of tools to
organize local gatherings across the world (Figure 3.30). On the Meetup platform, there are over
79000 enabling solutions for collaborative communities (as of January 2011) such as Team
Fighting Diabetes, a community of diabetics and their families in San Jose, California.
11 This research focuses on democratized ICTs, particularly, web and mobile platform.
!"#$%&"'()*%+,*"((An enabling solution motivates and empowers people to
create collaborative services e.g.) Meetup Group Page
-*%%#$*.#,/0()0./&10(
Collaborative services are developed by users to accomplish common goals and to build relations
e.g.) Team Fighting Diabetes
!/0"2(An event is produced as an outcome of collaboration in the
physical or the virtual space. e.g.) Team Fighting Diabetes hiking day
3%#4*.5( A platform hosts multiple enabling solutions e.g.) Meetup.com
69
Figure 3.30 Meetup.com is a digital platform that hosts diverse Meetup Groups (Meetup, 2010)
2. An enabling solution. An enabling solution is a system of products, services and
communications that empower people to collaborate, meet their needs and diffuse their
solutions (Manzini, 2005). Democratization of ICTs has empowered people to organize, manage
and participate in collaborative services efficiently. For example, a diabetic can easily find a
community with the same illness to share information and participate in social events using a
service such as Meetup.com. Team Fighting Diabetes was thus created (Figure 3.31). Using tools
featured in the enabling solution, this group organize various collaborative activities such as a
hiking day for diabetes.
Figure 3.31 Team Fighting Diabetes Meetup Group homepage (Team Fighting Diabetes, 2010)
3. Collaborative services. Although an enabling solution alone does not guarantee collaborative
services, a well designed enabling solution is a necessary condition for collaborative services,
i.e., people will start organizing collaborative services on a platform that provides necessary
tools for them to accomplish their goals in a usable and pleasant way as in the case of
70
Meetup.com (Figure 3.32). As it was discussed earlier in this chapter, social networks formed
through a collaborative service becomes a favorable environment for further collaborations. It
implies that collaborative services are more easily organized on a platform that has already
accomplished a critical mass.
Figure 3.32 Collaborative services in Meetup.com (Meetup, 2010)
4. An event. An event is an outcome of a collaborative service in the physical or the virtual space.
Manzini (2009B) argues that an event may vary in the size of participants, the degree of
interaction and the knowledge or physical assets required by the participants. These variables
need to be considered when designing a collaborative service and an enabling solution. Figure
3.33 illustrates a scene from a hiking day organized by Team Fighting Diabetes Group where the
members – diabetics and their families – exercise together and promote a healthy lifestyle.
Figure 3.33 Team Fighting Diabetes’ hiking day (Team Fighting Diabetes, 2010)
71
3.3.1.2. A typology of collaborative services on digital platform based on meta-service objectives
Every investigated case had a specific goal it needed to acheive in a form of service (e.g. to
purchase high-quality agricultural produces directly from the local producers, to exchange used
books). These goals can be grouped into more generalized meta-goals. The 30 cases were
categorized into 7 types based on their meta-goals:
Producer/consumer network. In this typology, producers and consumers pursue mutual
benefits by establishing a direct network. It is often found in the food industry where producers
and consumers create networks to solve problems caused by long supply chains such carbon
emission and degeneration of local food industries and to promote critical and responsible
consumption.
Examples include Mapo Dure, a food cooperative in Mapo district of Seoul, South Korea; GAS
(Gruppi di Aquisto Solidale), a food purchasing group in Italy (Figure 3.34); Solidarius and
Sistema FBES (Fórum Brasileiro de Economia Solidária) both of which are digital platforms to
promote solidarity economy in Brazil.
Figure 3.34 GAS, the solidarity purchasing groups and the GAS website (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale,
2009)
Mapping diffused information. In this typology, users collaborate to map diffused locational
information.
Examples include Green Map and Open Green Map which aim to create a global map of
sustainable sites and events through grassroots collaboration (Figure 3.35); and FixMyStreet, an
open-source project that reports, views, or discusses local problems like graffiti, fly tipping,
broken paving slabs, or street lighting which can then be solved by the local councils.
72
Figure 3.35 Green Map makers and the Green Map website (Green Map, 2008)
Aggregate social action. In this typology, people act together and use their collective power to
achieve certain social goals.
Cases that belong to this category are Pledgebank, a website that enables people to achieve their
goals by asking other people to do the same (Figure 3.36); No 10 petition, an e-petition solution
in UK that delivers people’s petitions to the Prime Minister; Carrot mob, a network of
consumers who buy products in a form of a mob in order to reward businesses who are making
the most socially responsible decisions. Its goal is to leverages consumer power to make the
most socially-responsible business practices also the most profitable choices.
Figure 3.36 The Pledgebank website (Pledgebank, 2009)
Creating networks for social conviviality. In this typology, the primary goal is to improve social
conviviality by forming and reinforcing a social networks. Users are often from the same locality
and interact face-to-face and virtually on a regular basis.
Examples include Meetup, an enabling solution that allows people to form a network of local
groups hosts numerous collaborative services, i.e., individual meetups. Among them ones that
73
are organized by users in a specific region for socialization such as Milano meetup; Peladeiro is a
solution in Brazil that helps people organize soccer matches (Figure 3.37); Vicini Vicini is a
service initiated by the Municipality of Rome to promote social conviviality of the community. It
provides people with tools to organize neighboring parties.
Figure 3.37 Peladeiro users and the Peladeiro website (Peladeiro, 2009)
Mutual support circle. In this typology, users provide mutual support to one another in order to
solve problems that they have in common.
Collaborative services that belong to this type include Open Health project by the Design
Council of UK intends to empower patients of chronic disease and their family members to
support themselves and those who have the same problem. One result of this project is
Activmob, a service organized by people in Kent to do physical activities together (Figure 3.38).
Figure 3.38 A Local Vocals Singing Group mob and the activmob website (Activmob, 2009)
Competences, time and products exchange. In this typology, people collaborate through the
exchange of competences, time and products.
Examples include Time bank, a reciprocal service exchange based on a time-based currency in
which community members exchange their time to satisfy their needs; and Zerorelativo, an
74
online bartering system in Italy which allows people to exchange secondhand products (Figure
3.39).
Figure 3.39 The Zerorelativo website (zerorelativo, 2009)
Products, places and knowledge sharing. In this typology, people collaborate through sharing
products, places and knowledge.
Examples are: Hitchhikers, an online service that connects people in need of rides and people
who have empty seats in their cars; Couch surfing, a global initiative of sharing couches between
travelers while exchanging different cultures and creating social networks (Figure 3.40); and
Bookcrossing, a global book sharing scheme in which one leaves a book in a public place to be
picked up and read by others, who then do the same.
Figure 3.40 Couch surfers and the Couch Surfing website (CouchSurfing, 2009)
75
3.3.1.3. A typology of collaborative services on digital platform based on social network
structure
From the in-depth case studies that aimed to analyze how ICTs influence social network
structures of individuals and communities involved in collaborative services, another typology
was drawn. The typology consists of 6 types of collaborative services on digital platform based
on the social network structures of users: a tightly knit group, networked individuals, a tightly
knit group(s) and networked individuals, a network of tightly knit groups and a network of
loosely knit groups, a network of tightly knit and loosely knit groups (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 A typology of collaborative service on digital platform based on the social network structures of
users
Type Characteristic Example
1. A tightly knit group
• A closed group in which members are connected via strong ties
• No interaction with the outside
2. Networked individuals
• Members connected via weak or latent ties
• Intermittent or one-time interaction • Members bounded by common values
and interests but not necessarily by location
Fix My Street Pledgebank No. 10 Petition Social Invention Center Zerorelativo Couchsurfing Hitchhikers.org Bookcrossing
3. A tightly knit group(s) and networked individuals
• Driven by a group of tightly knit members who share values and interests and often bounded by location
• Supported and endorsed by individuals who are weakly connected to the core group and within themselves
GROFUN
4. A network of tightly knit groups
• Composed of multiple groups of tightly knit members who share values and interests and often geographically bounded
• Groups weakly or latently tied to other groups
Meetup.com GAS Mapo Dure Activmob Timebanks Peladeiro
76
5. A network of loosely knit groups
• Composed of multiple groups • Group members are loosely knit and
bounded by common values and interests and but not necessarily by location
• Intermittent or one-time interaction • Groups weakly or latently connected
Carrot Mob Shelfari
6. A network of tightly knit and loosely knit groups
• A mixture of type 4 and 5
WiserEarth Green Map Open green map Nabuur Vicini Vicini
Type 1 is ‘a tightly knit group’ which is a closed group whose members are tightly knit via strong
ties and often bounded by geographic location as well as common values and interests. Its
members meet on a regular basis and tend to collaborate within the group. There is no example
of the first type among the investigated cases because it is a hypothetical type that was
extrapolated from the result of case studies. However, numerous examples can be easily found
elsewhere: a class of an online education course, a group of scholars conducting a collaborative
project using digital tools and a local community independently running a time bank.
Type 2, ‘networked individuals’ is more loosely knit and vaguely bounded than the first type
because its members are connected via weak or latent ties. They are bounded by common values
and interests but not necessary by location. Their interaction takes place intermittently or even
once. Examples include Fix My Street, a service that allows users to report problems on the local
streets; Social invention center, an initiative run by Hope Institute, a social innovation think
tank in South Korea, that is similar to Fix My Street but extends the scope of service to any
social problems; Couchsurfing, a service to share couches and get together among travellers;
Hitchhikers.org, a service that connects people with empty seats in their cars and people who
need a ride; Zerorelativo, an bartering service in Italy; Pledgebank, a service that connects
people with good ideas and people who want to support them; and No. 10 petition, an online
petition service run by the Premier of UK.
77
Figure 3.41 Screenshots of Hitchhikers.org platform: from top left to clockwise direction: developers of the
platform, a bulletin board for proposing a hitchhike, the registration page; a car painted with the
hitchhikers.org logo (Hitchhikers, 2010)
Type 3, ‘a tightly knit group(s) and networked individuals’ is the combination of the first and the
second type. It is driven by a group of tightly knit members who share values and interests and
often bounded by location and supported by individuals who are weakly connected to other
members. The first type may evolve into the third type over time as it opens up itself. An
example is GROFUN, an urban gardening group in Bristol, UK (Figure 3.1).
Type 4, ‘a network of tightly knit groups’ and type 5, ‘a network of loosely knit groups’ are the
extension of the type 1 and 2 respectively. Type 1 and 2 may evolve into type 4 and 5 as they start
replicating and creating a network of franchises. They are similar to what Jones (1997) called a
cyber region/locale that contains many virtual communities. The difference is that the users of
these types also collaborate face-to-face. Examples of type 4 is Meetup.com, a network of local
community groups; Green Map, a worldwide green mapmaking project based on
crowdsourcing; Mapo Dure, a local branch of a food cooperative network in South Korea; and
GAS, a network of solidarity purchasing groups in Italy. Examples of type 5 include Carrot Mob,
a network of consumers who buy products in a flashmob-like manner to reward businesses that
make the most socially responsible decisions and Shelfari, an online community for book lovers.
78
Figure 3.42 Activities organized by Mapo Dure
Type 6, ‘a network of tightly knit and loosely knit groups’ is a network of both tightly knit and
loosely knit groups. Examples include WiserEarth, a social networking service focusing on the
theme of sustainability; Open Green Map, a digital version of Green Map; and Nabuur, an
online volunteering platform that links online volunteers with local communities in Africa, Asia
and Latin America.
Figure 3.43 Nabuur website and one of its project on the combat for Malaria in Wakitaka, Uganda
(Nabuur, 2010)
79
4. DESIGN PROCESS OF COLLABORATIVE SERVICES ON DIGITAL PLATFORM
In this chapter, the process of designing collaborative services on digital platform is analyzed
based on two case studies. The first case study is the Product-System Development Laboratory
(PSD Lab) at Politecnico di Milano. This class aimed to provide students with a holistic
approach to develop collaborative service on digital platform that contributes to building
sustainable local communities in Milan. The second case study is an event called Social
Innovation Camp, a global initiative that experiments on developing digital solutions for social
innovations. The process and the output of the two cases are described and analyzed in terms of
their effectiveness in addressing social and technical needs of target users.
80
4.1. Background
In this chapter, two case studies on design and implementation of collaborative services on
digital platform are introduced. In the previous chapters, a conceptual model of collaborative
service on digital platform was proposed and cases of grassroots social innovations enhanced by
diffused ICTs were observed through case studies. The studies observed the potential of ICTs as
an effective enabling solution for collaborative services. The next step is to understand the
current approach to designing a collaborative service on digital platform from developers’
perspective, i.e., what process do designers and engineers undergo and what methods and tools
do they use in different stages of the process; and to assess if the dual elements – solutions and
social networks – of collaborative services can be effectively produced under the current
process.
4.2. Case study I: Design of collaborative services on digital platform
4.2.1. Introduction
The Product-System Development Laboratory was a class for the 1st year master students in the
department of industrial design at Politecnico di Milano. It was one of several classes on service
design and was held from 9 AM to 6 PM, once a week from March to June in 2009. The class
was sponsored by and partnered with the Fondazione Culturale Responsabilità Etica, a non-for-
profit organization (NPO) based in Toscana, Italy that promotes at the national and
international level the diffusion of ethically oriented finance and responsibility of economic
activities on non-economic consequences (Banca Etica, 2010). The aim of the course was to
design collaborative services and their enabling solutions that could be integrated into the
Foundation’s web platform called ZOES12 (an acronym for la Zona Equosostenibile meaning the
fair and sustainable zone). ZOES is a social-network-based platform that aimed to promote
socially and environmentally responsible economic activities and diffuse sustainable lifestyles.
Collaborative services among various actors of solidarity economy were precisely what ZOES
intended to support. From the instructors’ point of view, ZOES was an optimal project to work
on as it provided the students with an opportunity to apply their ideas to the real context
without altering the aim of the class. From the Fondazione’s point of view, the output of the
class played a role of pilot projects that could test the platform and bring a critical mass, and a
source of inspiration for the future direction of the project.
The class was composed of three professors who were specialized in service design, interaction
design, and design for sustainability; three teaching staffs who were all PhD candidates; and 16
students from 6 different countries who were divided into five groups. The official language of
the class was Italian and English translation was provided when needed. The class was
12 www.zoes.it
81
composed of the following phases: introduction to service design, idea generation, concept
development, development and communication. Each phase is explained in the next section.
4.2.2. Process
4.2.2.1. Introduction to service design
The PSD Lab is an introductory class on service design for students whose background is in
product design. Since the students have no previous experience on designing services,
introductory lectures were provided to help them understand the basic notion of service design.
The lectures addressed the following topics: what is a service, what is service design, how to
design human-to-human interaction as well as man-machine interaction, case studies of
collaborative service on digital platform, the use of digital collaborative tools and the
background of the ZOES project.
4.2.2.2. Idea generation
At the beginning of idea generation phase, design specifications that described the partner’s
demand as well as the didactic goals was delivered to the students: first, the five groups were
asked to choose five topics from the ten business areas of the ZOES – housing, food, finance,
energy, politics, health, social networks, communication, travel and responsibility; second, a
service to be designed must involve interaction in both virtual and real worlds; third, a service
should target a local community in Milan; and finally a service should address both social and
economical issues while being economically feasible.
Based on the specifications, the students brainstormed ideas and refined them through
revisions with the instructors until the most promising ideas were selected. For the selected
ideas, targeting events13, enabling solutions and main stakeholders were identified (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 A relationship between an event, a collaborative service and an enabling solution
13 As it was discussed in chapter 3, events are social activities that take place in the real or virtual space as the result of a collaborative service. For example, it can be a flash mob to clean a river or a concert where musicians and their fans get together.
!"#$%&"'()*%+,*"((An enabling solution motivates and empowers people to
create collaborative services To be designed by students
-*%%#$*.#,/0()0./&10(
Collaborative services are developed by users to accomplish common goals and to build relations
To be designed by students
!/0"2(An event is produced as an outcome of collaboration in the
physical or the virtual space. To be organized by the final users
3%#4*.5($#)0(678!9:( A platform base hosts multiple enabling solutions ZOES.it
82
4.2.2.3. Concept development
In concept development phase, service stakeholders were articulated using personas (Figure
4.2) and their motivations were defined using the motivation matrix (Figure 4.3). Personas are a
tool of market segmentation used to consider the goals, desires, and limitations of users and
therefore help guide decisions about a service or a product. In the context of service design, it is
used to define and articulate service stakeholders by creating fictional characters that represent
the goals and behavior of a real group of stakeholders, thereby turning the users into identifiable
human beings.
Figure 4.2 An example of personas in service design (WeTunes, 2009)
Motivation matrix allows defining the stakeholders’ motivation to participate in a service and
understanding their interests to other stakeholders (Service design tools, 2010). The students
contacted the potential service stakeholders to verify their assumptions on their motivations to
participate in the services.
83
Figure 4.3 An example of a motivation matrix (WeTunes, 2009)
Events and enabling solutions of the conceived services were also articulated in this phase. By
defining physical components of the services and main features of digital services, the students
articulated the specification of enabling solutions that will support their services.
Relations between stakeholders were identified using a system map. A system map shows the
solution form the point of view of the organization of the partnership providing the solution.
The map includes the main stakeholders and the relationships between them in terms of the
material, financial and information flows. Figure 4.4 is a system map created by the students
that describes a service to organize an indie music band.
84
Figure 4.4 An example of a system map (WeTunes, 2009)
Once the students have identified the service stakeholders and articulated their motivations,
they simulated the service experience using the interaction storyboard. Interaction storyboard is
a tool that shows the solution performance along the horizontal time line. It is the translation of
an event, which takes place in space and time, into a sequence of static images and explanatory
captions that represent the significant interactions between the user(s) and the provider(s) of a
product-service (Cipolla, 2009). Figure 4.5 is an example of storyboard created by the students.
It describes the process of participating in a bartering party where the participant exchanges her
used clothes with others’ in an entertaining atmosphere.
Figure 4.5 An example of a storyboard (Clothes Party, 2009)
7
85
Finally, the students were guided to elaborate operative procedure of their services. They broke
down a service into action sequences and arranged them in a chronological order using a flow
chart (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6 An example of a flow chart (Arcistoppers, 2009)
4.2.2.4. Design of enabling solutions
Based on the concepts of digital services, i.e., a part of services that are operated using digital
tools, developed in the previous phases, enabling solutions were designed. This phase was
further specified into the following stages: setting the goal of the enabling solutions, defining
features, selecting digital tools for collaboration, designing information architecture and
wireframes.
Students naturally integrated the results from the previous phases into designing their enabling
solutions, suggesting that articulation of a service concept is a precedent step to design an
enabling solution. For example, the result of personas was used to define user profiles of a
digital service; a service process described in a storyboard and detailed in a flow chart became a
reference to define features and to design information architecture of a digital platform.
Due to the limited time span and resources invested in the class, the enabling solutions were not
implemented. Instead, the final outcome was the screen images of digital platforms and the
demonstration of how the platforms work. Figure 4.7 is one of the digital platforms developed
by the students. It is called Clothes Party, a service for organizing social events to exchange used
clothes.
86
Figure 4.7 A digital platform for organizing social events to exchange (Clothes Party, 2009)
4.2.2.5. Communication
In the final stage of the class, strategies to present and communicate the developed collaborative
services and enabling solutions to the client, users and potential partners were delivered to the
students. Due to the complex and intangible nature of a service, it required a different approach
to presenting the final output from presenting tangible objects such as a product or space. The
students were thus provided with a presentation format which guides them to describe the
process, the output of each stage, and the final outcome. The final presentation included the
following materials: a mood board, a poster, personas, a system map, a motivation matrix, a
timeline, flow charts, storyboards, description of a digital platform and communication
strategies. At the end of the class, the client was invited to the presentation and evaluated the
final outcomes together with the instructors.
4.2.3. Results
5 collaborative services on digital platform were proposed at the end of the class. The service
concepts and their enabling solutions are described below.
Clothes Party is a social bartering service that allows people to exchange used clothes and at
the same time to socialize with others in a joyful atmosphere. The event of this service is a
bartering party where people bring their clothes, exchange them, meet new people and enjoy
with music and food. The service involves the following stakeholders: ZOES provides a platform
base on which to build an enabling solution, i.e., a website for Clothes Party. It offers API’s of
various collaborative tools that can be adopted to the enabling solution; the Milan Municipality
provides a physical space to organize the events; Esterni, a magazine publisher, promotes the
service; I Love Shopping, a company currently offering a service of bartering used clothes in
87
Bergamo and wants to organize an event like Clothes Party, is the service provider; and finally
there are users who exchange their used clothes at the party (Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8 The system map of Clothes Party (Cumitini, Veera & Zocca, 2009)
The website of Clothes Party is a virtual space for users to organize an event and to
communicate with other users (Figure 4.9). A user can become a registered member by joing
ZOES. During the registration process, a user is asked to register his or her clothes to exchange.
On the website, she can organize a bartering party, get information about the upcoming parties
and check if there is any clothes that she is interested in. She can also communicate with other
users on a blog.
Figure 4.9 The website of Clothes Party (Cumitini, Veera & Zocca, 2009)
88
Viaggiamoci is a service that aims to promote community-based tourism (CBT). CBT is a
form of tourism created by the demand of travelling in a more sustainable way, both socially and
environmentally, and having more authentic experiences on one side and of protecting the local
cultures, environment and economies on the other side. In CBT, local communities are the main
actors in the planning and managing a service and hence the economic benefits go directly to the
local communities through micro and small businesses owned by them (Bursztyn, 2010). The
event in Viaggiamoci is a tour and the service stakeholders include local communities that
provide CBT, tourists, a travel agency that promote CBT and connects users and local
communities, and ZOES (Cesarano, Villiva’, Gutierrez, 2009).
Figure 4.10 The system map of Viaggiamoci (Cesarano, Villiva’, Gutierrez, 2009)
The website of Viaggiamoci prmotes CBT, offers a marketplace where CBTs can be purchased,
and a virtual settlement for users to share experiences, information and multimedia data
(Figure 4.11).
89
Figure 4.11 The website of Viaggiamoci (Cesarano, Villiva’ & Gutierrez, 2009)
We Green is a service that aims to advocate a green lifestyle through flash mob. The event is a
flash mob where a multitude of people assemble in a public space and shout out in one voice
“We Green!”, an expression of a desire to have more sustainable and lively areas in cities. The
event is characterized by a graphic identity, the green t-shirts that participants wear (Crisponi,
Lo Mele & Nogues, 2009). The service stakeholders include Esterni which provides expertise in
organizing cultural events and promotes the events; Sorgenia, an energy company that sponsors
the events; and users who participate in flash mobs (Figure 4.12).
Figure 4.12 The system map of We Green (Crisponi, Lo Mele & Nogues, 2009)
The website of We Green provides information on the upcoming flash mobs and it empowers
one to organize a flash mob by providing necessary tools to achieve a critical mass of
participants. Such tools include a map mashup, calendar, message and forum (Figure 4.13).
90
Figure 4.13 The website of We Green (Crisponi, Lo Mele & Nogues, 2009)
WeTunes aims to promote indie music culture in the short run and to create a vibrant
community in the long run by bringing musicians together and connecting them with people
who appreciate their music. The service provides indie musicians with a virtual space where
they can find partners to form a band, organize a live concert in collaboration with a local bar.
The main service stakeholders include indie musicians; ZOES; fnac, an international
entertainment retail chain that sponsors the concerts; a music studios where bands practice;
and local bars where they perform (Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14 The system map of WeTunes (Ong, Leon, Ferreira & Araujo, 2009)
91
The website of WeTunes is a social networking space where musicians can be connected to other
musicians, fans and promoters. The platform has a database of musicians’ profiles including
peer-reviewed rating of their musical competence, which makes it possible for a musician to find
partners of a desired level to form a band (Figure 4.15).
Figure 4.15 The website of WeTunes (Ong, Leon, Ferreira & Araujo, 2009)
Arci stoppers is a carpooling service for clubbers. The service concept comes from the need of
clubbers in Milan to have a means of transportation after 1 AM when the public transportation
service stops. The service name comes from Arci, an association of nightclubs in Italy. A
registered user can search on the website of Arci Stoppers for someone to share a ride to a
nightclub. Once he or she finds a carpooler, the website calculates the ideal meeting point and a
shortest path to a club. The driver gets a free drink from the club for participating in the service
(Semeraro, Wurzer, Williams and Pulido, 2009). The service stakeholders include Arci; ATM,
the department of public transportation in Milan, which provides meeting points for carpooling;
and carpoolers (Figure 4.16).
92
Figure 4.16 The system map of Arci stoppers (Semeraro, Wurzer, Williams and Pulido, 2009)
On the website, a user can search for a ride using a search engine. He enters the necessary data
for carpooling such as his depature, destination, number of passengers, departure and arrival
time. The search result is displayed on a map, i.e., the locations of people who are willing to offer
him a ride (Figure 4.17). On the left column is a list of events for clubbers organized by Arci.
Figure 4.17 The website of Arci stoppers (Semeraro, Wurzer, Williams and Pulido, 2009)
4.3. Case study 2: Implementation of digital platforms for collaborative services
4.3.1. Introduction
Social Innovation Camp is an event where social innovators, software developers and designers
gather voluntarily to build web-based solutions to real social problems (Social Innovation Camp,
93
2010). It was founded by Christian Ahlert, Dan McQuillan and Paul Miller in 2008, with
support from the Young Foundation.
It aimed to create a space where people with ideas to make society better could meet people with
talents to realize them with technologies. The idea was inspired by already successful initiatives
in the technology world such as Barcamp unconferences where people get together to share
skills and knowledge and the Hackday model where software developers code for 24 hours
straight (Social Innovation Camp, 2010). The Camps are organized in the weekend, from Friday
afternoon to Sunday morning. They consist of two main events: a competition to find the best
ideas for web tools to create social change and a race to implement them over a weekend. The
final outcome is working prototypes of web-based solutions for social innovations (Ibid.). The
prototypes are available under creative commons to those who are willing to develop them into
real solutions. In short, Social Innovation Camp is a creative way to utilize democratized
technologies and the collaborative culture in the digital space to solve social problems in the real
world.
The first event was held in UK in January 2008 with backing from NESTA, the Young
Foundation, the Office of the Third Sector, the Guardian and Yahoo!. The result was a success
and since then it has been held twice a year and has spread to different parts of the world such
as Scotland, Australia, Slovakia, New Zealand and Gruzia (Ibid.).
Figure 4.18. Social Innovation Camp in Scotland in June 2008 (Social Innovation Camp, 2010)
In June 2010, Social Innovation Camp was held for the first time in South Korea organized by
the Hope Institute14, Daum Foundation15 and Happy Bean16 and sponsored by Microsoft and
two major IT service providers in South Korea – Daum and NHN. Prior to the camp, a
competition was held to select ideas to be implemented. 9 ideas were selected and implemented
14 The Hope Institute is a private think tank focusing on social innovations. 15 Daum Foundation is a non-profit organization established by shareholders and employees of Daum Communications Corporation. 16 Happy Bean is a non-profit organization established by Naver Corporation.
94
into prototypes at the camp which lasted for 36 hours (Figure 4.19). The entire process form the
idea competition to the final outcome is described in the next section.
Figure 4.19 Participants of the Social Innovation Camp (Daum '\a+ÒP, 2010)
4.3.2. Process
4.3.2.1. Competition
In April 2010, an announcement for the first Social Innovation Camp in South Korea was made.
Total 192 ideas of social innovations were submitted online and the juries selected 9 best ones
based on the following criteria: first, contribution to the common good; second, feasibility to
achieve the aimed goals; and third, creativity in tackling the targeting problems. The first
criterion assessed the ideas in terms of the urgency and their impact to the contemporary
society. The second criterion looked at whether the proposed ideas could indeed solve the
targeting problems and whether the ideas could be implemented in a given period of time. The
third criterion concerned the novelty and innovativeness of the ideas as well as the copyright
issue (Ibid.). The selected ideas were published online17.
Simultaneously, volunteers to implement solutions were recruited online. Total 61 volunteers
were selected from outnumbering applicants. They were composed of software engineers (50%),
web planners (25%) and designers (25%) (Kim Lee, 2010). The volunteers came from various IT
companies including NHN, Daum and Microsoft, the sponsors of the event.
4.3.2.2. Orientation
The orientation was held in May 2010, one month before the Camp started. The purposes of the
orientation were threefold: to present the ideas to the volunteers; to discuss the feasibility of
implementation; and to form groups who will implement the ideas during the camp. Idea
17 http://2010.sicamp36.org/idea/select_list
95
proposers presented their ideas to the developers and the Q&A session followed. After the
presentation, the participants were divided into groups, which consisted of an idea proposer,
planners, designers and software engineers, and group meetings were held.
Figure 4.20 Presentation of the ideas during the orientation (Social Innovation Camp 36, 2010)
At the group meeting, each team discussed detailed issues regarding the implementation of the
solution and made a working plan for preparing the camp: The members discussed a platform
concept, identified features, defined tasks and assigned them to each member. One thing that
the camp organizers did not anticipate was that many participants utilized two weeks of time
between the orientation and the camp to make a progress in developing the solutions. For
example, one team finished more or less everything except for the coding during this period
including the wireframe design, graphic works, building a database and beta-testing it. To
enhance communication and collaboration in distance, many teams used digital collaborative
tools such as web documentation tools.
Figure 4.21 Participants discussing the solution concept at the group meeting (Social Innovation Camp 36,
2010)
96
Time constraint was the biggest challenge to the participants and it often led to conflicts
between idea proposers and developers. For example, engineers would insist to reduce the scope
of a solution to shorten the development period and this would often come into conflict with a
proposer who wanted to maintain the original concept as much as possible in order to fulfill the
social, environmental and economic needs that motivated his idea in the first place. On the
other hand, the engineers wanted to produce a working prototype within the deadline. Such
conflicts were resolved sometimes through compromising and other times through giving up
from one side.
4.3.2.3. The camp
The camp was held in Hwasung, Kyoungki-do from June 18th to the 20th. The participants were
given 36 hours – from Friday midnight to Sunday morning – to produce technical solutions to
the social innovation ideas. The idea proposers were not invited to the camp. The camp was
highly laissez-faire: to a large extent organized and driven by the participants. Members of each
team sat around a table and spent most of their time working on the task assigned to them
(Figure 4.22). The overall development process at the camp was reportedly highly specialized
because most of the decisions were made prior to the camp and the 36 hours were dedicated to
coding. However, the participants did have occasional discussions to solve unexpected problems
or to make decisions on the platform concept (Figure 4.23).
Figure 4.22 Developers at the camp with the remaining time displayed in the background (Social
Innovation Camp 36, 2010)
97
Figure 4.23 Developers having a discussion (Social Innovation Camp 36, 2010)
The participants used a whiteboard provided to each team as a space to post the wireframes and
information architecture of a digital platform, to list up features, and even to leave messages to
their teammates in case they had to leave the table (Figure 4.24).
Figure 4.24 Wireframes and information architecture drawn by developers (Social Innovation Camp 36,
2010)
At the end of the camp, 9 working prototypes of digital platform were produced as the final
outcome. The results were presented to the juries for evaluation.
4.3.3. Results
Below is a brief description of the final result. Despite the limited time, the participants
successfully developed working prototypes. Reflecting the recent explosion of the smartphone
users, several teams developed both mobile and web platforms.
98
Kind Bus: Finding the best bus drivers. This is both a web and mobile platform that uses
a carrot rather than a stick to improve the quality of public bus service in Seoul: It allows
passengers to praise good bus drivers rather than to complain about bad ones. The platform
provides the following features: a virtual space for passengers to praise the best bus drivers and
to share with other passengers stories on the public bus service; a text message service that
automatically informs passengers’ whereabouts to their friends or families (Figure 4.25).
Figure 4.25 A digital platform for Kind Bus (Kind Bus, 2010)
Baratie: Feed Your People. This mobile solution aims to promote the culture of charity
through a system in which a portion of people’s spending at restaurants goes to charity (Figure
4.26). In this system, restaurants register with a pledge that they will donate to charities a
portion of their profit if a critical mass of customers is achieved via the platform. Registered
customers can see the registered restaurants on the platform and whenever they order
something from the listed restaurants, they are donating to charities.
Figure 4.26 A digital platform for the Baratie: Feed Your People (Baratie: Feed Your People, 2010)
99
Fun Riding. This web and mobile solution promotes bike riding by providing a collaborative
tool to co-create biking maps. This solution has a navigation function and offers useful tips for
cycling such as good bicycle routes, traffic condition, toilet location and roads condition, all of
which are contributed by users (Figure 4.27). In addition, its social networking feature allows
users to form social networks and to bike together. Lastly, it contributes to creating a better
condition for biking by establishing a communication channel that delivers users’ voices to
policy makers.
Figure 4.27 A digital platform for Fun Riding (Fun Riding, 2010)
My Neighbors. My Neighbors is a web-based solution that aims to connect neighbors, enrich
their relationship and thus create a convivial society. This social platform is expected to
facilitate mutual collaboration in local communities in Seoul, a highly individualized city. Using
social network service and map mashup, one can initiate interaction with their neighbors in a
virtual space and find people to exchange time and competences18 (Figure 4.28).
18 A screen shot of the platform was replaced with the solution schema because the website was not accessible.
100
Figure 4.28 A schema of a digital platform for My Neighbors (Social Innovation Camp 36, 2010)
Our Farm. This web-based solution promotes sustainable food production and consumption
and promotes local economies by connecting local producers in the urban and peri-urban areas
with consumers in the cities. Using social media, search engine and map mashup, consumers
have direct access to local producers; they interact with one another to share information and
make collective purchases; and they discover how the foods they consume are produced and by
whom (Figure 4.29). In addition, by connecting schools with local farms, it promotes utilization
of local environmental and agricultural resources for didactic purposes.
Figure 4.29 A digital platform for Our Farm (Our Farm, 2010)
Finding Local Traditional Markets. This mobile solution contributes to protecting and
promoting local traditional markets which are disappearing with the emergence of
101
supermarkets and shopping malls. By doing so, it not only secures numerous local jobs but also
preserves rich tradition and culture that these markets have inherited. Using the database of
local markets, a wiki and maps, this solution provides information on local traditional markets
such as the locations, events, products and recipes of the traditional food (Figure 4.30).
Figure 4.30 A mobile platform for Finding Local Traditional Markets (Let's Market, 2010)
Pop Funding for Artists. This web-based solution is based on an idea to support local artists
through micro financing. On the platform, artists propose a plan and the amount of fund they
want to receive (Figure 4.31). Investors can navigate through a list of proposed ideas on artistic
works, performances and exhibitions and invest online. Artists receive money only if they
accomplish their plans. The profit returns to artists and investors.
Figure 4.31 A digital platform for Pop Funding for Artists (Art Fund, 2010)
Pro Bono Bridge. This solution aims to promote pro bono services in which professionals
with specific skills use their talents for those who cannot afford them. In other words, it
connects people who are willing to use their skills (e.g. speaking foreign language, teaching,
singing, etc.) for others with NGOs and NPOs. On one side, there is a bulletin board that NGOs
102
and NPOs can use to ask for specific services they need. On the other side is a list of volunteers
with their basic information (Figure 4.32).
Figure 4.32 A digital platform for Pro Bono Bridge (Pro Bono Bridge, 2010)
Treeing. With this web solution, people can participate with a little effort in turning barrens
green, sequestering carbon dioxide through planting trees or donating money to an agency that
plant for them. Every time a tree is planted, its virtual avatar appears on the platform providing
information related to the status of the tree as well as arousing emotional affection. The
platform has two main features: a virtual space for people to organize planting trees and a
charity space to donate money to support tree planting (Figure 4.33).
Figure 4.33 A digital platform for Treeing (Treeing, 2010)
103
4.4. Discussion
In this section, the design process of the PSD Lab and the Social Innovation Camp are compared
and evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in addressing the dual production of collaborative
service.
4.4.1. Design process and tools
Although the motivation was similar, the PSD Lab and the Social Innovation Camp laid their
focus on different aspects of designing collaborative service on digital platform – the former on
a systematic approach and the latter on the implementation of solutions – and thus the final
outcomes were also different. In this section, the two cases are analyzed and compared in terms
of the process and tools used to produce the final results. The strengths and weaknesses of each
case are identified and the need for a novel approach to designing digital platforms for
collaborative services is proposed.
The PSD Lab had its focus on teaching students a systematic approach to design product-service
systems. Due to a limited period of time, the output remained at the conceptual level, both the
collaborative services and the enabling solutions. On the other hand, the Social Innovation
Camp focused on the implementation of technical solutions for collaborative services while it
lacked the consideration of services as a system consisting of various stakeholders of their own
interests. Consequently, the digital platforms – the visible part – were almost ready but the
services – the intangible part – were not.
This makes neither of the two cases a good example of a design process of collaborative service
on digital platform but, at the first glance, they have the parts the others are missing, i.e., the
systematic approach to service design in PSD Lab and the innovative approach to develop digital
solutions in the Social Innovation Camp can merge to form a complete process of designing
collaborative service on digital platform.
At the same time, the two cases represent a conventional approach to designing collaborative
services on digital platform, i.e., a process where service designers, graphic designers,
interaction designers, software planners and engineers play specialized roles in creating a
service using methods and tools that are widely used in the field: The process and tools used in
the PSD Lab are also used by designers in the field and the academic environment to develop
product service systems (Service design tools, 2010) and the Camp is a condensed version of
platform development process in the IT industry. Therefore, analyzing the two cases will help
understand the conventional approach to designing collaborative services on digital platform
and how effective it is in terms of facilitating the dual production of collaborative service.
104
Programming. In the PSD Lab, the objective of the class and the design specifications were
defined by the instructors and delivered to the students during this phase. A series of
introductory lectures on service design, interaction design and related methods were provided
to compensate for the students’ lack of knowledge in these areas. The students started
brainstorming the ideas of collaborative services targeting the Milan City.
In the case of the Social Innovation Camp, a competition for social innovation ideas was held
online. The organizing committee led by the Hope Institute defined design specifications and
the juries selected the 9 best ideas. During the orientation, the selected ideas were delivered to
the volunteers and design specifications were defined at the group meeting. Each group started
brainstorming the ideas, mostly technical issues related to implementation.
Data collection. In the PSD Lab, students conducted user studies to collect the data on their
target users’ needs. They benchmarked existing social innovation cases similar to their ideas,
interviewed potential service stakeholders, and referred to secondary sources to investigate the
target markets. For example, students who worked on the idea of Clothes Party interviewed the
owner of a store in Bologna whose service is dedicated to bartering used clothes to understand
how the business works and if it can benefit from the use of ICTs. Students also reflected their
personal experiences on their service concepts. For example, students who came up with
WeTunes were all exchange students who were visiting Milan for a semester. They experienced
difficulties adapting to the new environment as a foreigner in Milan and this became a
motivation to develop a service that connects people across the barriers of nationality and
language. One of them played the guitar and he proposed the idea of WeTunes based on his
experience as a band guitarist.
In the Social Innovation Camp, the selected ideas often lacked a rigorous study of target users
and markets. They came from personal experiences or, in one occasion, a group discussion and
were supported by the statistical data and/or benchmarking of similar solutions. The statistical
data were all from the secondary sources and although they successfully addressed problems
that needed to be solved, they lacked specificity. For example, a person who proposed Fun
Riding, a web and mobile platform for bike riders referred to a single source, a government-
issued report that estimated the percentages of transportation through bicycle in year 2013 and
2020. A person who proposed Treeing, a web solution that promotes tree planting referred to
the statistical data on the area of the green per person in Seoul and the rate of deforestation in
the same place. In any case, both data collection and analysis were done individually and lacked
the factual rigor. To compensate for the limitation, the Camp used the juries’ judgement.
105
Analysis. In this phase, students analyzed the data to identify the target users’ needs and to
define design problems. They focused on problems related to the social and environmental
aspect of sustainability in the context of local communities which was the theme of the class.
In the social innovation camp, the analysis phase was not a part of the camp and thus cannot be
described. However, given the amount and simplicity of the data presented by the idea
proposers, its weight in the overall process seems insignificant.
Synthesis. In the PSD Lab, students were guided to use a series of design tools to develop
service concepts. These concepts were refined through revisions with the instructors until they
were socially and environmentally sustainable and economically viable. As they identified
detailed service features using task analysis, flow chart and time line, they simultaneously
configured the features of the digital platform. In other words, the boundary between service
design and digital platform design became blurred at some point and there was a synergy effect
in running the two design processes in parallel.
In the Camp, synthesis phase began at the group meeting in the orientation. The digital platform
concepts were elaborated through discussion between idea proposers and developers.
Sometimes there were conflicts between the idea proposers and the developers regarding the
scope of the features and negotiations had to be made. In this phase, the developers defined the
features of their platform, decided which solutions to use to implement them and even designed
information architecture and wireframes of the platform.
Development (implementation). The implementation of the services and the platforms was
beyond the scope of the class and thus the final result was the conceptual product service
systems supported by digital platforms. In the Camp, 36 hours were devoted to implementing
the digital platforms. During this period, graphic images were designed based on the wireframe
and coding was done. By the end of the camp, 9 web and/or mobile platforms were produced.
However, they were not ready to function because the backstage services were not ready. The
Hope Institute reportedly had a plan to support the incubation of services and maintenance of
the platforms after the official camp was over. This makes the order of design process reversed
from that of the PSD Lab (Figure 4.34; Figure 4.35) and it is not as efficient as the latter because
the platform design may have to be modified as service concept is articulated.
Figure 4.34 Design process of the Social Innovation Camp
Service development
Platform development User needs
106
Figure 4.35 Design process of the PSD Lab
Communication. In the PSD Lab, a booklet that introduces the process and the outcome of
the class was published for dissemination. In the Social Innovation Camp, the final prototypes
were made accessible to the public and the entire process of the event – from idea competition
to the evaluation of the prototypes – was introduced on the official website. At the same time,
the event was promoted through the mass media and social media.
Table 4.1 summarizes the design process of PSD Lab vs. the Social Innovation Camp.
Table 4.1. Design process of PSD Lab vs. Social Innovation Camp
Platform development
Service development User needs
PSD Lab Social Innovation Camp
Programming
The instructors set an objective and design specifications. The students are instructed in service design, interaction design, and related methods and tools. Students brainstorm service ideas. The most promising ones are selected through a revision process.
The Hope Institute, the orgnizer of the camp, sets an objective and design specifications. The participants propose ideas based on their experiences and knowledge. The ideas are selected through a competition.
Volunteers to develop the ideas into working prototypes are recruited.
Data collection
Data on user needs are collected through interviews, case studies and secondary research methods. Students also refer to their own experiences of living in Milan.
Statistical data and benchmarking of similar cases are used to support the
validity of the proposed ideas.
Analysis Data are analyzed to identify user needs. Design problems are defined.
Unknown
Synthesis
Service ideas are developed using various service design tools and refined through revisions with the instructors.
The following tools are used to design services: persona, system map, motivation matrix, task analysis, flow chart, timeline, storyboard.
The information architecture and the layout of platforms are determined.
Service ideas are articulated at the group meetings. Negotiations are made between idea proposers and developers in the case of conflicts. The scope of platforms is redefined if necessary. The information architecture and the wireframe of digital platform are designed.
Development X
Developers gather at the Camp and work intensively for 36 hours to produce the prototypes of digital solutions for social innovations. During this period, UI/GUI of the platforms are designed and the coding is done.
CommunicationA booklet that introduces the process and the outcome of the class is published.
The prototypes are made accessible by the public. The result of the camp is promoted via mass media and social media.
107
4.4.2. Evaluation
4.4.2.1. Addressing technical needs
Despite its limitation, the idea behind the social innovation camp cannot be underrated as it
sheds light on the power of democratized technologies and more importantly, democratized
creativity. When the technologies to make changes to our society were in the hands of a few
people and could be used by them only, the speed of innovations was slow and the cost was high.
This made the vast majority of the society, those at the bottom of the socio-political structure,
the passive subject to innovations. As the technologies became cheaper and made available to
more people, they transformed into active innovators. The emergence of pre-fabricated digital
platforms and digital collaborative tools dramatically shortened the time to develop digital
solutions as it is well demonstrated in the social innovation camp. There are even user-friendly
development kits which allow a layman to develop software for himself (e.g. Android App
Inventor). Empowerment platforms such as Nabuur19, OpenIDEO20 and KIVA21 use collective
knowledge, skills and financing to help individuals fulfill their needs, thereby opening up
opportunities for people with innovative ideas to change their life and society. In short,
democratization of technologies have not only enabled laymen to use the technologies at hand to
fulfill their needs, but also empowered them to help others who are in even greater need,
thereby creating a collaboration chain that accelerates the diffusion of social innovations.
Coming back to the social innovation camp, its innovative approach to producing solutions for
social innovations can improve if it is combined with a systematic process to design
collaborative services demonstrated in the PSD Lab. In other words, a systematic approach can
be proposed such that it makes use of democratized creativity to generate solution ideas, uses
various service design tools to develop such ideas into robust service concepts, and uses
democratized technologies to implement enabling solutions.
4.4.2.2. Addressing social needs
The case studies revealed that both the PSD Lab and the Social Innovation Camp did not
address target users’ needs at the full scope, focusing on the technical dimension of collaborative
service and ignoring the social dimension. To be more specific, methods used in the data
collection, analysis and synthesis focused on addressing users’ technical needs and designing
technical solutions. The production of social networks, on the other hand, was viewed as a
byproduct of the solutions.
19 Nabuur is an online volunteering platform that links online volunteers with local communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 20 OpenIDEO is an online platform where the challenges posted by people are solved by volunteers through a collaborative design process. 21 KIVA is an online microcredit system that connects investors with entrepreneurs in the developing nations
108
According to the hypothesis of dual production of collaborative services, the synergistic
relationship between the production of solutions and that of social networks is mutual, forming
a virtuous cycle (see chapter 2). Therefore, design intervention on both elements will surpass
design intervention on either solutions or social networks in terms of facilitating the production
of collaborative services. This raises a need for a systematic approach to address users’ social
needs, i.e., a framework that supports enrichment of social networks that underpin collaborative
services.
A collaborative service is triggered by a shared need and driven by social networks. It is different
from collaborative production in the spectrum commons such as open source software projects
or creation of knowledge database: the latter involves collaborative goods – goods produced in
an environment that exhibits antirivalry 22 and inclusiveness 23 – which induces voluntary
participation of users (Cooper, 2005) but not necessarily with relational qualities among users;
the former on the other hand often involves private goods – goods produced in an environment
that exhibits rivalry24 and exclusiveness25 – such as food, mobility or houses. It also involves
face-to-face interaction among users and thus requires social networks and a certain degree of
relational qualities such as trust or respect. In short, the initial success of a collaborative service
depends on the existence of social networks and a digital platform that enables users to find,
establish and maintain new social connections.
Figure 4.36 Types of goods (Cooper, 2005)
22 Antirivalry is a situation in which increased use/production of the good by a person increases the amount/value of the good available to others. 23 Inclusiveness is a situation in which the value or amount of a good available for use/production increases as the number of people using/producing the good increases. 24 A good is rival if consumption by one person reduces the quantity that can be consumed by another person (Cooper, 2005). 25 A good is exclusive if consumers can be denied access.
109
Several studies on social network studies report that relations of community members can be
influenced by their use of ICTs (Kavanaugh, 1999; Wellman, 1999; 2001B; Haythornthwaite,
2002; Gruzd, 2009) and that combination of social and technical implementation can effect
connection among unconnected people (Haythornthwaite, 2002). If social networks are subject
to change through social and technical intervention, a collaborative service and its enabling
solution can be designed in such a way to affect social networks of collaborative communities to
develop in a desired direction. The question is how.
In the next chapter, a methodology to investigate social needs of a community is introduced in
the context of a project that aims to develop a series of collaborative services between local
agricultural producers and consumers in Milan. A digital platform was developed as an enabling
solution to support the collaborative services and one of its roles was to enrich the social
networks of the producers. The starting point was to identify their social needs by analyzing
their social relations. Based on the analysis of the social needs, obstacles to initiate collaborative
services were identified and service strategies and digital platform concepts were proposed. The
strategies involve socio-technical intervention to transform the social relations of the producers
towards a more sustainable direction, i.e., small, local, open and connected (Manzini, 2008).
110
5. A METHODOLOGY FOR INVESTIGATING SOCIAL NEEDS OF A COMMUNITY
Chapter 5 introduces a methodology for investigating social needs of a community in the context
of an ongoing project called ‘Nutrire Milano (Feeding Milan)’. The project is led by a consortium
of Politecnico di Milano, Slow Food and the University of Gastronomic Science and it aims to
revitalize the peri-urban region surrounding Milan and to create a sustainable food network that
brings together local producers and consumers through various collaborative services. Three
pilot cases of service system that support local producers are currently in progress – a farmers’
market in Milan, a bread production system and a vegetable garden. A digital platform for the
collaborative services was designed, with a special focus on addressing social needs of the target
users, thereby contributing to creating a resilient and convivial community. Thus a new
approach was adopted to investigate users’ social needs and to generate design strategies from
them. The results are fed into developing a socio-technical framework for collaborative service
that is introduced in chapter 6.
111
5.1. The Nutrire Milano Project
The background of this project is the dissipation of a vast agricultural area surrounding Milan
due to urban expansion and the jeopardy of losing local communities, their culture and
businesses and as a consequence. Meroni (2008, p.14) emphasizes the importance and potential
of peri-urban areas as below:
“It is the periurban area that lies between a town or city and its rural surroundings, and
is a critical context for the sustainable development of any urban area. … These areas
are currently subject to urban expansion where formerly separate cities and towns
merge into vast urbanised zones: the way this comes about is crucial for the
development of a region. It is here that urban and rural dynamics meet, creating unique
opportunities (or risks) to improve the quality of everyday life and make a decisive step
towards sustainable territorial development.”
The area surrounding Milan is called the Agricultural South Park or Parco Agricolo Sud Milano
(or Parco Sud) in Italian. It is a territory of 470 km2 surrounding the southern part of the Milan
city, in the region of Lombardy and its main utility is agricultural. It is partially owned by
farmers and partly rented out to farmers by the local authority. It is facing multiple problems
such as a decline of small farmers, overexploitation of the land due to agro-industrial
production and a lack of investment that results in decreased economic profitability of the area
other than the land itself (Ibid.).
In 2010, a project26 was launched by a consortium of Politecnico di Milano, Slow Food Italia and
Universita’ degli Studi di Scienze Gastroniche with an aim to create a sustainable food network
in the Parco Sud and to support local producers by providing them with economically viable and
environmentally sustainable service models. Over the next 5 years, the consortium will design
service scenarios, conduct territorial analyses, develop service ideas and implement the most
promising ideas into pilot projects, i.e., working prototypes and finally develop a digital
platform that support the services.
The project will proceed in 5 steps (Figure 5.1): In step 1, scenarios of a sustainable food network
in Milan and the peri-urban area are designed. Based on the territorial analyses (step 2),
services that can transform the Parco Sud into a sustainable agricultural space and promote
sustainable food consumption in Milan will be proposed (step 3) and implemented (step 4). The
final result will be communicated through various media and exhibited at the Milan Expo 2015
(step 5).
26 The Nutrire Milano Project was funded by the Fondazione Cariplo.
112
Figure 5.1 Process of Nutrire Milano Project (Nutrire Milano, 2009)
5.1.1. Aims and strategies
Facing globalization of food industry and consolidation of the market, small local producers are
loosing the ground and producers in the Parco Sud are no exception. In order to revitalize the
region, the first priority of the project was to improve their economic condition through robust
business strategies. The project team proposed two strategies: direct sales to consumers and
multifunctional farm.
In food industry, small and medium local producers use direct sales strategy to differentiate
themselves from large industrialized farms. Eliminating intermediate agents in food supply
chain and establishing a direct network with consumers create several economic, environmental
and social benefits to producers and consumers such as acquisition of high quality products
from consumers perspective and increased profit by saving marketing and distribution cost
from producers perspective; less dependence on fossil fuels and reduced CO2 emission; inducing
responsible production consumption behaviors; strengthening the relationships between rural
and urban areas; and inspiring new urban lifestyles such as urban farming and guerilla
gardening (Meroni, 2008).
The concept of multifunctionality in agriculture offers farms the opportunity to diversify their
sources of income by supplying other, non-commodity outputs alongside their primary function
of producing food and fiber, thus contributing to the socio-economic viability of many rural
areas (OECD, 2001). These non-commodity outputs can be seen as services linked to the
environment, territory and people; landscape preservation; and proximity tourism. A synergy
TERRITORIAL ANALYSES
SERVICE DESIGN
PILOT PROJECTS
COMMUNICATION
YEAR 1 (2010) YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
113
effect is produced when the second strategy can be linked to the first strategy, i.e., connection
created from direct sales of commodity outputs can be used to provide non-commodity outputs.
5.1.2. The first pilot project: upgrading a farmers’ market in Milan
The first pilot project is to upgrade a farmers’ market in Milan using service design. This market
is a Milan version of an international network of farmers’ market called the Mercati della Terra
(the Earth Markets). Mercati della Terra were organized by the Slow Food with an aim to create
a place where producers and consumers interact; to provide educational opportunities for
consumers; and to promote culture, history, identity and health of the local community (I
Mercati della Terra, 2010). Currently 16 markets are run in 5 countries – Italy, Israel, Latvia,
Lebanon and Romania. The Milan edition was launched in December 12th, 2009 and since then
it has been held once a month in a public park called Giardini Largo Marinai d’Italia. About 70
producers of local producers qualified by the Slow Food and mostly located within 40 km from
Milan sell their products at the market. The products include vegetables, fruits, dairy products,
processed foods, meat, wines, beers, breads, plants, honey and many others.
The Mercato della Terra in Milan is not the only farmers’ market in Milan. The Farmers’
Cooperative and Coldiretti, an organization that supports agriculture and protects farmers’
rights, launched the first farmers’ market in Milan in 2008. It is held once a week in the venue
of Farmers' Cooperative of Milan and Lodi in Ripamonti Street.
Despite the high quality of products and their sustainable nature, farmers’ markets have
remained marginal in Milan for several reasons: firstly, the prices are generally higher or
perceived to be higher than other food sources. Many consumers expect the farmers’ market to
be less an expensive place to shop than or at least competitive to other food sources (e.g.
supermarkets) as they purchase directly from producers. However, depending on the type of
products, the prices can be quite higher than ones in the supermarkets. Secondly, access to the
markets is limited. The Mercato della Terra is held only once a month and in one venue. The
Coldiretti Farmers’ Market is held once a week in two venues. Neither of them provides a
delivery service. Thirdly, the variety and quantity of products are limited compared to
supermarkets since the markets only deal with seasonal produce from local regions. For
consumers who are used to buying year-round vegetables and fruits, farmers’ markets are an
inconvenient choice. Ironically, despite a lack of variety of products and inconvenience, the
demand exceeds the supply. In the recent years, a rising attention to food safety and food
security in Italy has led to an increasing demand for quality agricultural products such as
organic products (Euromonitor International, 2006). However, the number small local farms
has been decreasing and hence there are not enough local products to meet the rising demand of
sustainable consumption. Lastly, the farmers’ markets are not widely known among the citizens
due to a lack of marketing strategies.
114
In this context, the first pilot project aims to upgrade the Mercato della Terra in Milan into an
event that is socially, environmentally and economically more sustainable. This transformation
will be realized through design intervention, more specifically using design for social innovation
as a theoretical framework and service design as a methodological framework.
The role of a digital platform is threefold: to promote the Nutrire Milano project, to enhance
communication among the consortium partners, and most importantly, to support the pilot
projects with socio-technical intervention. It means that the platform will be designed to
facilitate social relations of the producers and the consumers and simultaneously to provide
solutions to improve technical aspect of the services to be designed, starting with the farmers’
market.
5.2. Methods
As discussed in chapter 3, a collaborative service produces two elements essential to a
sustainable society: a solution to users’ technical needs and social networks among collaborative
individuals. The platform aims to amplify the production of solutions and social networks with
through socio-technical intervention. Socio-technical intervention is the implementation of
design strategies to facilitate the dual production of collaborative service. The strategies, in turn,
are developed based on user needs – technical and social – that are identified through user
studies. Figure 5.2 is the schematic process of designing a digital platform for collaborative
services.
115
Figure 5.2 A schematic process of designing a digital platform for collaborative services
To collect data related user needs on the farmers’ market, surveys and interviews were
conducted for producers and consumers at the market. The data were collected for 3 months
from August to October 2010. It aimed to collect the following data: basic user information, the
extent to which they perceive the market as a community, how producers and consumers are
connected, how they collaborate using which technologies, and what kind of new services they
want to participate in the future. The survey was conducted both online and offline. The online
version was distributed through email, the website of Mercati della Terra, the Facebook page of
the market and printouts that include the link to the survey. The offline version was distributed
at the marketplace.
The survey was conducted online based on the fact that target respondents had access to the
Internet. According to the Global City Report (2010), Milan is one of the most technologically
advanced cities in Italy with its excellence in the construction of optical fiber network
throughout the city (Gianasso & Tiano, 2010). The average Internet usage rate in Italy is
approximately 50% (Ibid.) but the rate is higher in the northwest part where the industrialized
cities such as Milan and Turin are located. In addition, the rate is higher among people with the
level of education above high school and the level of income above average (Livraghi, 2010).
Given that more than 95% of the consumers in the market have completed high schools (see the
116
survey result), it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of consumers in the market have
access to the Internet.
In the case of the producers, the survey forms were distributed through email to those who had
access to the Internet and paper copies were handed out to those who did not have access to the
Internet at the market. 43 producers and 111 consumers responded to the survey during this
period (estimated on October 22nd). The response rate for the producers was 91% with margin of
error 5% and confidence rate 95%. The response rate for the consumers could not be calculated
since the population size is unknown. The surveys were designed using Google® docs.
Separate questionnaires were designed for the producers and the consumers. The survey for the
producers consisted of 75 questions and the survey for consumers consisted of 82 questions.
The questionnaires were composed of 5 parts:
• Basic information of users
• Sense of community in the market
• Social networks of producers
• Description of collaborative activities
• Feedbacks to new services proposed for the market
Questions on basic information of users included the name and location of farm (producers),
user’s age, gender, income level, education level, items produced and services offered
(producers), places for shopping (consumers), the number of visits to this market and the use
ICTs in daily life.
The SCI was used to measure the sense of community of producers and consumers at the
farmers’ market. Thus two sets of 12 questions were developed: The SCI for producer aimed to
measure the sense of community among the producers at the market and therefore inquired
their perception towards the market and other producers (Table 5.2). The SCI for consumer
aimed to measure the sense of community among consumers at the market and therefore
inquired their perception towards the market and the producers (Table 5.2).
Table 5.1 The SCI for producer at the market
Items Yes No
1. I think this farmers’ market is a good place for me to sell my produce. ! "
2. Producers in this farmers’ market do not share the same values. " " 3. Other producers and I want the same thing from this farmers’ market. " " 4. I can recognize most of the producers in the farmers’ market. " " 5. I feel at home in the farmers’ market. " " 6. Very few of producers in the farmers’ market know me. " " 7. I care about what other producers think of my actions. " "
117
8. I have no influence over what the farmers’ market is like. " " 9. If there is a problem related to the market, producers can get it solved. " " 10. It is very important to me to sell my produce in this market. " " 11. Producers in this market generally do not get along with one another. " " 12. I expect to sell my produce in this market for a long time. " "
Table 5.2 The SCI for consumer at the market
Items Yes No
1. I think this farmers’ market is a good place for me to shop. ! "
2. Consumers and producers in this farmers’ market do not share the same values. " "
3. Producers and I want the same thing from this farmers’ market. " " 4. I can recognize most of producers that I buy products from in the farmers’ market. " "
5. I feel at home in the farmers’ market. " " 6. Very few of producers in the farmers’ market know me. " " 7. I care about what producers think of my actions. " " 8. I have no influence over what the farmers’ market is like. " " 9. If there is a problem related to the market, farmers and consumers can get it solved. " "
10. It is very important to me to shop in this market. " " 11. Producers and consumers in this market generally don’t get along with one another. " "
12. I expect to shop in this market for a long time. " "
Followed by the sense of community, the producers and the consumers were inquired of their
current collaborative activities with other producers and consumers in the market. They were
asked what type of collaborative activity they are involved; with whom they collaborate; how
long they have collaborate; how many people are involved in the activity; how frequently they
get in contact with others to collaborate; and what technologies they used to collaborate. The
type of collaborative activity was defined based on the result of case studies on collaborative
services (see chapter 3) and it was given as a multiple-choice question. The defined types are as
follows:
Table 5.3 Types of collaborative activities
Producers Consumers Producers • Creating/managing a direct network with
consumers • Aggregate social actions • Socializing • Providing mutual support to solve
common problems • Exchanging competences, time and
products • Sharing products, places and knowledge • Others
• Community-supported agriculture • Direct selling • Food box delivery service • Didactic activities (e.g. Urban farming
class) • Farm visits • Agritourism • Others
Consumers
• Community-supported agriculture • Direct purchase • Food box delivery service
• Creating/managing a direct network with consumers
• Aggregate social actions
118
• Didactic activities (e.g. Urban farming class)
• Farm visits • Agritourism • Others
• Socializing • Providing mutual support to solve
common problems • Exchanging competences, time and
products • Sharing products, places and knowledge • Others
Among the inquired attributes of collaborative activities, duration, frequency and group size are
the factors that influence the strength of personal ties and are expected to provide data on the
strength of social networks in the existent collaborative groups. The questions were given as a
multiple-choice question.
The names of producers in collaboration were collected in order to analyze the social network
structure of producers in collaboration. The data were then analyzed and visualized using social
network analysis software.
The results of the SCI, the degree of collaboration and social network analysis were analyzed to
identify needs related users’ social relations, and they fed into developing strategies to reinforce
their relations.
5.3. Result
5.3.1. Demographic information
5.3.1.1. Producers
The age of the producers was distributed from thirties to over sixties (Figure 5.3). Producers at
thirties composed of one-third of the total population (33%), followed by those older than sixties
(23%), younger than thirties (8%), forties (16%) and fifties (9%). This demographic composition
is considerably different from that of the average Italian farmers. As of 2005, the percentage of
farmers under 35 ranges from 2.3 to 5.2% and the percentage of over-65s is more than ten times
greater than that of under-35s, making the average Italian farmer one of the eldest in Europe
(AGRESTE, 2008).
!"#$"%&'"
#$(#&"##'")$()&"
%*'"
+$(+&"&'"
,"*$"-#'"
119
Figure 5.3 Age of the producers in the market
74% of the total respondents were male and 26% female. 65% had a farm within 40km from
Milan and 23% in Lombardy region (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4 Distance from the producers’ farms to Milan
The producers produced various items including crops, dairy products, processed foods (e.g.
sausages), vegetables, fruits, meat, bread, fruit juice, sweets, plants, flowers others (Figure 5.5).
Other items included aromatic products, rice, milk, pies, cookies, chocolates, prosciutto crudo,
beer, wine and honey.
Figure 5.5 Products offered by the producers
Services offered by the producers varied from direct sales, didactic farm, courses/laboratories,
farm visits, courses on the land use, agritourism, restaurants, organic certification, tour guide
(Park point) and others (Figure 5.6). More than 90% sold their products through direct sales,
about 60% offered farm visits.
!"#$%&'()*+&,-."/)#*).$#&
0$.1&234&
5"*+"%&67&18&9.(8&!"#$%&:!"#$%&()*&(9&*+;&,-."/)#*).$#&0$.1&'()*+<&
674&
!(.;&*+$%&67&18&9.(8&!"#$%&:"%&=(8>$.?@<&
2A4&
!(.;&*+$%&67&18&9.(8&!"#$%&
:"%&(*+;.&.;-"(%B<&
24&C*+;.B&D4&
!"# $"# %!"# %$"# &!"# &$"# '!"# '$"# (!"#
)*+*,-./*0#
1234,0#
52670#
8-429#726:3;,0#
<*-,#
=*-#>66:0#
?26;*00*:#>66:0#@*A+A#0-30-+*0B#
C2*-:#
824DE0F#0G**,0#
?/-D,0F#H6G*20#
I,J*20#
120
Figure 5.6 Services offered by the producers
The period of the Internet use varied from less than one year to lifetime. All the producers had
access to the Internet on a daily basis or a weekly basis (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7 Frequency of using the Internet (producers)
The respondents used the Internet for a variety of purposes – to connect with other people,
entertainment, work/study, e-commerce (for private use), e-commerce (for work) and other
(Figure 5.8). More than 50% were using e-commerce platforms in their businesses.
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"# $!!"#
-./012#3044.56#
-.78191#:8/;#
<=>/303#857#?=/@3A=B3#
:8/;#C.3.23#
D=>203#E=/#2A0#>30#=E#4857#
F=3B.284.2GH#86/.2=>/3.;#
D0328>/852#
I/685.1#<0/9J189=5#
K8/@#B=.52#L.5E=/;89=5#30/C.103M#
I2A0/3#
!"#$
%&#$
'#$'#$
()*+,$
-../+,$
01234+,$
5)5.+,$
121
Figure 5.8 Purpose of using the Internet (producers)
5.3.1.2. Consumers
The age of the consumers was distributed from less than 30 to more than 60 (Figure 5.9). The
largest age group was people in their 40s (29%), followed by 30s (26%), 50s (21%), over-60s
(12%) and under-30s (12%).
Figure 5.9 Age of the consumers
62% of the consumer respondents were female and 37% were male. Over 90% of the people who
visit the farmers’ market were the residents of the Province of Milan. 3% were from other
provinces of Lombardy region, and 5% were from other regions (Figure 5.10).
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"#
-.//012/3#4567#.67089#
:/6086;5/<0/6#
=.8>#?#96@AB#
0C1.<<0810#DE85F;60#@90G#
0C1.<<0810#DH@95/099#@90G#
I67089#
!"#$"%&'"
#$(#)"&*'"
+$(+)"&)'"
,$(,)"&%'"
-"*$"%&'"
122
Figure 5.10 Location of the consumers
97% of the respondents completed tertiary education. More than 52% had a bachelor’s degree
and 6% had a PhD (Figure 5.11). The education level of the consumers was considerably higher
than that of Italian average: only 67% of Italians enroll in tertiary school (UNESCO Institute for
Statistics, 2008).
Figure 5.11 Education level of the consumers
The consumers answered that they acquire food from various sources with the most popular
choice being supermarkets (85%), followed by farmers’ markets (57%), local markets (29%),
small neighborhood shops (23%), superstores (19%), farms (12%) and others (15%) (Figure
5.12).
!"#$%&'(")*+&,,-&
!"#$%&'./01"%23+&
45-&
6078$/9*&:-&
;)<3/=&5-&
!"##$%&'()**$&+,&
-".)&'()**$&/0,&
12#%3.34#546%&/7,&
8)9&7,&
:6)%3'&/,&
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"#
-./00#123456785779#:57;:#
-<;28./8=2>#
?@;28./8=2>#
A7B/0#./8=2>#
C879<B28:D#./8=2>##
E/8.#
F>528:#
123
Figure 5.12 Sources to buy groceries (consumers)
90% of the consumers wanted to have the farmers’ market more frequently held than once a
month as it currently is. The majority wanted once a week while only 10% were satisfied with
once a week (Figure 5.13).
Figure 5.13 Desired frequency of the farmers’ market (consumers)
Almost every respondent used the Internet on a daily basis and for various purposes. 59% used
the Internet to create and maintain social networks and 45% purchased goods through e-
commerce (Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14 Purpose of the Internet use (consumers)
5.3.2. Sense of community
41 producers (response rate 91%) and 86 consumers (response rate unknown) responded to the
SCI questionnaire. Overall the sense of community in the farmers’ market in Milan was higher
than the average. Looking into the subgroups of the SCI, the analysis revealed that the level of
shared emotional connection and integration and fulfillment of needs were high in both
producers and consumers while membership and influence were relatively low in both groups.
!"#$%&%'$$(%)*+%
!"#$%$,$-.%/%'$$(0%12+%
!"#$%&%34"56%7+%
!##&084"&99.%%/+%
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"#
-.//012/3#4567#.67089#
:/6086;5/<0/6#
=.8>#?#96@AB#
0C1.<<0810#DE85F;60#@90G#
0C1.<<0810#DH@95/099#@90G#
I67089#
124
Comparing the two groups, the sense of community level of the producers (9.41) was higher
than that of the consumers (8.03). The former scored higher than the latter in the following
elements: membership, influence and shared emotional connection. Integration and fulfillment
of needs was higher among the consumers than the producers.
The sense of community among the producers (9.41) was 56% higher than the average (6.00)
(Table 5.4). Shared emotional connection scored the highest among the four elements (2.73),
followed by integration and fulfillment of needs (2.41), influence (2.17) and membership (2.10).
All four elements scored higher than the average (1.50).
Table 5.4 The sense of community level of the producers
Subgroup Average Average (item)
Minimum value
Maximum value
Theoretical average
Integration and fulfillment of needs
2.41 0.80 0.00 3.00 1.50
Membership 2.10 0.70 0.00 3.00 1.50 Influence 2.17 0.72 0.00 3.00 1.50 Shared emotional connection
2.73 0.91 0.00 3.00 1.50
Sense of community 9.41 0.78 0.00 12.00 6.00
The sense of community of the consumers scored 8.03, which is 33% higher than the average of
6.00 (Table 5.5). The integration and fulfillment of needs was the highest among the four
elements scoring 2.57, followed by shared emotional connection (2.47), influence (1.64) and
membership (1.36). All the elements except membership scored higher than the average (1.50).
In the next section, the result of each element is explained.
Table 5.5 The sense of community level of the consumers
Subgroup Average Average (item)
Minimum value
Maximum value
Theoretical average
Integration and fulfillment of needs
2.57 0.86 0.00 3.00 1.50
Membership 1.36 0.45 0.00 3.00 1.50 Influence 1.64 0.55 0.00 3.00 1.50 Shared emotional connection
2.47 0.82 0.00 3.00 1.50
Sense of community 8.03 0.67 0.00 12.00 6.00
5.3.2.1. Membership
In both producers and consumers, the lowest score came from the membership category. This
implies that improvement in this category will substantially increase the overall sense of
community. According to McMillan and Chavis (1986), membership is determined by sub-
factors including community boundaries, emotional safety, personal investment, sense of
belonging and identification and common symbol system (Figure 5.15), which are
interconnected. In the case of both producers and consumers, the low membership is due to
125
their inability to recognize other people at the market (Q4) and the perception that others do not
know them (Q6) (Table 5.6, Table 5.7).
Table 5.6 Producers’ average scores on membership
Sense of community index Average score 4. I can recognize most of the farmers in the farmers’ market. 0.66
5. I feel at home in the farmers’ market. 0.88
6. Very few of farmers in the farmers’ market know me. 0.56
Table 5.7 Consumers’ average scores on membership
Sense of community index Average score 4. I can recognize most of producers that I buy products from in the farmers’ market. 0.50
5. I feel at home in the farmers’ market. 0.67
6. Very few of producers in the farmers’ market know me. 0.19
The sub-elements of membership are interconnected: a lack of identification in a community
weakens one’s perception that he or she is “part of the group”, or a sense of belonging, and also
prevents the community boundary to be formed (Figure 5.15).
Figure 5.15 Elements of Sense of Community and Their Hypothesized Relationships (McMillan & Chavis,
1986)
5.3.2.2. Influence
The level of influence perceived by the producers and the consumers was the second lowest of
the four elements of SoC. Influence is a bidirectional concept according to McMillan and Chavis
(1986) and one is attracted to a community when he or she has some influence to what the
126
community does and at the same time is open to influence by other community members. In the
farmers’ market, approximately 40% of producers and 60% of consumers answered that they
had no influence over what the farmers’ market is like at the individual level. However, 90% of
the producers and 80% of the consumers believed that they could together solve a problem
related to the market (Table 5.7, Table 5.8).
Table 5.8 Producers’ average scores on influence
Sense of community index Average score 7. I care about what other producers think of my actions. 0.63
8. I have no influence over what the producers’ market is like. 0.63
9. If there is a problem related to the market, producers can get it solved. 0.90
Table 5.9 Consumers’ average scores on influence
Sense of community index Average score 7. I care about what producers think of my actions. 0.44 8. I have no influence over what the farmers’ market is like. 0.38 9. If there is a problem related to the market, producers and consumers can get it solved. 0.81
5.3.2.3. Integration and fulfillment of needs
The level of integration and fulfillment of needs was high in both producers (0.80) and
consumers (0.86) (Table 5.4, Table 5.5). In fact, it was the only element where the consumers
scored higher than the producers. It indicates that both the consumers and the producers are
highly satisfied with the market in terms of fulfilling their needs.
There was almost unanimous agreement that the market fulfills the needs of sellers and buyers
in general (Q1 in Table 5.10 and Table 5.11). 68% of the producers believed that the producers at
the market share the same values and 76% said that they want the same thing from the market.
76% of the consumers believed that consumers and producers at the market share the same
value and 84% said that they want the same thing from the market as the producers.
Table 5.10 Producers’ average scores on integration and fulfillment of needs
Sense of community index Average score 1. I think this farmers’ market is a good place for me to sell my produces. 0.98
2. Producers in this farmers’ market do not share the same values. 0.68
3. Other producers and I want the same thing from this farmers’ market. 0.76
Table 5.11 Consumers’ average scores on integration and fulfillment of needs
Sense of community index Average score 1. I think this farmers’ market is a good place for me to shop. 0.98
2. Consumers and producers in this farmers’ market do not share the same values. 0.76
3. Producers and I want the same thing from this farmers’ market. 0.84
127
5.3.2.4. Shared emotional connection
The level of shared emotional connection was high among both producers and consumers at the
market, scoring 2.73 and 2.47 respectively (maximum 3.00) (Table 5.4, Table 5.5). Most of the
respondents considered it to be very important to go to the market (Q10 in Table 5.12 and Table
5.13). More than 90% of the producers perceived that producers in the market get along with
other producers (0.93) and about 70% of consumers stated that producers and consumers in the
market get along with one another (0.72) (Q11). Most producers and consumers said that they
expect to sell or shop at the market for a long time (Q 12).
Table 5.12 Producers’ average scores on shared emotional connection
Sense of community index Average score 10. It is very important to me to sell my produces in this market. 0.88
11. Producers in this market generally do not get along with one another. 0.93 12. I expect to sell my produces in this market for a long time. 0.93
Table 5.13 Consumers’ average scores of shared emotional connection
Sense of community index Average score 10. It is very important to me to shop in this market. 0.78 11. Producers and consumers in this market generally don’t get along with one another. 0.72
12. I expect to shop in this market for a long time. 0.97
5.3.3. Social network analysis
The social network of the producers in the farmers’ market was obtained by analyzing their
description of collaboration partners. The producers were asked to identify who among the
producers in the market they collaboration with and to describe their collaborative activity. The
UCINET 6 was used to analyze the network structures and Netdraw was used to visualize them.
Out of 43 respondents, 2 responded twice and therefore the total number of valid responses was
41. Although 28 producers responded that they were involved in collaboration with other
producers, only 16 of them identified the names of their collaborators. The rest 25 producers
were thus treated as isolates. 4 producers did not identify their names and were marked as X,
XX, XXX and XXXX.
Figure 5.16 illustrates the social networks of producers in the farmers' market. The nodes
indicate the producers and the arrows indicate collaborative relationships. A ! B means that
producer A claims to collaborates with producer B but not vice versa. A "# B means that both A
and B claims collaborate with each other.
128
Figure 5.16 Social networks of producers at the farmers’ market (red nodes are isolates)
The social network diagram reveals that the producers’ social network structure is fragmented,
consisting of isolated groups and many isolates. In order to identify the nature of the
collaborative groups, additional information of the producers obtained from the survey was
utilized. Figure 5.17 is a network structure of the producers with each node indicating the type of
their products instead. 5 producers did not identify the type of their products and thus were
marked as a question mark. The majority of the nodes have the identical or related type of
products with their neighboring nodes, supporting the survey result that the exchange of
competence, time and products frequently take place among producers of the same product
type. Another type of collaborative service shown in the figure is mutual support. For example, a
bread maker and a jam maker collaborate because they produce pies together.
Producer M1
Producer M2
Producer L
Producer C
Producer M3
Producer A
Producer F1
Producer G
Producer P1
Producer U
Producer L
Producer S
Producer Z Producer P2
Producer F2
X
129
Figure 5.17 Collaboration between the producers of the same type of items (in orange dotted line) and of
supplementary items (in green solid line)
Likewise, the postal codes of the producers were mapped onto the nodes to identify a correlation
between the location of the producers and collaboration. The result showed that the producers’
collaborative groups are often based on geographic location. Most of the producers were
collaborating with partners within 30km. Exceptions were a network between the producer M3
and the producer A who were 50 km away and a network between the producer L1 and the
producer P which were 210 km far away. Both M3 and A produce dairy products. L1 produces
milk, cheese, beef and salami while P produces olive oil. The result indicates that the producers’
social networks are fragmented into groups based on locality.
Crops
Dairy products
Dairy products, salami
Bread
Bread – processed foods
Bread – processed foods
!"#$%&'()*+&),#-&%.#%$"#+*/%+#-$%
!"#$%&'()*+&),#-&%.#%$"#+*/%0)&1*%.#%1&"*-2*-&/%34,$%.#%5*3#"#0$/%3*"3*%.#%6&6&)$-#%
Olive oil
130
Figure 5.18 Social networks of producers at the farmers’ market labeled in the postal code (red nodes are
isolates)
In addition, the producers’ social networks were visualized with each node representing the type
of services they offer (Figure 5.19). There was much homogeneity in service type among the
producers in the same group. On average, 57% of the service types in a group were offered by
every member of the group. It seemed that producers who produce the same product have a
similar business model based on multifunctional farm. For example, crop producers commonly
offered direct sales, didactic farm and farm visit; olive oil producers offered direct sales, farm
visit, and organic certification; and dairy producers offered direct sales (service types in the red
box in Figure 5.19). However, such similarities seemed to be partly due to an overall
homogeneity in the services provided by the producers at the market.
26 km
50 km
210 km
6 km
0 km
0 km
20 km
0 km 0 km
5 km 10 km
131
Figure 5.19 Social networks of producers at the farmers’ market labeled in the type of services they offer
5.3.4. The degree of collaboration
5.3.4.1. Producers
65% of the producers reported that they were already engaged in some type of collaboration
with other producers. The most frequent type of collaborative activities was ‘exchange of
exchanging competences, time and products’ (e.g. time banking, selling other producers’
products in farm stores) (54%). It was followed by ‘creation and management of a direct
network with consumers’ (e.g. solidarity purchasing groups) (29%); ‘provision of mutual
support to solve common problems’ (21%); ‘socialization’ (18%); ‘sharing products, places and
knowledge’ (14%); and ‘others’ (18%) (Figure 5.20). In selecting the type of collaborative
activities, the respondents were guided with examples.
Crops
Dairy products
Dairy products, salami
Olive oil
Bread
132
Figure 5.20 Types of collaborative activities between the producers in the market
Other collaborative activities included collaboration between producers of the same item (e.g.
plant producers sharing pollens for pollination, rice producers helping each other in husking,
collaboration between beer producers), collaboration between producers of supplementary
items, i.e., different parts of a product or a service (e.g. a jam producers and a baker collaborate
to produce a tart) and collaboration between producers in the same region (e.g. a consortium of
the producers of the Parco del Ticino).
To measure the tie strength of collaborative groups, factors such as duration of their activities,
frequency of interaction, types and reciprocity of collaboration, and the size of collaborative
groups were inquired.
Although the duration of collaborative services varied according to the type of services, the
majority of the producers’ collaborative groups have lasted from 1 to 9 years. This was followed
by ‘more than 20 years’; ‘less than 1 year’; and ‘from 10 to 19 years’. In fact, 90% of all
collaborative groups have lasted for at least 1 year (Figure 5.21) indicating that their tie
strengths are both strong and weak .
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"#
*+,-./0#-01#2-0-3,2,04#/5#16+,74#7/04-748#964:#7/08;2,+8#<,=3=#>;+7:-8603#3+/;>8?#
@/76-A6B-./0#
C;4;-A#8;>>/+4#5/+#82-AA#7/22/0#>+/DA,28#<,=3=#2,,.038#-01#1687;886/08#/0#2;4;-A#
EF7:-03,#/5#,F>,+.8,G#.2,G#>+/1;748#<,=3=#8,AA603#>+/1;748#5+/2#/4:,+#2-0;5-74;+,+8#60#
@:-+603#>+/1;748G#8>-7,#-01#H0/9A,13,#<,=3=#8:-+603#-#I-0#/+#,J;6>2,04?#
K4:,+8#
133
Figure 5.21 Duration of the producers’ collaborative activities
The size of collaborative groups differed from one type of collaboration to another. Groups for
socialization was relatively bigger than other type of groups with the majority having more than
50 members. Groups for sharing products, places and knowledge and exchanging competences,
time and products, on the other hand, were more evenly distributed in terms of the size with a
slightly larger number of groups under-10 or above-50 members. (Figure 5.22).
Figure 5.22 Size of the producers’ collaborative groups
The frequency of interaction varied in the type of collaborative activities. Groups for
socialization had more frequent interaction among members than any other types, followed by
creating direct networks with consumers and exchanging competences, time and products.
Throughout all types, 60% of the respondents met at least once a month (Figure 5.23).
!"
!"
!"
#"
$"
%"
&&"
#%"
$'"
%$"
%!"
%#"
#"
("
!"
#"
'"
'"
("
%#"
)"
&"
$"
$"
'"
("
("
$"
&"
*"
'+" %'+" #'+" $'+" &'+" !'+" *'+" ('+" ,'+" )'+" %''+"
-./0123450203623"0"76./89"2/9:;.<":69="8;2>?5/.>"
@;860A6B623"
C.;D67623"5?9?0A">?EE;.9"9;">;AD/"8;55;2"E.;FA/5>"
GH8=023623"8;5E/9/28/>I"15/"027"E.;7?89>"
@=0.623"E.;7?89>I"EA08/>"027"<2;:A/73/"
J9=/.>"
K%" L.;5"%"9;")" L.;5"%'"9;"%)" M"#'" N;"2;9"<2;:"
!"
#$"
%"
#&"
#&"
'"
%"
#$"
$"
!"
!"
'"
("
'"
'"
("
!"
'"
%"
)'"
%"
#$"
#&"
$"
$#"
$"
$*"
#$"
%"
("
'+" #'+" $'+" )'+" &'+" %'+" *'+" ('+" ,'+" !'+" #''+"
-./0123450203623"0"76./89"2/9:;.<":69="8;2>?5/.>"
@;860A6B623"
C.;D67623"5?9?0A">?EE;.9"9;">;AD/"8;55;2"E.;FA/5>"
GH8=023623"8;5E/9/28/>I"15/"027"E.;7?89>"
@=0.623"E.;7?89>I"EA08/>"027"<2;:A/73/"
J9=/.>"
K#'" L.;5"#'"9;"$!" L.;5")'"9;"%'" M"%'" N../3?A0.";."7;"2;9"<2;:"
134
Figure 5.23 Frequency of interaction in the producers’ collaborative groups
The producers were using various ICTs to collaborate with one another. The most favored one
was face-to-face meeting (86%), followed by mobile phone (75%), telephone (57%) and email
(54%). 18% used website/e-commerce platforms and other media such as blog, mailing list and
newsletter were used by few (Figure 5.24).
Figure 5.24 Social media used by the producers in collaborative activities
The producers reported that about a half of them were currently engaged in collaboration with
consumers in the market. Such collaborations included direct selling (50%), community-
supported agriculture (CSA) (35%), farm visits (20%), didactic activities (15%), agritourism
(10%), and food box delivery service (5%) (Figure 5.25).
!"
#"
#"
#"
$"
%"
&'"
&'"
("
&!"
#"
%"
&!"
&("
&("
!&"
("
%"
&("
#"
&("
("
("
%"
#"
%"
!"
$"
&)"
*"
%+" &%+" !%+" *%+" )%+" $%+" '%+" #%+" ,%+" (%+" &%%+"
-./0123450203623"0"76./89"2/9:;.<":69="8;2>?5/.>"
@;860A6B623"
C.;D67623"5?9?0A">?EE;.9"9;">;AD/"8;55;2"E.;FA/5>"
GH8=023623"8;5E/9/28/>I"15/"027"E.;7?89>"
@=0.623"E.;7?89>I"EA08/>"027"<2;:A/73/"
J9=/.>"
K06AL" M//<AL" N;29=AL" .0./AL" O../3?A0.";."7;"2;9"<2;:"
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"# $!!"#
-./01231-./0#400567#
89360#
43:;<0#
04.;<#
4.;<;67#<;=2#
60>=<0?0@#
:<37#
>0:=;20#A#01/3440@/0#8<.B3@4#
=3/;.<#602>3@C;67#=0@D;/0=#E0F7F#G./0:33CH#I>;?0@J#
36<;60#K;=/L==;36#-3@L4#
20<0/36-0@06/0#
3290@=#
135
Figure 5.25 Type of collaborative activities that the producers are engaged with the consumers
The number of consumers that the producers collaborate with varied in the type of activities.
Farm visits, didactic activities and direct sales were among the bigger groups as they tend to be
organized by consumer organizations such as GAS or schools. In agritourism and food box
delivery service, groups were smaller, irregular or not known (Figure 5.26).
Figure 5.26 Size of groups in collaboration between the producers and the consumers
The length of collaboration also varied depending on the type of activities with almost the
majority of groups having lasted for 1-9 years. Direct sales, didactic activities and farm visits had
longer histories than other types of activities while food box deliver services had a relatively
short history (Figure 5.27). 15% of all the collaborative groups have lasted for less than 1 year
while another 15% have lasted for more than 10 years.
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"#
*+,,-./0123-44+5067#895/:-;0-56#
</56:0#38;63##
<6;/=651#365=/:6#+>#3683+.8;#>5-/03#8.7#=69608?;63#
</78:@:#8:@=/@63#A#B+5C3D+43#
E85,#=/3/03#
F95/0+-5/3,#
G0D653#
!"
#"
!"
!"
$"
#"
$"
%"
#"
!"
#"
#"
#"
$"
$"
&$"
$"
&#"
&'"
$"
$"
#"
#"
$"
$"
#"
#"
$"
&#"
#"
&'"
#"
!"
&#"
!"
$(" &$(" #$(" )$(" '$(" !$(" *$(" %$(" +$(" ,$(" &$$("
-.//0123456077.839:";<82=0>3089"
?289=3"6;>96"
@..:"A.B":9>2C984"698C2=9"
?2:;=D=";=DC2D96"
@;8/"C26236"
E<823.0826/"
F3G986"
H&$" @8./"&$"3."#," @8./")$"3."!$" I"!$" J889<0>;8".8":."1.3"K1.L"
136
Figure 5.27 Length of collaboration between the producers and the consumers
Regarding the frequency of collaboration, almost 70% of the producers got in contact with
consumers on a regular basis with 25% meeting monthly, 19% rarely, 18% monthly and 9%
daily. The producers met consumers daily through agritourism and direct sales; weekly through
direct sales, food box delivery service and CSA; monthly through farm visits, agritourism, food
box delivery and CSA (Figure 5.28). Direct sales happened most frequently and didactic
activities happened least frequently.
Figure 5.28 Frequency of interaction between the producers and the consumers
The ICTs use pattern of the producers in communicating with consumers was similar to their
pattern in communicating with other producers. Face-to-face meeting (78%) and email were
most often used (72%), followed by mobile phone, telephone, website/e-commerce platform and
mailing list (Figure 5.29). However, a slight difference was observed in the use of social media.
!"
!"
#"
$"
$"
!"
%"
&"
$'"
%"
'#"
$'"
&"
$"
$"
!"
%"
%"
%"
$"
%"
!"
&"
%"
$"
!"
%"
%"
'$"
$"
'("
$"
!"
'$"
!"
%)" '%)" $%)" *%)" (%)" !%)" +%)" &%)" ,%)" #%)" '%%)"
-.//0123456077.839:";<82=0>3089"
?289=3"6;>96"
@..:"A.B":9>2C984"698C2=9"
?2:;=D=";=DC2D96"
@;8/"C26236"
E<823.0826/"
F3G986"
H'" @8./"'"3."#" @8./"'%"3."'#" I"$%" ?."1.3"J1.K"
!"
#"
!"
!"
!"
$"
!"
%"
&'"
$"
!"
%"
%"
!"
$"
%"
%"
#"
&("
$"
!"
%"
%"
!"
&("
#"
%"
!"
#"
%"
#"
%"
$"
&%"
$"
!)" &!)" %!)" *!)" (!)" $!)" '!)" +!)" ,!)" #!)" &!!)"
-.//0123456077.839:";<82=0>3089"
?289=3"6;>96"
@..:"A.B":9>2C984"698C2=9"
?2:;=D=";=DC2D96"
@;8/"C26236"
E<823.0826/"
F3G986"
?;2>4" H99I>4" J.13G>4" 8;89>4" K889<0>;8".8":."1.3"I1.L"
137
More people used social networking services such as Facebook or Twitter, blog, online forum
and website/e-commerce platform.
Figure 5.29 Social media that the producers use to collaborate with the consumers
When the producers were asked if they were interested in participating in new collaborative
services to facilitate the organization of the farmers’ market and to improve the quality of its
services, more than 70% responded that they would be interested in using a digital platform to
inform consumers what they will bring to the next market, 50% said they are willing to advise
consumers on urban farming and 30% answered they are interested in car pooling with other
producers to come to the market (Figure 5.30).
Figure 5.30 The producers’ willingness to participate in new collaborative services
5.3.4.2. Consumers
Contrast to the producers, the level of collaboration among the consumers was much lower. 19%
of total respondents answered that they were involved in some kind of collaboration with the
producers and 11% said they collaborate with other consumers who come to the market.
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"#
-./01231-./0#400567#
89360#
43:;<0#
04.;<#
4.;<;67#<;=2#
60>=<0?0@#
:<37#
>0:=;20#A#01/3440@/0#8<.B3@4#
=3/;.<#602>3@C;67#=0@D;/0=#E0F7F#G./0:33CH#I>;?0@J#
36<;60#K;=/L==;36#-3@L4#
20<0/36-0@06/0#
3290@=#
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"#
,-#./-.-01#234#523261#7-8829-/2:;1#01/;<710#=-#0>..-/=#=?1#8-6<0:70#@-/#=?1#=/230.-/=#-@#6--40#234#1A><.513=B#
,-#0?2/1#C->/#;23#D<=?#-=?1/#./-4>71/0#=-#=/230.-/=#6--40#=-#=?1#52/E1=#
,-#523261#2#98-6#414<72=14#=-#C->/#@2/5#234#/16>82/8C#>.42=1#=?1#<=150#C->#D<88#9/<36#=-#=?1#52/E1=#
,-#0.2/1#C->/#:51#4>/<36#=?1#52/E1=#=-#7-30>8=#7-30>51/0#-3#>/923#@2/5<36#=17?3<A>10##
F=?1/0#
138
The type of collaboration with the producers varied from direct purchase (82%), farm visit
(45%), food box delivery service (23%), agritourism (18%), community-supported agriculture
(5%), didactic activities (5%) and others (5%)27 (Figure 5.31). The reason why direct purchase
and farm visit are higher than others is possibly related to the diffusion of GAS (solidary
purchasing groups) in Milan. There are also half a dozen food box delivery services currently
available to the Milanese.
Figure 5.31 Type of collaboration between the consumers and the producers
Regarding the size of group in the consumers’ collaboration with the producers, 44% responded
that their groups are smaller than 10 people, 13% said there groups had more than 50 people,
12% between 10 and 29 people. (Figure 5.32).
Figure 5.32 Size of group in collaboration between the consumers and the producers
The majority of the consumers have been engaged in collaborative activities with the producers
for 1~9 years (51%), followed by 10~19 years (13%) and less than 1 year (4%) (Figure 5.33).
Direct sales, farm visits and agritourism were the types with longer histories than others while
food box delivery service, CSA and didactic activities had relatively short histories.
27 The respondents were allowed to select multiple activities and therefore the total sum amounts to more than 100%.
!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!"# )!"# *!"# +!"# ,!"#
-.//0123456077.839:#;<82=0>3089#?;110;>#
@289=3#708=A;69#B8./#78.:0=986#?9C<C#B;8/#6A.7D#
E..:#F.G#:9>2H984#698H2=9#
:2:;=I=#;=IH2I96#
E;8/#H26236#
J<823.0826/#
K3A986#
!"#$"%%&"
'()*"#$"+)",-"#,&"'()*".$"
+)"/$"#&"
0"/$"#.&"
1((23456(")("7)"8)+"98):".$&"
139
Figure 5.33 Length of collaboration between the consumers and the producers
Although the frequency of interaction between consumers and producers varied in the type of
collaboration, the majority of the respondents interacted with the producers at least once a
month: 19% contacted the producers weekly and 33% contacted them monthly. 18% replied that
they rarely contact the producers and 30% answered that the interaction occurred irregularly
(Figure 5.34). CSA and food box delivery service were the types that involved more weekly
interaction than the others. In direct purchase, didactic activity and farm visit, the rate was
slightly lower but still the majority interacted at least monthly. In agritourism, the interaction
frequency was mostly rare.
Figure 5.34. Frequency of interaction between the consumers and the producers
The consumers were using diverse social media to communicate with the producers and other
members of their collaborative groups. The three most often used media were email, face-to-
face meeting and cellular phone (Figure 5.35).
!"#"$%"
&'()"#"*("+",#%"&'()"#-"
*("#+"#.%"
/"0-"-%"
1("2(*"32(4".0%"
!"#$%&'(&
)**+$%&,-(&
./012$%&33(&4"4*$%&
,5(&
644*78$"4&/4&!/&0/1&+0/)&3'(&
140
Figure 5.35 Social media used by the consumers to collaborate
5.4. Discussion
5.4.1. Sense of community
Although the sense of community in the market is expected to increase over time as people get
to know one another better, socio-technical intervention can facilitate this change. In this
section, strategies to transform the market into a better community both in the real world and
on the digital platform are discussed.
5.4.1.1. Membership
Both the producers and the consumers had a relatively low level of membership compared to
other elements of SoC. Considering membership as a relational quality in a community, it can be
posited according to the dual production of collaborative service that a collaboration involving
personal investment, sense of belonging, identification, emotional safety or common symbol
system (Figure 5.15) can induce relations such as membership. Therefore, one way to improve
membership in the farmers’ market is to engage the producers and the consumers in
collaborative activities that require membership. For example, community-supported
agriculture (CSA) based on micro financing asks for personal investment on the consumers’ side
and provides emotional safety to the producers, thereby stimulating membership among them.
Another example is a carpooling service for the producers. The producers need to bring a large
quantity of items to the marketplace early in the morning and fresh items need to be kept at a
low temperature during the trip. Sharing vehicles including fridge trucks to come to the market
will not only save the fuel but also create new connections among the producers.
A digital platform can contribute to improving membership by providing technical support for
services like CSA or carpooling. In the case of CSA, a platform will feature tools necessary to
operate CSA such as an e-commerce system, a blog and an email. A platform can also make
!"#$%&'%!"#$()$$*+,(-.'+$()'/01$($)"01(
)"010+,(102&(+$321$4$5(
/1',(3$/20&$(6($%#'))$5#$(-1"7'5)(
2'#0"1(+$&3'580+,(2$590#$2(:$;,;(<"#$/''8=(>304$5?('+10+$(@02#A220'+(!'5A)(
&$1$#'+!$5$+#$('&.$52(
BC( DBC( EBC( FBC( GBC( HBC( IBC( JBC( KBC(
141
contribution by promoting the common symbol system of the market or by providing services
dedicated to the market users thereby creating boundaries around the community.
5.4.1.2. Influence
The level of influence in a community is proportional to the degree of empowerment and
openness of the members (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The SCI results show that about 65% of
the producers and 40% of the consumers feel empowered to influence others. Currently the
market is coordinated and managed by the Slow Food but the long-term goal is to make it an
autonomous and self-sustained event organized and managed by users. Therefore,
empowerment of users and creation of a system that is self-governed, resilient and democratic
are an upcoming step of this pilot project.
About 65% of the producers and 40% of the consumers responded that they cared about what
other people think of their actions, indicating how much they are susceptible to an influence
from the community. Mercati della Terra is not just a marketplace but also a means to promote
the philosophy of Slow Food and sustainable lifestyle28. In this context, a series of events were
organized to promote responsible and sustainable production and consumption. An example is
laboratori del gusto (tasting laboratories), an educational program where consumers meet the
producers; listen to their stories of how they produce, process and cook their products; taste
them; and get to know one another (Figure 5.36). Another example is a demonstration by
producers of how organic foods are produced (Figure 5.37). By educating the consumers where
foods come from, how they are made and what is their impact on the environment, the market
aims to change their consumption behaviors towards a more sustainable direction. An
atmosphere of openness in the community is essential to the success of these events and a
continuous effort to educate the consumers and connect them with the producers and with one
another will improve the level of influence.
28 With the vision of creating a world in which all people can access and enjoy food that is good for them, good for those who grow it and good for the planet, Slow Food has three interconnected principles: fresh, flavorsome and seasonal diet that is part of our local culture; clean food production and consumption that does not harm the environment, animal welfare or our health; and fair, accessible prices for consumers and fair conditions and pay for small-scale producers (Slow Food ‘Our Philosophy’, 2010).
142
Figure 5.36 Tasting Laboratories on cuscus from Morocco
Figure 5.37 Demonstration of making honey by an apiculturist
A digital platform can empower users by providing an infrastructure for an equal access to
information, an equal opportunity to contribute to the market and an equal right to participate
in a decision making process. The platform based on a distributed network and governance tools
can create a democratic environment for grassroots initiatives. An exemplar is Carrotmob, a
form of consumer activism and also the name of a digital platform for organizing such
campaigns where a community buys goods collectively from one company to reward a business's
commitment to making a socially responsible change to their operations (Wikipedia, 2010). Just
as consumers organize a campaign to support sustainable producers on Carrotmob, the digital
platform for the Nutrire Milano can provide an environment for consumers in Milan to support
their local producers through various initiatives.
5.4.1.3. Integration and fulfillment of needs
The SCI results indicate that the farmers’ market successfully integrates and fulfills the needs of
users. Several reasons exist: First of all, people who come to the market are not any producers or
consumers. Instead, they share the value of sustainable production and consumption and
believe in the value of small and local. According to the authors of SoC, integration and
fulfillment of needs is high when community members share values, needs, priorities and goals
with other members.
143
Secondly, buying and selling at the market creates values – economic, nutritional or emotional –
for the consumers and the producers. The market is an economically attractive solution
especially for the producers. Direct sales methods such as farmers’ market or farm stand are
emerging as a promising business model among small local producers (Goodhue et al., 2008).
In addition, the producers sold their products in the market for free until the end of 2010 when
the Slow Food started to charge them 40 euro of a fixed commission. This made the market a
very attractive sales channel for the producers as compared to the conventional retail stores. For
consumers, many products in the market are of equal prices or reasonably more expensive than
organic products in supermarkets while their qualities are considerably better.
Finally, a lively and convivial atmosphere of the marketplace provides the emotional satisfaction
to the visitors. The market is characterized by its conviviality. Consumers have a plenty of
opportunities to interact with producers, listen to their stories and taste their products. The
market is also utilized as a space for socialization. It provides a public space called ‘shared
tables’ for people to eat and socialize (Figure 5.38). Social events connect them together and
make the market more than just a place for shopping. As the authors of SoC claims, integration
and fulfillment of needs is related to one’s capacity to communicate with others in a community.
Figure 5.38 People having a brunch at the market
In short, farmers’ market successfully integrates and fulfills the user needs, especially of
consumers. It may continue to do so if it remains at the current scale targeting the same people,
i.e., a market of 60 or more producers, held occasionally targeting a specific demographic of the
city population: mid-class, well-educated people who are aware of the value of sustainable
consumption. If, however, the market wants to grow in scale and diversity by reaching out for
producers and consumers who may have different values or are in different sectors of the
population, it needs to confront and deal with its potential limitations. The most eminent ones
include: a lack of diversity and quantity of the products, high prices (for low income families),
limited access to the market, and a lack of communication and marketing. Until now, the value
created from sustainable consumption is insignificant compared to value of the overall
144
consumption29 and efforts to increase the size of the pie are needed. In the farmers’ market, too,
the needs of potential users should be considered and integrated if the market wants to have a
greater impact to society.
5.4.1.4. Shared emotional connection
The level of shared emotional connection in a community depends on various factors such as a
shared history; social events to interact and resolve common challenges in a positive way;
satisfaction of being a member; opportunities to invest in the community; perceived future of
the community; and mutual care and support among the members (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
In the case of the farmers’ market, the level of shared emotional connection was very high: both
the produces and the consumers considered the market an important part of their life; they
perceived that people in the market get along with one another; and they were willing to come to
the market for a long time.
The high level of shared emotional connection is attributed to several factors: shared values and
interests among the producers and the consumers; high quality of products that give a pride to
the producers and satisfaction to the consumers; social events at create positive experiences at
the marketplace; and an effective management by the Slow Food.
In order for the market to continue its initial success and to last long, it needs to establish
shared emotional connection not only within the organization but also with a larger community
it belongs to, i.e., the Milan city. It means to be appreciated by the citizens – both those who
come to the market and those who do not – and accepted as a valuable asset to the city. A small-
scale local community is not a requirement for shared emotional connection (McMillan &
Chavis, 1986). In other words, shared emotional connection to the farmers’ market can be
formed across a populated city like Milan.
A good example is the Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market in Canada. It is the oldest and arguably
one of the most successful farmers’ market in the North America. It has a history of over 250
years; over 200 producers sell at the market; it is held everyday in an eco-friendly building
(Figure 5.39). But apart from the history and size, it competitiveness lies in its effort to connect
itself to the local community. In 2009, the farmers’ market published a report on how the
market could connect to the community and vice versa (Wilkinson et. al, 2009). The report
proposed four strategies: to connect the arts, cultural communities, environmental issues, and
health to the farmers’ market.
29 In 2000, $888 million spent on farmers’ markets in US compared to $800 billion spent on total food and beverage purchases according to the United States Department of Agriculture (Grace et al., 2005)
145
Figure 5.39 Inside the Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market (Halifax Farmers’ Market, 2010)
The first strategy aims to transform the market into a more culturally diverse, exciting and
desirable venue for shoppers and, at the same time, a place for local artists, artisans and
musicians to exhibit their works. This is a win-win strategy as the market attracts more
customers and supports the local arts while the local artists have an opportunity to perform and
sell their works to the community. The second strategy aims to harness cultural diversity in the
community to the market by supporting food cultures of immigrants and bringing their food to
the market through local farms. Over 50000 immigrants live in Nova Scotia and many of them
come from a rich and old food culture. Integrating their culture into the market means more
diversity of products, more customers to the market and increased wellbeing of the local
community. The third strategy is about making the marketplace an example of best practices in
waste diversion through both waste management and promotion of local products which tend to
produce minimal waste relative to supermarket products. It also includes connecting the market
to the environmental communities such as offering the marketplace as a venue for their events.
The fourth strategy aims to connect the market with various interest groups and agencies
related to health and to promote healthy local food through communications and actions
concerning health and wellbeing in partnership with them. They include organizing a food
conference, collaborating with universities in the community and allocating a community booth
for seniors.
Some of the aforementioned strategies are already implemented in the farmers’ market in Milan
or may not be relevant to the local context. On the other hand, others can be used as a reference
to generate ideas customized to the needs of the community. For example, the market currently
146
lacks an element of arts. The market could invite local artists and buskers to perform at the
marketplace and support their works. The market could also collaborate with the fine arts or
music schools in the city and organize an exhibition or concerts next to the marketplace. In
short, efforts to create shared emotional connection with the local community is a win-win
strategy that benefits the market and contribute to the betterment of community’s health and
well being.
5.4.2. Degree of collaboration
Analysis of the degree of collaboration provides the following information about target users:
the attributes of their collaboration, the technologies they use to collaborate, and the strength of
their ties. This information contributes to revealing the state of social infrastructure to start
collaborative services and how it can be improved.
The fact that the majority of the producers are currently engaged in some type of collaboration
with consumers and other producers at the market indicates that there already exist social
relations necessary to initiate collaborative services among them. Provided that their social
relations are mostly built upon face-to-face interaction on a regular basis for at least 1 year (in
some cases more than 20 years), a significant part of their relations are likely to be based on
strong ties. Their interaction is reinforced by a few ICTs such as mobile phone and email while
social media contribute little to widening and reinforcing their networks.
Collaboration patterns between the producers and consumers are in many ways similar to those
between the producers. Social relations already exist between them although to a less extent –
47% of the producers and only 19% of the consumers – and the relations are based on regular
face-to-face interaction. Most of their relations have lasted for at least 1 year and as long as 20
years. Their interaction is reinforced by a number of ICTs such as email, mobile phone and
social media. It leads to a conclusion that the social networks in the existing producer-consumer
collaborative groups tend to be both strong and weak.
There is little social interaction taking place among the consumers at the market. Only 11% of
the total respondents collaborate with other consumers and their activities are mainly related to
GAS which have existed long before the market was launched.
An observation of users’ collaborative activities also provides insights on what kind of services to
design in order to effectively fulfill users’ social needs. The fact that certain types of
collaboration proliferate than others implies that users need them more than others. For
example, the producers have a high demand for the exchange of expertise, time and products
(xxx). The next step is to identify the type of resources they need and to develop services that
support the producers to exchange the needed resources more efficiently and effectively. This
147
motivated the second survey which was conducted two months after the first one to discover
which tools, infrastructures and competences the producers need and are willing to share with
others.
Regarding the resources they would like to discuss with others to share, the first priority was a
service to organize a shared distribution channel in the city and to manage logistics for the
service (55%), followed by a counseling on technical and fiscal issues related to their businesses
(29%), financial resources to transform a conventional farm to an organic one (4%), solutions to
agronomic and technical problems (3%) and collaborative restaurants (3%) (Figure 5.40).
Figure 5.40 The resources that the producers would like to discuss with others to share
The tools and infrastructures that the producers are willing to share with others included store
in the farm (26%), a meeting space (17%), transportation to the market including a fridge van
(17%), store in the city (11%), tractor (9%), warehouse (6%) and workshop (3%) (Figure 5.41).
Figure 5.41 Instruments and infrastructure that the producers are willing to share
!"#$#%&'(%)'*+#$,+'$#%)'%$-&'#)."'%/-",%&%!"'*+'."'&0%/&-,%$"%
&'%"-1&')!%"'+%23%
"-1&')4&."'%"/%&%5()1)$&06%70&8"-,%$"%,&'&1+%0"1)#.!#%/"-%&%#+-*)!+%"'%#9&-+(%()#$-):;."'%"/%
7-"(;!$#%)'%$9+%!)$<%==3%
>+!9')!&0?@#!&0%)##;+#%-+0&$+(%$"%<";-%:;#)'+##%
AB3%
!"00&:"-&.*+%-+#$&;-&'$#%
C3%
"$9+-#%C3%
&1-)!;0$;-&0%+(;!&."'%/"-%$+&!9+-#%
C3%
&1-"'",)!%&'(%$+!9')!&0%7-":0+,#%
C3%
!"#$!%"&'(&
)#"*+%,-*&.(&
/**012&-3#$*&45(&
6"782*&9#1&.(&
9#1&44(&
-3*$7#:7;*8&-!#<&&44(&
-!%"*&71&!+*&6#"/&=.(&
-!%"*&71&!+*&$7!>&44(&
)%"?-+%3&@(&
148
The competences that they wanted to share with other producers included stock breeding
(33%), alternative cultivation techniques (29%), knowledge on horticulture (17%), specialized
staff (17%) and sales staff (4%) (Figure 5.42).
Figure 5.42 Competences that the producers are willing to share
Based on the identified needs and resources of the producers, ideas to facilitate the exchange of
their expertise, time and products was generated. One of them is an organization of shared
transportation of their goods to the market. The producers arrive at the market with the goods
to sell by their vans in the early morning and leave the market around 5 PM. Carpools can be
organized with a support of the digital platform. The platform provides necessary tools to
organize carpooling such as a map to identify the locations of farms; a carpooling software that
makes carpooling easy and efficient; a database that contains information relating to carpoolers
such as who they are, how much products they need to bring to the market, the type of products,
and if they need special assistance (e.g. fresh items need a fridge van).
5.4.3. Social network analysis
Social network analysis was conducted only for the producers. In the case of consumers, there
was currently too little collaboration going on. Most consumers reported that they were not
involved in any collaborative activities. Those who were collaborating (19% with the producers
and 11% with other consumers), almost all the activities were either GAS or food box deliver
service. GAS is a network of purchasing groups and a group size varies from 10 to 40 members.
Food box delivery service often requires collaboration between producers but not so much on
the side of consumers. In short, only a small portion of consumers in the market interacts with
one another and it takes place mostly through an existing initiative called GAS.
Although the majority of producers in the market answered that they collaborate with other
producers, their network structure showed that only 40% of the respondents were connected to
other producers and that the network structure consists of disconnected groups. Looking inside
!"#$%&'())*+,-.//0.
1#(2$34"3().560.
74")(,728).$342872#,.")$1,+93)!.
:;0.
)<=)(2!).+,."7<.>0.
!74)!.!"7?.@0. !=)$+74+A)*.!"7?.
560.
149
the groups, the members were connected via both strong and weak ties and what hold them
together seemed to be mainly two factors: product type and geographic location. For example, a
baker collaborated with other bakers but also with preserved food producer; and there is a
consortium of producers from the Parco del Ticino. In summary, the producers’ collaborative
network structure is composed of clearly bounded groups based on shared interest and locality.
Outside these collaborative groups are individual producers (35%) and consumers (80%) who
are not involved in any collaboration. Figure 5.43 illustrates in a simplified diagram how the
users of the farmers market currently interact with one another.
Figure 5.43 The market as a network of tightly knit groups
To transform the social relations of producers and consumers into a sustainable community,
socio-technical intervention is needed. By a sustainable community, it refers to the definition of
a sustainable society by Manzini (2005), a society that exhibits four attributes – small, local,
open and connected. In the context of Nutrire Milan, it implies reinforcing existing social
relations and at the same time, creating weak ties that connect isolated individuals and groups
thereby creating a structure that resembles a sustainable society. A community thus built is
open to new members and actively reaches out for them with promotion and communication
strategies (Figure 5.44).
FARMERS’ MARKET
COLLABORATIVE GROUPS COLLABORATIVE GROUPS
COMMUNITY
Producer groups
Individual producers Individual consumers
Consumer groups
150
Figure 5.44 The market as a network of tightly knit groups and individuals
This can be achieved through development of service strategies around the farmers’ market and
an enabling solution that stimulates new collaborative groups and supports the needs of current
collaborative groups. Table 5.14 lists examples of service strategies and corresponding platform
features generated during the project.
Table 5.14 Examples of service strategies and platform features
Service strategy Platform feature Social events at the market such as tasting laboratories, demonstrations by producers, shared tables
A multimedia repository to share the records of events at the market
Shared logistics for producers to bring their products to the market
An online carpooling system to support organization of shared logistics among the producers
A neighborhood dinner club for producers to get to know one another and to share information, competences and resources.
An online community for producers to continue discussions at the neighborhood dinner club.
Occasional GAS An online community to organize occasional GAS
GAS extended (for large organizations such as schools, offices or apartment houses)
A social commerce platform for GAS extended
A food box delivery service An e-commerce system for a food box delivery service
A voluntary counseling service for producers who need fiscal and technical advice for their business
An online crowdsourcing platform to discuss and solve fiscal and technical issues
The methodology to investigate social needs of a community can be incorporated into a service
design process to develop a service that effectively addresses users’ social needs. The findings
from this chapter are applied to a wider framework in chapter 6, and a systematic approach to
design a digital platform for collaborative service is introduced.
COMMUNITY
Producer groups
Individual producersIndividual consumersConsumer
groups
FARMERS’ MARKET
151
6. A SOCIO-TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE SERVICE
Chapter 6 introduces a socio-technical framework for collaborative service by expanding the
experience of Nutrire Milano Project into a wider context. The framework is a systematic
approach to designing a digital platform for collaborative communities with a focus on
addressing users’ social needs. The framework has the following characteristics: (1) it integrates
the development process of a digital platform into service design process; (2) it provides
designers with a systematic approach to design a platform that supports a collaborative service
with socio-technical intervention; (3) it focuses on facilitating the production of social networks
of collaborative communities by analyzing their implicit social needs.
152
6.1. Background
Despite the essential role of social networks in the production and diffusion of collaborative
services, a systematic effort to foster social networks of collaborative communities has been
limited. In this chapter, a novel framework to develop a digital platform for collaborative service
is proposed. It aims to facilitate the production of social networks – both weak and strong ties –
through socio-technical intervention. This framework is designed to be integrated into a
conventional service design process and used in parallel with service design tools to guide
designers to develop a digital platform that addresses both technical and social needs of
collaborative communities. Hence an eligible user of this framework would be a service
designer who is also knowledgeable in developing a digital platform.
A digital platform designed through this framework empowers individuals and communities to
organize collaborative services through socio-technical intervention. Socio-technical
intervention in this context is service strategies to improve the dual dimension of collaborative
service. Service strategies are based on a design objective, and target users’ social and technical
needs. User needs are in turn elicited through user studies (Figure 6.1). The social needs are
often implicit and cannot be elicited through verbal protocols. Therefore, a method that
indirectly analyzes users’ relations is needed.
Figure 6.1. A schematic model of designing a digital platform for collaborative services
Production of a solution
An enabling system that supports collaborative ser-vices through socio-technical intervention
Strategies to improve the performance of a
solution
Strategies to create and reinforce social net-
works
Production of social networks
ICTs
ICTs
User needs related to the performance of a
solution
User needs related to creating and reinforcing
social networks
User studies User studies
153
This chapter describes a conceptual framework to develop a digital platform for collaborative
service step by step starting with methods to identify users’ social needs; analysis of the
collected data; identification of user needs and resources; defining design problems; design of
service strategies; and finally design of a digital platform for collaborative services.
6.2. A conceptual framework
Figure 6.2 describes a design process of a collaborative service on digital platform based on
Archer’s prescriptive model of design process (1984). The light green area indicates a service
design process and the light blue area indicates a process of designing a digital platform. The
service design process described in this chapter refers to a process developed in service design
curriculum at Politecnico di Milano. Inside the red-dotted box is the socio-technical framework
for developing a digital platform for collaborative service.
154
Figure 6.2 A process of designing a collaborative service on digital platform
6.2.1. Programming
Analysis Program
ming
Data collection Com
munication
Development
Synthesis
Setting target users
Setting meta
objective of a service
Setting the goal of a service
Promoting and
comm
unicating a digital platform
Digital platform
prototyping:
Refining prototype
Usability testing, etc.
Evaluating prototype:
Programm
ing
GUI design
UI design
Developing a service idea using:
Collaborative service design
Interpreting the data lead to:
interviews, surveys, focus
group interviews, participatory
design, context inquiries, etc.
Conducting user studies to identify
design problems and
resources:
A socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Service prototyping
Understanding the functional/relational
dimension of a service
Service prototyping tools
Promoting and
comm
unicating a service
Mood board,
poster, persona, system
map,
motivation m
atrix, tim
eline, task analysis, flow
chart, storyboard (scenario
building), etc.
Interviews, surveys, etc.
Sense of com
munity
Social network structure
Degree of collaboration
Interview and survey results
Sense of com
munity index
Social network analysis
Degree of collaboration
analysis
Defining platform
concept and features
Digital platform design
Identifying users’ relational needs from
:
Setting the goal of a digital platform
Collecting data related to users’ relational needs:
Understanding the conceptual m
odel of collaborative
service Enabling system
structure
Information
architecture
Generating design
strategies!
Resource identification!
Problem definition!
155
Figure 6.3 Programming phase
In programming phase, the concept of a service and a digital platform is defined (Figure 6.3). It
means that, first of all, the notion of collaborative service and enabling system is comprehended
and their relationship is clarified. In chapter 3, case studies revealed that a collaborative service
on digital platform is not a single entity but in fact, it consists of four components: a platform
base, an enabling solution, a collaborative service, and an event. This relationship is often
unclear to people who do not have sufficient knowledge on service design. In both the PSD
Laboratory and the Social Innovation Camp, participants often approached a service and its
enabling solution as one design object. This raises potential problems: Firstly, people may fall
into technological determinism, i.e., the invention and adoption of a particular technology will
lead to a particular set of outcomes (Jones 1997). Technological determinism is often
accompanied by a weakly defined service concept that lacks a strong causal relationship between
service input and output, and leads to a mistaken belief that collaboration will somehow occur
because of the digital platform; secondly, technologies available at hand or known to designers
become a precondition for service ideas and consequently, restrain designers’ creativity. A
digital platform thus formed tends to be banal and exhibits similar features regardless of its
goal; thirdly, the social dimension of collaborative service is ignored throughout the design
process. Relations among users are left as a byproduct of a service rather than a product.
Analysis Programming Data collection Communication Development Synthesis
Setting target users
Setting meta objective of a service
Setting the goal of a service
Promoting and communicating a digital platform
Digital platform prototyping:
Refining prototype
Usability testing, etc.
Evaluating prototype:
Programming
GUI design
UI design
Developing a service idea using:
Colla
bora
tive
serv
ice d
esig
n
Interpreting the data lead to:
interviews, surveys, focus
group interviews, participatory
design, context inquiries, etc.
Conducting user studies to identify
design problems and resources:
A socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Service prototyping
Understanding the functional/relational
dimension of a service
Service prototyping tools
Promoting and communicating a
service
Mood board, poster, persona,
system map, motivation matrix,
timeline, task analysis, flow
chart, storyboard (scenario
building), etc.
Interviews, surveys, etc.
Sense of community
Social network structure
Degree of collaboration
Interview and survey results
Sense of community index Social network
analysis Degree of
collaboration analysis
Defining platform concept and
features
Digi
tal p
latfo
rm d
esig
n
Identifying users’ relational needs from:
Setting the goal of a digital platform
Collecting data related to users’ relational needs:
Understanding the conceptual model
of collaborative service Enabling system
structure
Information architecture
Generating design strategies!
Resource identification!
Problem definition!
156
Once a clear distinction between service and enabling system has been made, the next step is to
articulate their concepts. Issues to be articulated in this stage are provided as a checklist in
Table 6.1. The first item inquires a designer if his or her service concept is a collaborative
service. Based on the theoretical model of collaborative service provided in chapter 2, a designer
can clarify the role of users as co-designer and co-producer of a service in fulfilling their needs
and position his concept on the matrix of collaborative service.
The second item asks for clarification of the service goal and to specify it in terms of technical
and social ones. For a first-time user, it may be difficult to specify the social goal. However, the
framework is an iterative process and once the target users’ needs have been identified in the
analysis phase, one can come back to articulate the goals. For example, in the Nutrire Milano
Project, the goal of a digital platform was to support collaborative services between local
producers and consumers in Milan. The first service to be implemented was a farmers’ market
and the social goal of the digital platform was set to connect producers and consumers at the
market. As the user study was conducted, the data revealed that the majority of the producers
already collaborate with one another and their collaborations tend to occur in densely knit and
closed groups. This led to the revision of the goal into the following: (1) to reinforce the social
networks of existing collaborative groups of the producers; (2) to facilitate creation of new
collaborative groups that involve exchange of time, competences and knowledge. Figure 6.4
illustrates this goal.
FARMERS’ MARKET
COLLABORATIVE GROUPS COLLABORATIVE GROUPS
COMMUNITY
Producer groups
Individual producers Individual consumers
Consumer groups
157
Figure 6.4 Diagrams that illustrate collaborative networks at the market before (top) and after (bottom) the
socio-technical intervention
The third and fourth items ask a designer to define the meta-objective of his service using the
typology proposed in chapter 3. This step helps him to do the benchmarking of similar cases
introduced in chapter 3 as it narrows down the scope of search. Benchmarking can save time
and cost of a project: with the explosion of collaborative platforms nowadays, one can find a
platform that provide the features necessary for implementing his collaborative service without
developing ones own; one may also find platforms are open source and can be customized for
his project.
Table 6.1 A checklist to articulate a service concept
# Is your idea a collaborative service, i.e., do the final users play a role of co-designer and
co-producer in fulfilling their needs? Does it involve collaboration of the final users and
a certain degree of interaction between them? Use the conceptual model of collaborative
service in chapter 2 (Figure 2.3) to position your idea and see which category it belongs
to.
# What are the target users’ needs? Categorize them into the technical and social needs.
# What do you aim to achieve through your collaborative service? Specify them into
technical and social dimension goals. Technical goals are related to improving the
technical quality of a service and social goals are concerned with connecting people and
enriching their relations. Try to make them specific (e.g. to create a network of
exchanging time, competences and resources among the producers in the farmers’
market).
# What is the meta-objective of your collaborative service? What is the desired social
COMMUNITY
Producer groups
Individual producersIndividual consumersConsumer
groups
FARMERS’ MARKET
158
network structure of your collaborative community? Use the typologies provided in
chapter 3 as a reference to map your service on the service typology matrix (Table 6.2).
If your service does not belong to any of these types, you can add a new one.
# Case studies in chapter 3 provide some of the existing cases of collaborative services on
digital platforms. They can be used as a reference to designing your platform or can be a
solution for your service. Among these cases, are there solutions that are similar to
yours? If so, can they be adopted to meet your needs instead of creating your own?
159
Table 6.2 Cases of collaborative services on the digital platform based on their typologies
Once the service concept has been articulated, the next step is to collect data on the target users’
social needs at personal and communal level.
A tightly knit groupN
etworked
individuals
A tightly knit group(s) and netw
orked
A network of tightly-
knit groupsA netw
ork of loosely-knit groups
A network of tightly-knit
and loosely-knit groups
Producer/consum
er netw
ork
Farmfoody
Cascina C
ornaleFarm
sReach
Mapo D
ureG
AS
Mapping diffused inform
ationFix m
y streetG
reen map
Open green m
ap
Aggregate social action
Pledgebank
No. 10 petition
Social invention
center
Carrot m
ob
Creating social netw
ork for conviviality
Meetup
Peladeiros
Vicini ViciniW
iserEarth
Mutual support circle
GR
OFU
NA
ctivmob
Com
petences, time and
products exchangeZerorelativo
Timebanks
Products, places and know
ledge sharing
Couchsurfing
Hitchhikers.org
Bookcrossing
Shelfari
Nabuur
(Add a new
type if necessary)
(Add a new
type if necessary)
Typology based on
social network
structure
Typology based on
meta-objective of services
160
6.2.2. Data collection
Figure 6.5 Data collection phase
In data collection phase, user studies are conducted to understand user needs (Figure 6.5). The
socio-technical framework for collaborative services focuses on identifying user’s social needs,
i.e., needs related to one’s social relationships in the community he or she belongs to.
Relational qualities are valuable byproducts of collaborative service and at the same time
preconditions for its success (Jeguo & Manzini, 2008). As it was discussed in chapter 3, the
basic elements of collaborative service – solutions and social networks –facilitate the production
of each other and thus form a virtuous cycle. Socio-technical intervention that facilitates the
production of both elements will increase the overall production of collaborative service (Table
6.1). Hence it is equally important in designing a digital platform for collaborative service to
identify user needs in the social dimension as to identify ones in the technical dimension.
When users’ social needs are implicit, i.e., target users do not perceive their social relations to be
problematic, it is difficult to elicit the needs using methods dependent on verbal protocols. This
is typically the case in design for social changes. According to Manzini (2010B), design for social
innovation can be divided into design for social problems and design for social changes. The
former aims to solve specific, difficult conditions (e.g. poverty, diseases, fragile social groups)
and is motivated by ethical reasons such as social and environmental responsibilities. The latter,
Analysis Programming Data collection Communication Development Synthesis
Setting target users
Setting meta objective of a service
Setting the goal of a service
Promoting and communicating a digital platform
Digital platform prototyping:
Refining prototype
Usability testing, etc.
Evaluating prototype:
Programming
GUI design
UI design
Developing a service idea using:
Colla
bora
tive
serv
ice d
esig
n
Interpreting the data lead to:
interviews, surveys, focus
group interviews, participatory
design, context inquiries, etc.
Conducting user studies to identify
design problems and resources:
A socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Service prototyping
Understanding the functional/relational
dimension of a service
Service prototyping tools
Promoting and communicating a
service
Mood board, poster, persona,
system map, motivation matrix,
timeline, task analysis, flow
chart, storyboard (scenario
building), etc.
Interviews, surveys, etc.
Sense of community
Social network structure
Degree of collaboration
Interview and survey results
Sense of community index Social network
analysis Degree of
collaboration analysis
Defining platform concept and
features
Digi
tal p
latfo
rm d
esig
n
Identifying users’ relational needs from:
Setting the goal of a digital platform
Collecting data related to users’ relational needs:
Understanding the conceptual model
of collaborative service Enabling system
structure
Information architecture
Generating design strategies!
Resource identification!
Problem definition!
161
on the other hand, relates to major trends that affect the whole society (e.g. demographic
evolution, urbanization, increasing connectivity, and more in general transition towards a
sustainable society) and it is often motivated by the search for emerging opportunities as well as
solutions to urgent needs. Such opportunities relate to solutions and business models that can
enhance radical changes in the mainstream models of living and producing. Innovations in the
early phase are not recognized by the mainstream and so are designs for social changes. This is
why user needs relating to them cannot be explicitly expressed. Therefore in this framework,
social needs are elicited by analyzing target users’ social network structures, degree of their
collaboration and the level of sense of community.
Social network analysis renders social relationships of service actors and provides data to
identify their implicit social needs. Social networks play a critical role in determining the way
problems are solved, organizations are run, and the degree to which individuals succeed in
achieving their goals. Therefore, their analysis becomes a reference to problematic and
successful aspects of current collaborative activities and setting a direction for change in the
social network structure can help a designer formulate a service concept and develop strategies.
Analyzing degree of collaboration serves two purposes: to understand the details of target users’
collaborative activities and to estimate the strength of ties. Tie strength is a (linear) combination
of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, mutual trust and the reciprocal services that
characterize the tie (Granovetter, 1973). Hence, the more collaborative activities a group
organizes, the stronger the tie strength would be because it will create more reciprocal services
and more opportunities to interact among group members; the older a group is and the more
frequently its members meet, the stronger the tie strength would be; the smaller a group is, the
more intimate the relations would to be30. Therefore it is used as a tool to supplement social
network analysis. Degree of collaboration is composed of a set of questions that inquire the
attributes of collaborative activities such as the type of an activity31, the size of a collaborative
group, the duration of an activity, frequency of getting into contacts with other members, and
ICTs used in the activity (see appendix A.2).
While social network analysis describes social relationships of service actors, sense of
community reveals their qualities. SoC addresses four distinct qualities – membership,
influence, reinforcement, and shared emotional connection – and they can be measured using
the SCI. The SCI results can be used as a reference to develop service concepts and strategies to
improve specific qualities in a community. If one intends to measure the SoC of a virtual
30 Dunbar states that there is a theoretical limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. The number is called Dunbar’s number named after a British anthropologist Robin Dunbar who first proposed the concept and it lies between 100 and 230 (most commonly described as 150) (Wikipedia, 2010). 31 To ask the type of a collaborative activity, a respondent was given a typology of collaborative services based on meta-goal introduced in chapter 3 and asked to select ones that he or she was engaged in.
162
collaborative organization, the SCI may not be the right model because it was designed to
measure the SoC of face-to-face communities. Researchers such as Blanchard (2004) have
discovered that virtual communities perceive the sense of community, tools and methods to
measure the sense of virtual communities (SOVC) are available (Koh & Kim, 2003; Blancard,
2007).
Table 6.3 summarizes the characteristics of the three methods in terms of the obtained data,
diagnosed problems and identified needs.
Table 6.3 Comparison of SCI, SNA and DoC
Sense of community index Social network analysis Degree of collaboration analysis
Measured data
SCI scores in overall sense of community and its elements
A social network structure of service actors, their characteristics and visualization
Quantitative and qualitative details of collaborations
Possible problems
Low SCI score and a low level of the elements of SoC
A lack of qualities that define a sustainable society community, i.e., small, open, local and connected.
Unbalanced composition of strong and weak ties in an organization
Possible strategies
Strategies to improve the four relational qualities in SoC
Strategies to transform the social network structure of an organization towards a desired direction
Strategies to organize collaborative activities that reinforce the type of ties that an organization needs
SNA, DoC and SCI do not explicitly elicit user needs nor do they reveal individual user needs.
They produce that data from which problems in target users’ social relations can be unveil and
improved through design intervention. However, interpreting user needs from the data is often
tricky. To lessen the problem, the obtained data can be supplemented by employing additional
methods if necessary. For example, after the DoC of producers at the farmers’ market in Milan
was investigated, the data revealed that exchange of time, competence and products was
outstandingly popular among the producers compared to other types. However, it was unknown
what kind of resources they were exchanging and how they could be supported. Therefore, the
second survey was conducted to get additional information on their activities and needs (Figure
6.6). The result showed that the majority were interested in sharing logistics to distribute their
products in the city. The resources they could share included agricultural tools, meeting space,
sustainable cultivation knowhow and animals for breeding.
163
Figure 6.6 An excerpt from a survey on the exchange of resources and competences (Baek, Corubolo,
Meroni & Simeone, 2010)
6.2.3. Analysis
Figure 6.7 Analysis phase
In the analysis phase, the data collected from the previous phase are interpreted to identify user
needs, which lead to defining design problems (Figure 6.7). (For information on the methods to
interpret the data, see chapter 5.) Another information obtained from the data is the type of
Analysis Programming Data collection Communication Development Synthesis
Setting target users
Setting meta objective of a service
Setting the goal of a service
Promoting and communicating a digital platform
Digital platform prototyping:
Refining prototype
Usability testing, etc.
Evaluating prototype:
Programming
GUI design
UI design
Developing a service idea using:
Colla
bora
tive
serv
ice d
esig
n
Interpreting the data lead to:
interviews, surveys, focus
group interviews, participatory
design, context inquiries, etc.
Conducting user studies to identify
design problems and resources:
A socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Service prototyping
Understanding the functional/relational
dimension of a service
Service prototyping tools
Promoting and communicating a
service
Mood board, poster, persona,
system map, motivation matrix,
timeline, task analysis, flow
chart, storyboard (scenario
building), etc.
Interviews, surveys, etc.
Sense of community
Social network structure
Degree of collaboration
Interview and survey results
Sense of community index Social network
analysis Degree of
collaboration analysis
Defining platform concept and
features
Digi
tal p
latfo
rm d
esig
n
Identifying users’ relational needs from:
Setting the goal of a digital platform
Collecting data related to users’ relational needs:
Understanding the conceptual model
of collaborative service Enabling system
structure
Information architecture
Generating design strategies!
Resource identification!
Problem definition!
164
resources users possess – natural, social, technological and etc. The resources of target users
and design problems are an input to generate socio-technical intervention or simply service
strategies that successfully fulfill user needs. During the Nutrire Milano Project, a resource-
problem matrix was used to facilitate idea generation of socio-technical intervention to support
dual production of collaborative services (Table 6.4). The matrix has the design problems in the
column, and the resources in the row. In the synthesis phase, the blanks are filled with strategies
to solve the defined problems.
Table 6.4 A resource-problem matrix for brainstorming socio-technical intervention
A fragmented collaborative network among producersMany isolated individuals
Low level of membership due to inability to recognize other people
Low level of influence…The market is held only once a month.The market is held in only one place in the city.Many people do not know about the market and the promotion efforts are limited.Many people believe that the prices are unaffordable.The products lack diversity and quantity.Management of the market heavily depends on the Slow Food.A lack of information on fiscal and technical issues of business…
Problems relating to the social
dimension of a service
Problems relating to
the techincal dimension
Exi
stin
g co
nsum
er
netw
orks
Exi
stin
g pr
oduc
er
netw
orks
Shar
ed v
alue
s an
d in
tere
sts
amon
g co
nsum
ers
and
prod
ucer
sH
igh
leve
l of S
oC
amon
g pr
oduc
ers
Hig
h le
vel o
f SoC
am
ong
cons
umer
sM
apO
nlin
e co
mm
unit
yFo
rum
Em
ail
Blo
ge-
com
mer
ce
Sync
wit
h ot
her
…
Social resources Technological resources(Joomla CMS)
165
6.2.4. Synthesis
6.2.4.1. Developing service strategies
In synthesis phase of service design process, a service concept and strategies are developed using service
design tools, which are then used to define the platform concept and features (Figure 6.8). Strategies that
aim to facilitate the dual production of collaborative service using social and technical resources are called
socio-technical intervention.
Figure 6.8 Synthesis phase
Socio-technical intervention is the combination of social and technical intervention. Social
intervention in the context of collaborative service refers to intervention to reinforce and
maintain the social relations of users in a direction coherent with the service goal. Under the
goal of creating a sustainable community that is small, local, open and connected (Manzini,
2008), social intervention includes a series of social activities that aim to achieve a balanced
composition of strong and weak ties in a community. It means to create a network of local
collaborative groups that are open to new innovations, connected to one another through weak
ties and at the same time maintain their local values and strong interconnection between
members. In the farmers’ market in Milan, social intervention includes events such as the
tasting laboratories (Figure 6.9), demonstrations by producers (Figure 6.10) and shared tables
for people to eat and socialize (Figure 6.11). They contribute to making the market a convivial
community by creating opportunities for social interaction among the producers and the
consumers.
Analysis Programming Data collection Communication Development Synthesis
Setting target users
Setting meta objective of a service
Setting the goal of a service
Promoting and communicating a digital platform
Digital platform prototyping:
Refining prototype
Usability testing, etc.
Evaluating prototype:
Programming
GUI design
UI design
Developing a service idea using:
Colla
bora
tive
serv
ice d
esig
n
Interpreting the data lead to:
interviews, surveys, focus
group interviews, participatory
design, context inquiries, etc.
Conducting user studies to identify
design problems and resources:
A socio-technical framework for collaborative services
Service prototyping
Understanding the functional/relational
dimension of a service
Service prototyping tools
Promoting and communicating a
service
Mood board, poster, persona,
system map, motivation matrix,
timeline, task analysis, flow
chart, storyboard (scenario
building), etc.
Interviews, surveys, etc.
Sense of community
Social network structure
Degree of collaboration
Interview and survey results
Sense of community index Social network
analysis Degree of
collaboration analysis
Defining platform concept and
features
Digi
tal p
latfo
rm d
esig
n
Identifying users’ relational needs from:
Setting the goal of a digital platform
Collecting data related to users’ relational needs:
Understanding the conceptual model
of collaborative service Enabling system
structure
Information architecture
Generating design strategies!
Resource identification!
Problem definition!
166
Figure 6.9 People trying wine during the tasting laboratories
Figure 6.10 People trying honey offered by an apiculturist during the honey making demonstration
Figure 6.11 People eating together at a shared table
Technical intervention on the other hand is intervention to improve the performance of a service
is related to the production of a solution. With technical intervention, a service becomes more
efficient and effective in fulfilling users’ needs. Enabling solution modules on a digital platform
is an example of technical intervention.
167
In Table 6.5, socio-technical intervention is mapped onto the typology map to forecast impact of
such intervention on the social network structure of collaborative communities. For example, (1)
social events at the farmers’ market will contribute to bringing together the producers and
consumers in the market, creating weak ties to the existing structure which is composed of
closed collaborative groups; (3) a neighborhood dinner club for the producers will give them an
opportunity to meet other producers in the neighborhood and make a groundwork to initiate
new collaborations; and (8) a voluntary counseling service for producers in need of fiscal and
technical advice related to their business is an opportunity not only to use collective intelligence
of volunteers to support local economy but also to connect producers with volunteers who can
be their future customers.
168
Table 6.5 Brainstormed strategies mapped onto the typology map
A tightly knit groupN
etworked
individuals
A tightly knit group(s) and netw
orked
A network of tightly-
knit groupsA netw
ork of loosely-knit groups
A network of tightly-knit
and loosely-knit groups
Producer/consum
er netw
ork
Farmfoody
Cascina C
ornaleFarm
sReach
Mapo D
ureG
AS
Mapping diffused inform
ationFix m
y streetG
reen map
Open green m
ap
Aggregate social action
Pledgebank
No. 10 petition
Social invention
center
Carrot m
ob
Creating social netw
ork for conviviality
Meetup
Peladeiros
Vicini ViciniW
iserEarth
Mutual support circle
GR
OFU
NA
ctivmob
Com
petences, time and
products exchangeZerorelativo
Timebanks
Products, places and know
ledge sharing
Couchsurfing
Hitchhikers.org
Bookcrossing
Shelfari
Nabuur
(Add a new
type if necessary)
(Add a new
type if necessary)
Typology based on
social network
structure
Typology based on
meta-objective of services
!"#$%&#'($#%
1 3
!"#$%&#'($#%
8
!"#$%2
!"#$%4
&#'($#%5
6
&#'($#%7
169
Articulation of service concepts and strategies lead to defining a platform concept and features.
In Table 6.6, service strategies were generated using a resource-problem matrix and then
corresponding platform concepts were brainstormed.
Table 6.6 A resource-problem matrix with a brainstorming result
6.2.4.2. Designing platform concept and features
Case studies of collaborative services on digital platform in chapter 3 revealed that despite their
diverse contexts, they exhibit a common structural system which is composed of four elements:
A fragmented collaborative network among producersMany isolated individuals
Low level of membership due to inability to recognize other people
Low level of influence…The market is held only once a month.The market is held in only one place in the city.Many people do not know about the market and the promotion efforts are limited.Many people believe that the prices are unaffordable.The products lack diversity and quantity.Management of the market heavily depends on the Slow Food.A lack of information on fiscal and technical issues of business…
Problems relating to
the techincal dimension
Problems relating to the social
dimension of a service
Exi
stin
g co
nsum
er
netw
orks
Exi
stin
g pr
oduc
er
netw
orks
Shar
ed v
alue
s an
d in
tere
sts
amon
g co
nsum
ers
and
prod
ucer
sH
igh
leve
l of S
oC
amon
g pr
oduc
ers
Hig
h le
vel o
f SoC
am
ong
cons
umer
s
Map
Onl
ine
com
mun
ity
Foru
mE
mai
lB
log
e-co
mm
erce
pl
atfo
rm
Sync
wit
h ot
her
SNS'
s
…
Technological resources(Joomla CMS)Social resources
Service strategies
1. Social events at the market such as tasting laboratories, demonstrations by producers, shared tables 2. Brand Identity (BI) design of the market to improve the level of membership and to use it in promoting the market to the public. 3. A neighborhood dinner club for producers to get to know one another and to share information, competences and resources. 4. Community supported agriculture through micro-financing. 5. GAS extended (for large organizations such as schools, offices or apartment houses) 6. Shared logistics for producers to bring their products to the market 7. A food box delivery service 8. A voluntary counseling service for producers who need fiscal and technical advice for their business
Platform concepts
1'. A multimedia repository to share the records of events at the market 2'. An online competition of the BI design 3'. An online community that supports the exchange of time, products and competences among the producers 4'. An online microfinancing platform that connects individual lendors (citizens) with small local producers. 5'. A collaborative commerce platform for GAS extended 6'. A platform to support organization of carpooling among the producers 7'. An e-commerce platform for a food box delivery service. 8'. An online forum to discuss fiscal and technical issues and to receive advice from volunteers (e.g. Nabuur)
170
a platform base, an enabling solution, a collaborative service, and an event. Thinking reversely,
it implies that a common structural system can be proposed as an archetype for designers to
conceptualize a schematic structure for their digital platforms. This archetype describes the
composition of the four elements and configuration of digital tools to facilitate the production of
collaborative services. The structure of a digital platform for collaborative services is composed
of two layers: a platform base and an enabling solution module (Figure 6.12).
Figure 6.12 The structure of a digital platform for collaborative services
A platform base is a repository of digital tools and a user profile database that are used as
building blocks of an enabling solution module. The digital tools are divided into
communication tools and non-communication tools. Communication tools include social media,
multimedia and online broadcasting. Non-communication tools include map, Global
Positioning System (GPS), e-commerce system and search engine. A user profile database stores
information of users relevant to the collaborative services hosted on the platform. For example,
in the Nutrire Milano project, a database will eventually include information on the producers’
location, items they produce, skills, tools, knowledge, interests, financial information and
animals they raise.
An enabling solution module features tools that address the technical and social needs relating
to a collaborative service. Enabling solutions on a platform base can share a tool repository and
a user profile database (Figure 6.13). As more enabling solutions are added, a platform base will
be equipped with more tools. And as a platform gets equipped with more tools and achieves a
critical mass of users, a wider variety of services can be supported and the maturation of
services will accelerate.
comunication tools(e.g. social media)
New modulescan be added.
non- comunication tools(e.g. map)
a database of user profiles
BASE
ENABLING SOLUTION MODULE
DIGITALENABLINGSYSTEM
an enabling solution forfarmers’ market
an enabling solution forfood box delivery
171
Figure 6.13 The functional configuration of enabling solution modules
In the synthesis phase of the Nutrire Milano Project, several collaborative services to address
the producers’ social and technical needs were designed. They include a project lab, time bank,
took bank, CSA, food box delivery service, and carpooling to the market. The following step was
to define the concept and features of enabling solution modules that support them. Their
specifications were defined as shown in Table 6.7.
As an example, an enabling solution for a food box delivery has features that the service needs in
order to supplement the farmers’ market: the market is currently held only once a month near
the city center due to a bureaucratic reason and the limited number of visitors partly ascribes to
a difficult access to the market. A food box delivery service was proposed to target consumers
who are willing to consume local produce but cannot come to the market. It aimed to meet the
consumers’ demands for a more frequent and easier access to the local seasonal diet and a food
box scheme with a more affordable price range and more diverse items than the existing ones.
Its enabling solution is thus composed of an e-commerce system where a consumer can choose a
food box among different types; a blog where producers and consumers can communicate; an
online supply management system; and a map to show the location of producers; and a search
engine to search producers, products, price range and location (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7 Features of enabling solutions for the Nutrire Milano Project
comunication tools(e.g. social media)
New modulescan be added.
non- comunication tools(e.g. map)
a database of user profiles
BASE
ENABLING SOLUTION MODULE
DIGITALENABLINGSYSTEM
an enabling solution forfarmers’ market
an enabling solution forfood box delivery
172
A platform base and enabling solution modules constitute a digital platform for collaborative
service. If designed successfully, it will be used to create and manage collaborative services.
These services in turn will result in events that a designer anticipated (Figure 6.14).
Figure 6.14 A structural system of collaborative services on digital platform
collaborative servicesX X X X X X X X X project lab
X X X X X X X X time bankX X X X X X X X tool bank
X X X X X X X CSAX X X X X X X X X X X food box delivery
X X X X X X carpoolingX X X X X X X X X neighbors' dinner club
X X X X X X X X X X didactic farms!
onlin
e gr
oup
blog
foru
mte
xt m
essa
ging
emai
lbu
lletin
boa
rdne
wsl
ette
rR
SS
SN
S s
ync
onlin
e po
ll! e-
com
mer
cem
ap m
asup
pers
onal
info
rmat
ion
man
agem
ent s
yste
mca
lend
arse
arch
eng
ine
! skill
sto
ols
prod
ucts
know
ledg
ean
imal
sin
tere
sts
finan
cial
info
rmat
ion
!
a database of user profiles
communication tools non-communication tools
comunication tools(e.g. social media)
New modulescan be added.
non- comunication tools(e.g. map)
a user profilesdatabase
PLATFORM BASE
ENABLING SOLUTION MODULE
an enabling solution forfarmers’ market
an enabling solution forfood box delivery
COLLABORATIVE SERVICE
EVENT
173
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION
The main contribution of this thesis is the development of a socio-technical framework for
collaborative services, a systematic approach to design a digital platform for collaborative
communities. The following demands motivated this research: (1) social innovations are
emerging from the margins to the mainstream as alternative solutions to contemporary
economic, environmental and social problems; (2) there is a growing interest in design for social
innovation towards sustainability and consequently an increasing demand for new tools,
methods and theoretical knowledge concerning this topic; (3) in a conventional process to
design a digital platform for collaborative service, investigation of user needs concerning their
social relations tend to be neglected compared to the technical needs; and (4) in order to design
a collaborative service that effectively produces a solution and social networks, a systematic
approach to design a digital platform through socio-technical intervention is needed;
The development of a socio-technical framework starts with redefining the theoretical model of
collaborative service. The original model proposed by Cipolla (2007) is based on Buber’s
dialogic principle and has limitations in dealing with collaborative service on digital platform for
two reasons: (1) its limited scope fails to address collaborations that proliferate in communities
that are not necessarily composed of I-Thou relation; (2) and it is difficult to validate the model.
The new model has two dimensions of service: the degree of collaboration and the interpersonal
tie strength. A collaborative service is defined as a service implemented through collaboration of
the final users who act as co-designers and co-producers of a service based on latent, weak or
strong ties. As a result of a collaborative service, two basic elements are produced: a technical
solution to user needs and social networks among collaborative individuals. The production of a
solution facilitates the production of social networks and vice versa, thus forming a virtuous
cycle. ICTs amplify this virtuous cycle by providing tools for collaboration and contributing to
creation of social networks, mainly weak ties, which underpin collaborative service.
The next step was to collect existing cases of collaborative service on digital platform and to
identify their characteristics. 40 cases were collected on various topics such as health, welfare,
food, transportation and entertainment. The case studies led to the following findings: (1) the
cases exhibit a common structural system which consists of 4 elements: a platform, an enabling
solution, a collaborative service and an event; (2) a typology of collaborative service based on
the meta-objective of service was drawn: producer/consumer network, mapping diffused
information; aggregate social action; creating social network for conviviality; mutual support
circle; competences, time and products exchange; and products, places and knowledge sharing;
(3) a typology of collaborative service based on users’ social network structures was drawn: a
tightly knit group, networked individuals, a tightly knit group and networked individuals, a
174
network of tightly knit groups and a network of loosely knit groups, a network of tightly knit and
loosely knit groups.
A collaborative service aims to serve user needs with an innovative solution that typically
accompanies certain types of relational quality such as friendship, trust or conviviality. In order
to understand how designers and engineers develop collaborative services and their digital
platforms and how they address technical and social needs of target users in the design process,
two case studies were conducted. The studies revealed that both the Product System Design
Laboratory and the Social Innovation Camp did not provide a process and methods that address
target users’ needs at the full scope, focusing on the technical dimension of collaborative service
while neglecting the social dimension. Social relations and relational qualities were treated as a
byproduct of collaboration that can be only anticipated but not designed. This raises a need for a
systematic approach to design a collaborative service and its enabling solution that facilitates
the production of social networks through social and technical intervention.
Therefore, a new methodology to investigate social needs of users was proposed in the context of
a project to create a sustainable food network in Milan. The methodology involved the use of
three methods – sense of community index, degree of collaboration analysis and social network
analysis – to analyze problems concerning the social needs of producers in a peri-urban area
and consumers in Milan. In the SCI, the producers scored higher (9.41) than the consumers
(8.03), indicating that the former had a stronger sense of community than the latter. SNA
revealed that the social network structure of the producers was fragmented into collaborative
groups whose members were connected via strong and weak ties. Based on the result, strategies
for designing services and a digital platform were proposed.
In the end, findings from the project were applied to a wider framework and a socio-technical
framework for collaborative service was introduced. The framework has the following
characteristics: (1) it integrates the development process of a digital platform into service design
process; (2) it provides designers with a systematic approach to design a platform that supports
a collaborative service with socio-technical intervention; (3) it focuses on facilitating the
production of social networks of collaborative communities by analyzing their implicit social
needs.
Since the outcome to verify the validity of the framework is not yet available, it remains
unanswered for the moment if a digital platform produced based on the proposed framework
will be original. For example, how will the platform thus designed be different from the
Facebook or a conventional website dedicated a community? The originality of the framework
lies in the process of analyzing users’ social needs and applying the result to generate strategies
for a service and its enabling solution. Therefore, a successful outcome of the framework would
175
be a digital platform that effectively responds to users’ social needs. Whether the platform is
original in any sense is another issue that this research does not address.
The validity of the framework can be assessed based on the performance of a platform with
respect to achieving its goal. For example, the Nutrire Milano Platform can be evaluated in the
following aspects: (1) If the number of collaborative groups increased after the use of a platform;
(2) If the SoC level increased; (3) if the social networks of the community changed from densely-
knit and disconnected groups to a network of small groups connected via weak ties; (4) if the
economic performance of the producers improved. This remains as a future work to be done
when the platform development is complete. Applying the framework to different contexts will
further improve the framework and validate its effectiveness.
Regarding the methodology, there is a gap between the SCI results and elicitation of user needs.
The SCI results provide the level of SoC and its elements but do not explain the specific causes.
This makes it difficult for a designer to reflect the results in developing design strategies. One
way to fill this gap is to develop a tool that measures the level of relational qualities of a
community such as SoC based on questions that address specific issues that a designers wants to
explorer.
176
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (1994). Retrieved May 1st, 2009, from http://www.economia-solidale.org/
Green Map (1995). Retrieved September 22nd, 2008, from http://www.greenmap.org
Meetup (2001). Retrieved July 2nd, 2010, from http://www.meetup.com/
Peladeiro (2001). Retrieved May 2nd, 2009, from http://www.peladeiro.com.br
Solution Oriented Partnership. How to Design Industrialised Sustainable Solutions (2004). UK:
European commission GROWTH programme.
CouchSurfing (2004). Retrieved May 3rd, 2009, from http://www.couchsurfing.org
ShareIdeas.org (2005). Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.shareideas.org
Pledgebank (2005). Retrieved May 2nd, 2009, from http://www.pledgebank.com
Consumer Lifestyles - Italy (2006). Euromonitor International.
zerorelativo (2006). Retrieved May 3rd, 2009, from http://www.zerorelativo.it
GROFUN (2007). Retrieved July 2nd, 2008, from http://www.grofun.org.uk/
Zoes: Zona Equosostenibile (2008). Retrieved June 29th, 2010, from www.zoes.it
Innovative Study Examines Farmers’ Market Shoppers (2008). Market Thymes Special Edition
Activmob (2008). Retrieved May 2nd, 2009, from http://www.activmob.com/
Nutrire Milano Energie per il cambiamento. Il progetto dei nuovi connotati territoriali milanesi (2009,
June 11th). from
http://content.slowfood.it/upload/3E6E345B11c691AE9Bxmj23B9997/files/progetto_15.06.2009.
Team Fighting Diabetes (2009). Retrieved July 2nd, 2009, from http://www.fightingdiabetes.org/
Social Innovation Camp (2010). Retrieved July 22nd, 2010, from http://www.sicamp.org/about/
2010 Social Innovation Camp 365 (2010). Retrieved July 22nd, 2010, from http://2010.sicamp36.org/
Daum '\a+ÒP (2010). Retrieved September 5th, 2010, from
http://blog.daum.net/hyphen/8669870
Kind Bus (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://www.theroad.co.kr
Baratie: Feed Your People (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://10spoons.com
Fun Riding (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from httP://funriding.org
My Neighbors (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://2010.sicamp36.org/content/entry/40-
1
Our Farm (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://ourfarm.co.kr
Let's Market (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://letsmarket.kr
Art Funding (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://dev.naver.com/projects/artfund
Pro Bono Bridge (2010). Retrieved August 25th, 2010, from http://socialin.org
Treeing (2010). Retrieved October 22nd, 2010, from http://www.treeing.co.kr/
Halifax Seaport Farmers’ Market (2010). Retrieved December 28th, 2010, from
http://halifaxfarmersmarket.com/
I Mercati della Terra (n.d.). Retrieved October 1st, 2010, from http://www.mercatidellaterra.it/
177
AGRESTE (2008). The age distribution of farmers & growers: Ministère de l'agriculture, de
l'alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l'aménagement du territoire.
Archer, L. B. (1984). Systematic Method for Designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design
Methodology. Chichester: Wiley.
Baek, J. S. (2009). Case studies of collaborative service on digital platform Retrieved July 4th, 2009,
from http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/codi/?cat=1
Baek, J. S. (2010). Crises, Social innovations and ICT: How can we overcome the contemporary crises
through the diffusion of social innovation and strengthening the social network of the engaged
communities? Paper presented at the Culture and the Making of Worlds, the 3rd edition of the ESA
Research Network Sociology of Culture mid-term Conference, Milan.
Baek, J. S. (2010). How does ICT facilitate the diffusion of grassroots social innovation and reinforce the
social network of the engaged communities? With a focus on how ICTs can support sustainable
food production and consumption in Milan. Zoes Report Retrieved October 11th, 2010, from
www.sustainable-everyday.net/codi
Baek, J. S., Simeone, G., Meroni, A., & Corubolo, M. (2010). The second survey on collaborative
producers. Unpublished Survey. DIS, Politecnico di Milano.
Barrett, M., Grant, D., & Wailes, N. (2006). ICT and Organizational Change: Introduction to the Special
Issue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(6), 6-22.
Bauwens, M. (2005, July 3, 2005). Peer to peer and human evolution - On "the P2P relational dynamic"
as the premise of the next civilizational stage Retrieved June 18, 2009, from
http://www.networkcultures.org/weblog/archives/P2P_essay.pdf
Bauwens, M. (2005). The Foundation for P2P Alternatives Retrieved May 28, 2008, from
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Bauwens, M. (2006). The Political Economy of Peer Production. Post-autistic economics review(37).
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bernard, J. (1973). The sociology of community. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Testing a model of sense of virtual community. Computers in Human Behavior,
24(2008), 2107–2123.
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006). The Strength of Internet Ties. Washington
D.C.: The Pew Internet Project.
Brawer, W. (1992). Green Map, from www.greenmap.org
Brezet, H., & Hemel, C. (1997). A promising approach to sustainable production and consumption.
Paris: UNEP.
Briceno, T., & Stagl, S. (2004, 5th – 6th March). Examining the Social Aspect of Sustainable
Consumption. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Driving Forces of and Barriers to
sustainable Consumption, Leeds, UK.
Buber, M. (2008). I and Thou: Hesperides Press.
Buganza, T., Marchesi, A., & Verganti, R. (2004). Corporate strategies. In E. Manzini, L. Collina & S.
178
Evans (Eds.), Solution oriented partnership. How to design industrialised sustainable solutions (pp.
21-31). UK: European commission GROWTH programme.
Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). RED Paper 02. Transformation Design.
London: British Council.
Cachia, R., Kluzer, S., Cabrera, M., Centeno, C., & Punie, Y. (2007). ICT, Social Capital and Cultural
Diversity. Istanbul, Turkey: Joint Research Centre.
Canavari (2002). Food safety and organic fruit demand in Italy: a survey. British Food Journal,
104(3/4/5), 220-232.
Casalegno, F., & Susani, M. (2005). An Atlas of Aural Knowledge.
Chavis, D. M. (n.d.). Sense of Community Index Retrieved October 22nd, 2010, from
http://www.activeguidellc.com/cmi/comm_soc_soci_scale.htm
Chavis, D. M., Lee, K. S., & Acosta, J. D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised: The Reliability
and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International Community Psychology
Conference.
Chipuer, H. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). A review of the Sense of Community Index: Current uses,
factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology. Journal of
Community Psychology, 27(6), 643-658.
Cipolla, C. (2007). Designing for interpersonal relational qualities in services: A model for Service
Design theory and practice. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Politecnicdo di Milano, Milano.
Cipolla, C. (2008). Creative communities as “relational” innovations: a service design approach.
Collaborative services: social innovation and design for sustainability.
Cooper, M. (2005). The economics of collaborative production in the spectrum commons. IEEE, 379-
400.
Corbett, S. (2008, April 13, 2008). Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty? The New York Times.
Cottam, H., & Leadbeater, C. (2004). Health. Co-creating Services. London: Design Council.
Cottam, H., & Leadbeater, C. (2004). RED Paper 01. HEALTH: Co-creating Services. London: British
Council.
Crul, M. R. M., & Diehl, J. C. (2006). Design for Sustainability a practical approach for Developing
Economies. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Csikszent, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1987). Media Richness Theory Retrieved October 2nd, 2010, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Media_Richness_Theory_Diagram_PNG.png
Doreian, P., & Stokman, F. N. (1997). Evolution of Social Networks: Processes and Principles:
Routledge.
Ellis, J., Halverson, C., & Erickson, T. (2005). Sustaining Community – Incentive Mechanisms in Online
Systems: Final Report of the Group 2005 Workshop Organizers. USA: IBM T. J. Watson Research
Center.
Evans, S. (2004). Getting the best from globalisation, localisation and industrialisation. In E. Manzini,
L. Collina & S. Evans (Eds.), Solution oriented partnership. How to design industrialised
179
sustainable solutions (pp. 16-20). UK: European commission GROWTH programme.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class Retrieved November 21, 2008, from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html
Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting Brand Communities Right: Embrace conflict, resist the urge to
control, forget opinion leaders and build your brand. Harvard Business Review, 07-05-2009, p.105-
111.
Franke, S. (2005). Measurement of Social Capital. Reference Document for Public Policy Research,
Development, and Evaluation.
Franqueira, T. (2009). Creative Places for Collaborative Cities: Strategies to enable the convergence of
groups of people and organizations for a sustainable urban reactivation. Politecnicdo di Milano,
Milano.
Fullerton, D., & Stavins, R. N. (1998). How Do Economists Really Think About the Environment?
Resources for the Future Discussion.
Gaag, M. V. d., & Snijders, T. (2004). Proposals for the measurement of individual social capital. In H.
D. Flap & V. B. (Eds.), Creation and returns of Social Capital (pp. 199-218). London: Routledge.
Gianasso, P., & Tiano, M. (2010). Le Città Innovative Nel Mondo: Scenari Immobiliari. Istituto
Indipendente di Studi e Ricerche, Generali Immobiliare Italia SGR.
Goodhue, R. E., Green, R. D., Heien, D. M., & Martin, P. L. (2008). Current Economic Trends in the
California Wine Industry. California: University of California.
Grace, C., Grace, T., Becker, N., & Lyden, J. (2005). Barriers to Using Urban Farmers’ Market: An
Investigation of Food Stamp Clients’ Perception: Oregon Food Bank.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited Sociological Theory (Vol.
Volume 1, pp. 201-233).
Gruzd, A. (2009). Automated Discovery of Social Networks in Online Learning Communities.
Unpublished PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Gruzd, A. (2009). Studying Collaborative Learning using Name Networks. Journal of Education for
Library and Information Science, 50(4), 243-253.
Gruzd, A. (2009, October 7-11, 2009). Automated Discovery of Emerging Online Communities Among
Blog Readers: A Case Study of a Canadian Real Estate Blog. Paper presented at the Internet
Research 10.0 Conference, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. Special
issue of the American Behavioral Scientist on Imagined Communities.
Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1992). Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection: Integrating
Theory and Practice. American Economic Review, 82, 464-468.
Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., & Wimmer, R. (2005). Methodology for product service system innovation. The
Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Halme, M. (2005). Sustainable consumer services: Business solutions for household markets. London:
Earthscan.
180
Hanks, K., Odom, W., Roedl, D., & Blevis, E. (2008). Sustainable Millennials: Attitudes towards
Sustainability and the Material Effects of Interactive Technologies. Paper presented at the CHI
2008, Florence, Italy.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Exploring Multiplexity: Social Network Structures in a Computer-
Supported Distance Learning Class. The Information Society, 17, 211–226.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media. The
Information Society, 18, 385–401.
Hempel, J. (2006). Designed in China. BusinessWeek Retrieved October 20, 2009, from
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_41/b4004412.htm
Hippel, E. V. (2005). Decmocratizing innovation. Cambridge, Massacusetts: The MIT Press.
Hockerts, K. (1998). Eco-Efficient Service Innovation: Increasing Business-Ecological Efficiency of
Products and Services. In M. Charter (Ed.), Greener Marketing: A Global Perspective on Greener
Marketing Practice (pp. 95-108). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf publishing.
Huang, E. M., & Truong, K. N. (2008). Breaking the Disposable Technology Paradigm: Opportunities for
Sustainable. Paper presented at the CHI 2008, Florence, Italy.
Jasper, & others (1999). Hitchhikers Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from www.hitchhikers.org
Jegou, F., & Manzini, E. (2008). Collaborative services: Social innovation and design for sustainability.
Milano: Edizioni Poli.design.
Jégou, F., Manzini, E., & Meroni, A. (2002). Design plan, a tool for organising the design activities
oriented to generate sustainable solutions. Paper presented at the SusProNet.
Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual-Communities, Virtual Settlements & Cyber-Archaeology: A Theoretical Outline.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3).
Kahn, L., Ali, R., Buonfino, A., Leadbeater, C., & Mulgan, G. (2009). breakthrough cities: how cities can
mobilise creativity and knowledge to tackle compelling social challenges. London: The Young
Foundation, British Council.
Kavanaugh, A. (1999). The Impact of Computer Networking on Community: A Social Network Analysis
Approach. Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference 1999.
Kavanaugh, A. (2001). Civic Engagement among Community Computer Network Users: Trend or
Phase? Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference 2001.
Kim, K. J. (1998). A study on the residents' sense of community Korea. Unpublished PhD thesis, Seoul
National University, Seou.
Kim Lee, H. (2010). Survey on the social innovation camp. Unpublished Survey. Hope Institute.
Koh, J., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, Y.-G. (2003). Sense of Virtual Community: A Conceptual Framework and
Empirical Validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-94.
Krishna, A., & Shrader, E. (1999). Social capital assessment tool. Paper presented at the Conference on
Social Capital and Poverty Reduction.
Lan, L. (2009). Case study of Couch Surfing. Milan: Politecnico di Milano.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London:
Bloomsbury.
181
Livraghi, G. (2010). Dati sull’internet in Italia Retrieved October 6th, 2010, from
http://web.mclink.it/MC8216/dati/dati3.htm
Maier, L., & Shobayashi, M. (2001). Multifunctionality: TOWARDS AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK.
Paris: OECD.
Manzini, E. (2004). Scenarios of sustainable ways of living - Local and global visions. INDACO,
Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2005). Towards a New Ecology of the Artificial Environment. Design within the limits of
possibilities and the possibilities of limits.
Manzini, E. (2005). A cosmopolitan localism - Prospects for a sustainable local development and the
possible role of design. INDACO, Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2005). Enabling solutions - Social innovation, creative communities and strategic design.
INDACO, Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2005). Distributed systems - Promising models for a sustainable development. INDACO,
Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2006). Design for sustainability - How to design sustainable solutions. INDACO,
Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2007). A laboratory of ideas. Diffuse creativity and new ways of doing. In A. Meroni (Ed.),
Creative communities: People inventing sustainable ways of living (pp. 13-15). Milan: Edizioni
POLI.design.
Manzini, E. (2008). Collaborative services and enabling solutions: Social innovation and design for
sustainability.
Manzini, E. (2008). Design, ethics and sustainability - Guidelines for a transition phase.
Manzini, E. (2008). Design Research Agenda for Sustainability(DRAS): An open and collaborative
program. Unpublished Research agenda. Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2008). Small, local, open and connected. Learning lessons about sustainability and design.
Observatorio del Diseño y la Arquitectura.
Manzini, E. (2009A). DESIS-International. A network on Design for Social Innovation and
Sustainability. DESIS-International.
Manzini, E. (2009B). Allegato 1.1 Casi e tipologie di incontro from course materials for Servic Design
Lab Sintesi 2009. Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E. (2010B). Social innovation and design. Some background notes. Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E., & Jegou, F. (2003). Sustainable everyday. Scenarios of Urban Life. Milano: Edizioni
Ambiente.
Manzini, E., & Jègou, F. (2007). Report of Contributions from the Government or the Government
Offices of Sweden, Ministry of Sustainable Development: INDACO - Politecnico di Milano, SDS
(Strategic Design Scenarios).
Manzini, E., & Jègou, F. (2007). Creative communities for sustainable lifestyles (CCSL). Milano:
Politecnico di Milano & Strategic Design Scenarios.
Manzini, E., Pillan, M., & Cipolla, C. (2010A). Servizi Digitali e Reti Collaborative: Incontri per fare.
182
Milan: Politecnico di Milano.
Manzini, E., & Vezzoli, C. (2002). Product-Service Systems and Sustainability - Opportunities for
sustainable solutions. MIlano: Interdepartmental Research Centre. Innovation for the
Environmental Sustainability. Politecnico di Milano University.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Psychology, 14(January), 6-23.
Meltzer, G. (2005). Sustainable Community, Learning from the cohousing model. Canada: Trafford.
Meroni, A. (Ed.). (2007). Creative communities: People inventing sustainable ways of living. Italy:
Edizioni POLI.design.
Meroni, A. (2008). Strategic Design to take care of the territory. Networking Creative Communities to
link people and places in a scenario of sustainable development. Paper presented at the P&D
Design 2008 - 8º Congresso Brasileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento em Design, São Paulo,
Brazil.
Mont, O. (2005). Sustainable consumption - Research and Policies. Bromma, Sweden: The Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mulgan, G. (2006). Social Silicon Valleys: A manifesto for social innovation. What is it, why it matters,
how it can be accelerated. London: The Young Foundation.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations(Spring), 145-162.
Mulgan, G., Steinberg, T., & Salem, O. (2005). Wide Open: Open source methods and their future
potential. In Demos (Ed.). London: Demos.
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and
how it can be accelerated. London: Young Foundation.
Murray, R. (2010). Danger and opportunity. Crisis and the new social economy. London: NESTA.
Murray, R., Mulgan, G., & Caulier!Grice, J. (2008). How to Innovate: The tools for social innovation.
London: The Young Foundation.
Myers, D. G. (2000). The Funds, Friends, and Faith of Happy People. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56-
67.
Nascimento, F. (2000). Peladeiros Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from www.peladeiros.com.br
Organisciak, P. (2008). Motivation of Crowds: The Incentives That Make Crowdsourcing Work
Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://crowdstorming.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/motivation-of-
crowds-the-incentives-that-make-crowdsourcing-work/
Pacenti, E., & Sangiorgi, D. (2010). Service design research pioneers: An overview of Service Design
research developed in Italy since the ‘90s. Design Research Journal, Ges Ut Av Svid, Stiftelsen
Svensk Industridesign, 1(10), 26-33.
Paldam, M. (2000). Social Capital: One or Many? Definition and measurement. Journal of Economic
Surveys.
Papanek, V. (1995). The green imperative. Singapore: Thames and hudson.
Parkers, J. (2009). Case study of G.R.O.F.U.N. Milan: Politecnico di Milano.
183
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater & Every Business a
Stage: Harvard Business School Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1),
65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1996). The Strange Disappearance of Civic America. The American Prospect, Winter(24).
Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2002). How does the Internet Affect Social Capital. In M. Huysman &
V. Wulf (Eds.), IT and Social Capital.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Roma, C. d. (1999). Vicini Vicini Retrieved December 28th, 2008, from www.festadeivicinidicasa.it
Sabatini, F. (2005). An Inquiry into the Empirics of Social Capital and Economic Development.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome.
Sangiorgi, D. (2003). Design dei servizi come design dei sistemi di attivita: la teoria dell'Attivita
applicata alla progettazione dei servizi. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Politecnicdo di Milano, Milano.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An Introduction. American
Psychologist, 55(5-14).
Sen, A. (2004). Why We Should Preserve the Spotted Owl. London Review of Books, 26(3).
Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. (Eds.). (2004) The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Smoreda, Z., & Thomas, F. (2001). Social networks and residential ICT adoption and use. Paper
presented at the Eurescom Summit, Heidelberg.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). Handbook of Positive Psychology: Oxford University Press, USA.
Stalder, F., & Hirsh, J. (2002). Open Source Intelligence. First Monday, 7(6).
Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., & Schmid, B. F. (2001). A Typology of Online Communities and Community
Supporting Platforms. Paper presented at the the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics (Y. Mina, Trans.): 21 Century Books.
Thackara, J. (2005). In the bubble: Designing in a complex world. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
UNEP, U.-. (2002). youthxchange. training kit on responsible consumption - THE GUIDE: A United
Nations Publication.
Unknown (2006). Social Silicon Valleys - A manifesto for social innovation. What it is, why it matters
and how it can be accelerated.: The Young Foundation.
Unknown (2006). Internet serves as ‘social glue’. BBC NEWS Retrieved September 1, 2009, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4644666.stm
Unknown (2009). Social innovation wins the backing of President Obama and Barroso Retrieved June
24, 2009, from http://www.youngfoundation.org.uk/social-innovation/news/social-innovation-
wins-backing-president-obama-and-barroso
184
Unknown (2009). Fixing the future. Innovating more effective responses to recession. London: The
Young Foundation.
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks,
18(1996), 69-89.
Valente, T. W., & DAVIS, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the Diffusion of Innovations Using Opinion Leaders.
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY, 566(November), 55-67.
Vezzoli, C. (2007). System design for sustainability. Italy: Maggioli Editore.
Wellman, B. (1996). For a social network analysis of computer networks: A Sociological Perspective on
Collaborative Work and Virtual Community. Paper presented at the SIGCPR/ SIGMIS '96.
Wellman, B. (1999). Living Networked in a Wired World. In M. Hears & D. Price (Eds.), Trends and
Controversies: IEEE Intelligent Systems.
Wellman, B. (2001A). The Rise (and Possible Fall) of Networked Individualism. In L. Keeble (Ed.),
Community Networks Online. London: Taylor & Francis.
Wellman, B. (2001B). Physical Place and Cyber Place: The Rise of Personalized Networking.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(Special Issue on “Networks, Class and
Place”).
Wellman, B., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Quan-Haase, A., & Isl, I. D. d. (2002). Networking
Community: The Internet in Everyday Life. Paper presented at the Euricom Conference on e-
Democracy, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or
Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment.
American Behavioral Scientist, 45(436).
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). COMPUTER
NETWORKS AS SOCIAL NETWORKS: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community.
Annual Reviews Sociology(22), 213–238.
Wilkinson, N., Savoie, L., Crawford, L., & Rice, K. (2009). Community Connectors Program. Halifax:
Halifax Farmers' Market.
Williams, B. (2000). Formal Structures and Social Reality. In G. Diego (Ed.), Trust: Making and
Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 3-13): Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.
Woodruff, A., Hasbrouck, J., & Augustin, S. (2008). A Bright Green Perspective on Sustainable Choices.
Paper presented at the CHI 2008, Florence, Italy.
Yang, S., Lee, H., & Kurnia, S. (2007). Understanding the Relationship between Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) and Social Capital: A Conceptual Framework. Paper presented at
the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
185
APPENDIX
A.1. Social media personalization, openness and exposure
Looking into the ICTs used by the cases, some patterns emerge in the way people select ICTs to
perform their tasks. For example, consumers use voice calls or emails to contact farmers and
make reservations to their visit but do not use their blogs or newsletter for the same purpose;
producers send news of the farms to consumers via blogs, newsletter or social networking
services but not via voice calls or internet forum. In other words, empirical findings show that
despite some overlapping, there may exist certain social media that fit for certain tasks than
others. If this is the case and if the implicit correlation can be identified, it can guide people to
selecting a right medium for a task will help collaborative organizations communicate more
effectively and diffuse their ideas more efficiently. As the first step to identify the correlation
between social media and the tasks, a set of variables to differentiate social media were
extracted. Then the social media used by the five groups of cases were mapped accordingly,
visualized into a map and the result was interpreted in relation to the case analysis. But prior to
this, literature studies on previous researches to classify social media were conducted.
The framework
Three attributes of information were selected as variables to compare social media:
personalization, openness and exposure.
Personalization of information. A piece of information is personalized if it is produced and
addressed to a particular individual. The opposite concept of personalization would be general.
The degree of personalization is inversely proportional to the number of recipients.
Case studies show that, though not always, some media suit a personalized message more than
others. For example, face-to-face conversation, voice calls and 1:1 emails are mainly used to
send personalized messages. On the contrary, a blog, internet forum and SNS are often used to
send information addressed to a defined group and therefore less personalized. Collaborative
tools such as social library, social bookmarking and wiki are used to send information addressed
to an undefined group and therefore they are general. Table 6 illustrates the hierarchy of media
according to their personalization.
Table 1. The hierarchy of personalization of social media
Degree of personalization Social media
186
Highly personalized Rarely personalized
1 to 1 conversation Voice calls 1 to 1 email Comments on blogs and SNS Instant messaging IRC (Internet Relay Chat) Blogs SNS Internet forum Newsletters Social bookmarking Social libraries Wiki
Openness of information. Openness of information means an availability of access to a piece of
information. The more open a piece of information is, the more people it will be available to.
Like the personalization, openness of information is related to the media type. Some media by
their nature permit more opportunity of access than others. For example, blogs allow their
contents to be accessed by anyone32 whereas voice calls limit the access of its content to
transmitters and recipients. Table 7 illustrates the hierarchy of media according to their
openness.
Table 2. The hierarchy of openness of social media
Degree of openness Social media Rarely open Highly open
Voice calls Face-to-face conversation Emails Newsletters SNS posting SNS group Social libraries Social bookmarking Internet forum (some are closed) Blogs (some are closed) Wiki
The degree of openness not only varies among different media types but also within the same
media type. For example, Facebook is less open than blogs because its contents are available
only to the members whereas blogs in general are not. However, Facebook is more open than A
Small World, another SNS that, as the name implies, is an exclusive community for culturally
influential people. One can join A Small World only by getting invited by existing members and
therefore the opportunity of having an access to its contents is less than that of Facebook.
Within Facebook, openness of a message varies depending on where it is posted. A message
posted on a personal wall is less open than a message posted on a group wall because the former
is only visible to friends whereas the latter is visible to any member of Facebook.
Openness should not be confused with the exposure of information which is related to the
number of people who actually access information. Open information may not necessarily be
32 Some blogs are available only to selected members but in general, most blogs are open to visitors.
187
exposed to a larger group of people than a closed information. For example, a message on
Facebook may be accessed by more people than the same message posted on a blog.
Exposure of information. Exposure of information means the degree of which a piece of
information is exposed to people and it is directly proportional to the size of people who have
access to that information. The more exposed a piece of information is, the more likely it is to
diffuse. Like personalization or openness, it is related to media type – but not only – because
some media by nature are more effective for group communication than others and therefore
more people in these media. If a public message is to be delivered through media of low
exposure, the delivery can be inefficient. (Imagine delivering news to 1000 members via phone
call as opposed to a newsletter). Likewise, if a private message is to be delivered through media
of high exposure, the delivery can be ineffective. (For example, people do not use a blog to
deliver a personal message because there is no guarantee that the message will be securely
delivered to a recipient).
The degree of exposure is relatively higher in new media such as blogs, SNS33, wiki and social
collaborative tools because these media were designed exactly for this purpose: to support
people to aggregate and collaborate. On the other hand, media such as face-to-face
conversation, voice calls and emails have a less degree of exposure because they suit one-to-one
or small group communication.
Media type is not the only factor that determines the exposure of information. There are other
factors such as the popularity of a transmitter, a content and a platform. Therefore the
comparison of exposure based on the media type may vary case by case. However, based on the
empirical data from the case studies and assuming the most likely context of use, a hierarchy is
proposed as below (table 8).
Table 3. The hierarchy of exposure of social media
Degree of exposure Social media Highly exposed Rarely exposed
Wiki SNS Social bookmarking / social libraries Email IRC IM Face-to-face conversation Voice calls
In summary, the three attributes of information can be described simply as below:
• Personalized information: information delivered to a specific person or group
33 An average Facebook user has about 130 friends. So whenever one writes something on his or her wall, it has an average exposure of 130 people.
188
• Depersonalized information: information that is delivered to a undefined group
• Open information: information in an open space
• Closed information: information in a closed space
• Exposed information: information in a crowded (virtual) space
• Unexposed information: information in an empty (virtual) space
Comparison of social media
Based on the framework of the personalization, openness and exposure of information, a set of
social media were evaluated in 3-point rating scale (table 9) and mapped onto 3 x 3 matrices
(figure 7-1, 7-2). The most confusing part of evaluating media is that people use them in
different ways in diverse contexts. For example, a voice call is normally between two people but
it can also be a conference call between many participants or a broadcasted interview over the
phone. So is a face-to-face interaction. It may be between a private conversation between two
people or a public speech for a large group of audience in an open space. In the case of
Facebook, there are even more diverse situations as it is a service composed of a set of different
social media to support social networking rather than of a single medium. Therefore, to avoid
such confusion, specific contexts were defined within each medium.
Table 4. Comparison of different media (in the descending order of the sum of openness and
exposure)
[3-point rating scale] In personalization, 1: low (1000 or more people), 2: mid (10~1000 people), 3: high
(less than 10 people); in openness, 1: only available to a limited group of people, 2: available to anyone who
register, 3: available to anyone without registering; in exposure, 1: low (less than 10 people), 2: mid
(10~1000 people), 3: high (1000 or more people)
Media Personalization Openness Exposure Openness +
exposure
A message from the president broadcasted on TV
1 3 3 6
Wikipedia 1 3 3 6 Internet forum at the global level (e.g. IBM global Jam)
1~3 2 3 5
Blogs 1~3 3 2 5 Comments on a blog 3 3 2 5 Facebook group page 1~3 2 3 5 Social collaborative tools (e.g. social libraries, social bookmarking)
1 2 3 5
A group conversation (size >10) 2 2 2 4 Newsletters from a farm in APSM 2~3 2 2 4 A spam 1 1 3 4 Flickr album 1~3 2 2 4 Internet relay chat in an online lecture (size 50) 2 1 2 3
Facebook comments 3 1 2 3 Facebook personal page (average 130 friends) 2 1 2 3
1:1 voice call 3 1 1 2
189
1:1 conversation 3 1 1 2 1:1 email 3 1 1 2 Instant messaging 3 1 1 2
Figure 13 is the visualization of table 9. The social media are mapped on a 2-dimensional space where the
x-axis represents the exposure and the y-axis represents the openness. The size of dots represent the
degree of personalization.
Figure 1. Mapping of social media in table 9
A message delivered through the media of high exposure and high openness, i.e., in the upper
right, is potentially highly diffusive whereas a message delivered through the media of low
exposure and low openness, i.e., in the left bottom is private and closed and therefore likely to
circulate inside a closed circle.
190
A.2. Case studies format
This template is based on the template developed by Anna Meroni for her Strategic design class
to analyze collaborative services. Use this template to describe a service. For the definitions of a
service and a platform, please refer to the page of the template.
Author of the case research
Country: __________ Step 1. identity card (Light analysis)
Objectives of step 1: To provide a complete but synthetic overview of the case. To classify the case according with the main criteria and key words adopted to evaluate sustainable and innovative solutions. Title. Also include the link to the service. __________ Formal name of the solution, name used by the people, significant title given by the researchers. e.g. Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord (www.parconord.it) Sub title __________ Formal subtitle of the solution or used by the people (max 150 characters) e.g. (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Raising fruits and vegetables in town City, Country __________ e.g. Milan, Italy When was it launched? __________ e.g. 1997 Source __________
191
Where the info comes from. Persons (the people you contacted):
_(on the provider/promoter side) name, surname, job description, company/organisation, tel/e-mail, etc. _(on the user side) name, surname, work, tel/e-mail, etc.
Internet URL, newspaper or magazine references, etc. Existence of a platform (Platform here is defined as a system that provides a series of services that includes the very case being analyzed.) Key-words Words people would use to search for the solution: they refer to the "organisational key ideas” supporting the solutions. They define "how" the function is performed. Choose one option among the following list, or "propose" a new one whether really-really no-one match with your case : • Exchanging • Sharing • Networking • Empowering/enabling • Promoting user participation • Promoting mutual help • Integrating functions • Connecting local-global Service type Check the corresponding type in each variable ! Producers/consumers networks (e.g. purchasing groups; local markets, etc.) ! Community-based initiatives (e.g. community-based tourism, community based agriculture, etc.) ! Result-oriented encounters (e.g. car pooling, street games organizations, etc.) ! Mutual-support circles (e.g. circle of care for diabetic, allergic, obese people, etc.) ! Caring and support activities (e.g. support elderly people at home, mobility in isolated places, etc.) ! Competences, time and products exchange (e.g. time banks, sharing tasks, etc.) ! Products and places sharing (e.g. car sharing, co-housing, community services, etc.) ! Mapping diffused information (e.g. city maintenance, local resources availability, etc.) Type of collaborative digital service provided (check the corresponding type in each variable)
Variables Types Relationship of interaction
! community – community ! individual – community ! community – individual ! individual – individual
Activitiy ! to co-create ! to share ! to exchange ! to buy and/or sell ! to entertain ! to educate and learn ! to care ! to help
192
! to participate in political activities ! others:
Objective ! to improve welfare ! to improve safety ! to improve productivity ! to improve social conviviality ! to reduce environmental impact ! to disseminate ideas ! to have economical benefits ! others:
Service description and the aim (in brief) __________ e.g. Meetup is the world’s largest network of local groups. Meetup makes it easy for anyone to organize a local group or find one of the thousands already meeting up face-to-face. More than 2,000 groups get together in local communities each day, each one with the goal of improving themselves or their communities. Meetup’s mission is to revitalize local community and help people around the world self-organize. Meetup believes that people can change their personal world, or the whole world, by organizing themselves into groups that are powerful enough to make a difference. Service promoter/provider __________ The actor providing/organising or promoting solution. Select one option in the following list: • Big enterprise • Small Medium enterprise • NGO • Cooperative • Association • International organisation • Academic institution • Government • Municipality • Add
e.g. (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Consortium Parco Nord, Milano • Association Target user __________ e.g. Drivers who have empty seats and need a company to travel with and travellers who need a ride. Image Add one image: the best and most meaningful image among the pictures you have.
193
e.g.:
Problematic background and context (in brief) __________ Description of the context where the solution has been developed: historical background of the solution and situation where the it takes place: it is the geographical area and the social/economic fabric where the demand of this service has emerged. (max 350 characters). e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) “Parco Nord” is a big semi-urban park in the Milanese hinterland very close to peripheral residential areas. As many other parks, it suffers for carelessness and have huge spare spaces that could instead be devoted to many other uses. (ref. case: Ateliers Avelo. Workshop facilities for environmental friendly commuters. Brussels) An association, Les Ateliers de la Rue Voot, is the frame within Ateliers Avelo has been originated. It is a multi-activity association aiming at proposing activities through direct participation of the user: it is located in a popular residential suburb of the city suffering for typical problems such as people isolation and car based mobility. Solution description __________ Description of the solution that is being provided to users. Be sure to cover the following points: - What is the aim of the solution and to what need does it address? - How does the solution work in brief? - To what personal and societal values does it address? (max 500 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Vegetable Gardens is a service provided by a consortium of 6 municipalities around the park “Parco Nord” in the Milanese hinterland. Applying to the Vegetable Gardens scheme means to have the possibility to rent an allotment where to raise your own fruits and vegetables. Allotments are very close to residential areas. The service is open to pensioners, housewives or
194
unemployed, who are older than 60-years-old: it gives them the possibility to socialise and to enjoy out-door activities. (ref. case: Ateliers Avelo. Workshop facilities for environmental friendly commuters. Brussels) Ateliers Avelo aims at changing commuting attitude in a city area where people use a lot their car. It does so by promoting the use of bikes and empowering individuals to take care and maintain them. It provides spaces, infrastructures and qualified personnel to whoever wants to repair the bike: people can find pieces to be reused and to substitute, working tools and any kind of support they might need. They can also participate to the reparation of old bikes that will be offered to charities. Key-Innovation __________ Synthetic description in one sentence of the key innovation and distinctive value of the solution. (max 150 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: House sharing between students and pensioners, Milan) Accommodation of students at lonely pensioners (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Allotment of spare spaces to elderly in a semi-urban park, to raise vegetable and fruits in town. (ref. case: Ateliers Avelo. Workshop facilities for environmental friendly commuters. Brussels) Enabling individuals to take care of, and maintain, their own bike. Who are the partners? __________ List the partners involved in establishment and management of the platform if there is any. e.g. Commune di Milano Social, economical and environmental benefits if any (in brief) __________ Why the solution seems to be promising in terms of sustainability. What is the benefit of this solution? (max 350 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Caring for their own garden the involved people generate individual and social advantages. In addition the solution generates a well kept green area near, or in-between, the city. It produces some vegetables for local consumption and, doing so, it reduces the demand for food coming form far away.
To what extent do users participate in providing the service? __________ e.g. The platform of One Life Japan is a blog with its major goal of delivering information on the services it provides. On this platform, users play a role of no more than readers. In order to get
195
additional information or make reservations, they are asked to send an email or make a call to a person in charge. Describe positive qualities that this service creates to the members and to society. __________ A platform for collaborative services is open (or is called an open platform) if it allows users meet their own needs by creating services that the service provider does not provide yet or provides but has failed to do well. e.g. Zoes platform is open because it provides a service called ‘Zoes in action’ in which users can create their own collaborative services using open-source toolkits provided by Zoes. Enabling technologies. If applicable, describe the technologies and their roles in the collaboration. __________
e.g. Mobile SMS is used to make a reservation and confirm it. It also employed e-commerce system with geographic data of users so that people can purchase products from the producers located nearest to them.
Step 2. case description (In-depth analysis)
Objectives of step 2: To provide a deep description of the solution, of the way it works and of its level of development. Problematic background and context __________ Extended presentation of the context where the solution has been developed: historical background of the solution and situation where it takes place: it is the geographical area and the social/economic fabric where the demand of this service has emerged. Be sure to cover the following topics: - What are the characteristics of the geographical place, the inhabitants and the activities (business, social, etc.) in the area? - Why did the solution come to life? - What are the drivers of the solution (e.g. economic, security, necessity, lifestyle driven, etc.)? - What are the personal motivations to start or to join the solution? (max 1000 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) “Parco Nord” is a big semi-urban park in the Milanese hinterland very close to peripheral residential areas. As many other parks, it suffers for carelessness and have huge spare spaces that could instead be devoted to many other uses. The Consortium that manages the park wanted to provide services in order to face the above problem but also to find solutions to the common isolation many people, especially pensioners, go through. Such peripheral residential areas suffer also for the lack of public spaces where people can meet and of entertaining services for children, teens and elderly. In the recent past (and, in some cases, also in the present) the ground alongside the railway paths was given to retired people to be farmed: from this solution derives the idea to divide in allotment some parts of the park to be farmed and raised by those who want to join the scheme and are eligible.
196
Solution description __________ Extended description of the solution that is being provided to users. Be sure to cover the following points: - What is the aim of the solution and to what need does it address? - How does the solution work in detail? - Why is the innovation interesting? - To what value (positive qualities) does it address (both societal and personal value)? (max 1000 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Vegetable Gardens is a service provided by a consortium of 6 municipalities around the park “Parco Nord” in the Milanese hinterland. Starting from the traditional idea of the “railway vegetable gardens”, the park proposes the ‘rent’ of vegetable gardens to pensioners, housewives or unemployed, who are older than 60-years-old. Users can farm and grow up whatever they wish, but they have to assure a regular maintenance and to demonstrate to take care of it. Further, they are requested to look after common spaces. Once in a while they are asked to participate to meetings and training seminars. The rental process include a 6-years renewable contract and the following facilities for farming: _ the chest for recovering the equipment _ the concrete tiles for the paths _ postal costs and secretariat _ water for minimum 3 half-days per week _ disposal of non-compostable waste Besides raising fruits and vegetables the solution gives the possibility to people to socialise and to enjoy out-door activities Timeframe __________ Indicate from when the solution is, or will be, viable. (year and month) Digital and physical activities Digital activities (pay attention to the required physical assets, type of interaction, size of community) Physical activities (pay attention to the required knowledge competence, type of interaction, , size of community) Formalization What rules does it have that members have to abide by? Step 3. solution elements and technologies Objectives of step 3: To understand and describe the complexity of the solution in terms of it components (products and services): what and who is needed to get that result. Solution Elements __________ __________
197
__________ List the main/key elements of the solution. Elements are the products (included some specific places as shops, equipped corners, etc.) and the services that enable the solution to be provided Technologies __________ __________ __________ List the key technologies used in the solution: they can be ICT technologies, mechanical technologies, electronic technologies, etc.. Development and management of an enabling solution 1. Who developed the website (the promoters themselves, professional freelancers, external software company...) 2. Was it a volunteer or paid work? 3. Who pays for the maintenance? 4. What economic model to develop/maintain (membership, project, ad hoc fundraising, etc.) 5. Is it released in open source / free software; if yes, where? Features What kind of features does the service have? _ e-commerce _ Blog _ Wiki _ Newsletter _ RSS _ Search _ Geo-reference _ Open source _ Multilingual service _ Multimedia contents _ Upload & download files (e.g. images, movies, documents) _ Money transfer _ Online poll _ Bulletin board _ Appointment & calendar _ Use of tagging systems _ Social networking (profiles/groups, etc.) _ Widgets and other “external” web applications (plugins to other apps) _ Else:
Step 4. system actors
Objectives of step 4: To understand and describe the complexity of he solution in terms of the actors involved in its performance and development. System actors name description role name description role name description role ..... .... ..... ..... .... .....
198
System actors are the different stakeholders taking part in the solution. They can be associations, institutions, companies, group of people, individuals including the users performing specific tasks and roles in the system. e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Giovanni He is one of the urban farmer who has joined
the solution. He is 73 years old and lives with the wife close to the area of the vegetable gardens.
Active user
Consortium Parco Nord
It is the organisation managing the entire Parco Nord. The 6 municipalities around the park take part into the Consortium: Milano, Sesto San Giovanni, Cinisello Balsamo, Bresso, Cusano, Cormano. And also the District of Milano.
Promoter and provider
AMSA Agenzia Milanese Servizi Ambientali
Public company which collect the waste Service Supplier
Chest producer Equipment provider selected by the Consortium through public competition on the base of the best economic offer.
Product Supplier
Maintenance provider
Service provider selected by the Consortium through public competition on the base of the best economic offer.
Service Supplier
Step 5. Case evaluation
Objectives of step 8: To make the effort to draw some first conclusions from the case. To give a qualitative view of the benefits provided by the solution and to highlight its most promising features. Society __________ Values and benefits for society on a collective and individual basis. Add critical points. (max. 600 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) Caring for their own garden the involved people generate individual and social advantages. The individual ones are: entertainment, improvement of the family economy (thanks to the auto-production of vegetables) and, for the elderly, the opportunity to remain active and to perceive themselves as useful. The social advantages are the city re-vitalisation (by introducing new day-to-day activities) and the public space regeneration (by managing the public area where the vegetable gardens are in). A limit of this program is that it is dedicated only to the elderly people. Environment __________
199
Values and benefits for environment. Eventual critical points. (max. 600 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) It generates a well kept green area near, or in-between, the city. It produces some vegetables for local consumption (no transport and no package is needed) and, doing so, it reduces the demand for food coming form far away. It offers the possibility to use the organic home wastes as compost in the garden. It promotes a culture of gardening and of natural food. Economy __________ Economic values and benefits for individuals and families, society and business. Eventual critical points (max. 600 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) It improves the family economy (not only for the people that directly take care of the garden). It improves and maintains the quality of a green area in a very economic way. It may stimulate some little local economic enterprise: gardening shops, selling or renting of gardening tools, professional gardeners cooperatives, etc.). Perspectives and reproducibility __________ Cover the following topics: _Why the case seems to be promising in terms of sustainability? _Which are the success factors and possible risks of failure in the short and in the long term? _Is the solution potentially reproducible or context specific? Which are the other potential application areas of the solution or of the approach proposed by the solution? (max. 600 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) It promotes positive behaviors and cultural attitude: a new relationship with nature, through the culture of the garden. A new relationship with food, trough the auto-production of vegetable. A new relationship between personal and common interest. It reinforces an idea of self-sufficiency, an one hand, and of cooperation, on the other. It increases the urban (or suburban) green and, in perspective, a new idea of the relation between urban and green spaces..
Possible improvements __________ Could the solution be improved from a designer point of view? Is there a demand for new products and/or services? (max 350 characters) e.g.: (ref. case: Vegetable Gardens in Parco Nord, Milan) The solution could be improved by providing the urban farmers with more useful tools (even in common) to cultivate the garden and to storage their own stuff. In addition, a more affective teaching service about farming techniques and garden diseases is needed.
Step 6. Researcher’s comments
200
__________ Personal comments from the interviewers, interpretation of the results, points of view, open questions, difficulties encountered in the work, a lack of reliability of the information should be added here. (max. 1000 characters)
201
A.3. Survey formats
A survey for producers (in English)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDIwMk8td2tQQUswYlMyWV9JYXBoR
Gc6MA
Earth Market Survey - questionnaire for producers Hello and welcome by the project team in Feeding Milan. Energy for change. (Www.nutriremilano.it). The questionnaire that we propose is aimed at understanding how the producers participating in the Earth Market cooperate with each other and / or consumers and which technologies they use. Thank you for your willingness to participate and we hope to help make the market more effectively. The questionnaire will take about 10 min. To complete. Thanks. For any questions about the questionnaire can be obtained from: Joon Sang Baek, e-mail: [email protected] Dario Cantu, e-mail: daria.cantu @ polimi.it Politecnico di Milano - Department INDIGO Via Durando 38 A DIS-Indigo, 2 Floor, 20158 Milan, Italy Tel: 02 2399 5967, Fax: 02 2399 7280
202
Basic information 1. What is the title of your farm? Enter your name if your farm does not have any title. ( ) 2. How old are you?
" <30 " 30 ~ 39 " 40 ~ 49 " 50 ~ 59 " > 60
3. You are:
" Women " Men
4. Where is your farm? " Milan South Agricultural Park " Within 40 km from Milan (Milan out of the Agricultural Park South) " More than 40 km from Milan (Lombardy) " More than 40 miles from London (other regions) " Other:
5. Postal Code ( ) 6. What do you produce? Use the comma (,) to add more choices in 'Other'
# Vegetable # Fruit # Agricultural products # Dairy products # Meat # Fish # Manufactured products (e.g. sausages) # Bread # Juice, fresh # Plants and flowers # Other:
7. What services does it offer? Use the comma (,) to add more choices in ‘Other’.
# Direct sales company # Teaching Farm # Courses / workshops # Company visits # Routes for the use of land # Hospitality / farm # Food # Organic Certification # Point Park (information services) # Other:
8. How many editions of the Earth Market have you attended? ( )
203
9. How long have you used the Internet? In years. (If the period is less than a year, put '0 ') ( ) 10. How often do you use the Internet?
" daily " weekly " monthly " rarely
11. Why do you use the Internet? Use the comma (,) to add more choices in ‘Other’
# To be in touch with people alter # Entertainment # Work / study # e-commerce (private use) # e-commerce (business use) # Other:
12. Please indicate your feelings with respect to the following statements relating to the Earth Market with 'yes' or 'no'. Yes No 1. I believe that the Earth Market is a good place to sell my products. " " 2. The producers in this market do not share the same values. " " 3. I and the other producers want the same things from the market. " " 4. I can recognize most of the producers participating in the market. " " 5. The Earth Market I feel at home. " " 6. A few producers in the market I know. " " 7. I'm interested in what other vendors think of my behavior. " " 8. I have no influence on how the Earth Market. " " 9. If there is a problem with the market, manufacturers can fix it. " " 10. To me it is very important to sell my products in this market. " " 11. The producers in this market generally do not get along. " " 12. I expect to sell my products in this market for a long time. " "
13. Are you involved in any collaborative activities with other producers in the market?
" Yes " No
Collaborative activities with other producers in the market. 14. If so, what?
# Creation / management of direct contacts with consumers (e.g. purchasing groups) # Socialization # Mutual support for small common problems (e.g. meetings / discussions on mutual
activities) # Exchange of expertise, time, products (e.g. selling products from other manufacturers in
their store in the company) # Sharing products, space and knowledge (e.g. sharing a forgone / equipment) # Other
15. If you chose other, please tell us more about your contacts with other producers in the market. ( )
204
16. Who are the producers you work with most? ( ) 17. How long have you been involved in these activities? in years <1 1 to 9 10 to
19 > 20 not
applicable (n/a)
Creation & management of direct network with consumers (e.g. purchasing groups)
" " " " "
Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems (e.g. meetings and discussions on mutual activities)
" " " " "
Exchange of expertise, time and products (e.g. selling other producers’ products in your shop and vice versa)
" " " " "
Sharing products, space and knowledge (e.g. sharing farming tools)
" " " " "
Others " " " " "
18. How many people do you collaborate with? <10 10 to
29 30 to 50
> 50 not applicable (n/a)
Creation & management of direct network with consumers (e.g. purchasing groups)
" " " " "
Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems (e.g. meetings and discussions on mutual activities)
" " " " "
Exchange of expertise, time and products (e.g. selling other producers’ products in your shop and vice versa)
" " " " "
Sharing products, space and knowledge (e.g. sharing farming tools)
" " " " "
Others " " " " "
19. On average, how often it comes into contact with other producers to pursue them / manage them? daily weekly monthly rarely n/a Creation & management of direct network with consumers (e.g. purchasing groups)
" " " " "
Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems (e.g. meetings and discussions on mutual activities)
" " " " "
Exchange of expertise, time and products (e.g. selling other producers’ products in your shop and vice versa)
" " " " "
Sharing products, space and knowledge (e.g. sharing farming tools)
" " " " "
Others " " " " "
20. Select three technologies that you use more frequently to the activities listed above. Use the comma (,) to add more choices in ‘Other’
# face-to-face # Phone # Mobile # email # mailing list # newsletter
205
# Blog # and website / e-commerce platform # Social networking services (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # online discussion forum # teleconference # Other:
21. Are you involved in any collaborative activities already with the consumers of the market?
" Yes " No
Collaborative activities with market consumers. 22. If so, what?
# Community-supported agriculture # Direct sales # Delivery service of seasonal fruits and vegetables # Educational activities / workshops # Farm visits # Agritourism # Other
23. If you chose other, he wants to tell us more about his contacts with the users of the market? ( ) 24. How many people come into contact? <10 10 to 29 30 to
50 > 50 not
applicable (n/a)
Community-supported agriculture " " " " " Direct Sales " " " " " Food box delivery service " " " " " Educational activities / workshops " " " " " Farm visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " Other " " " " "
25. Its customers are individuals or groups (e.g. associations, gas)? # Individuals # Groups
26. How long have you carry out these activities? In years <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 > 20 not
applicable (n/a)
Community-supported agriculture " " " " " Direct Sales " " " " " Food box delivery service " " " " " Educational activities / workshops " " " " " Farm visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " Other " " " " "
206
27. On average, how often it comes into contact with users to perform them / manage them? In years daily weekly monthly rarely n/a Community-supported agriculture " " " " " Direct Sales " " " " " Food box delivery service " " " " " Educational activities / workshops " " " " " Farm visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " Other " " " " "
28. Select three technologies that you use more frequently to the activities listed above. Use the comma (,) to add more choices in ‘Other’
# face-to-face # Phone # Mobile # email # mailing list # newsletter # Blog # and website / e-commerce platform # Social networking services (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # online discussion forum # teleconference # Other:
207
Any idea ... 29. The interest to participate in a support service to the logistics that would provide a platform for the collection and distribution of local products?
" Yes " No
30. If you would be willing to share facilities / tools? What? ( ) 31. To facilitate the organization of the market and improve the service would be willing to:
# To propose and manage collaborative services to support the logistics for the transport of goods and equipment.
# To share your van with other producers to transport goods to the market # To manage a blog dedicated to your farm and regularly update the items you will bring
to the market # To spare your time during the market to consult consumers on urban farming
techniques # Other
Thank you for your cooperation
208
A survey for consumers (in English)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDIwMk8td2tQQUswYlMyWV9JYXBoR
Gc6MA
Earth Market Survey - questionnaire for users Hello and welcome by the project team in Feeding Milan. Energy for change. (Www.nutriremilano.it). The questionnaire that we propose aims to understand how consumers participating in the Earth Market cooperate with each other and / or with manufacturers and technology use. Thank you for your willingness to participate and we hope to help make the market more effectively. The questionnaire will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thanks. For any questions about the questionnaire can be obtained from: Joon Sang Baek, e-mail: [email protected] Dario Cantu, e-mail: daria.cantu @ polimi.it Politecnico di Milano - Department INDIGO Via Durando 38 A DIS-Indigo, 2 Floor, 20158 Milan, Italy Tel: 02 2399 5967, Fax: 02 2399 7280
209
Basic information 1. How old are you?
" <30 " 30 ~ 39 " 40 ~ 49 " 50 ~ 59 " > 60
2. You are: Indicate sex
" Women " Men
3. Where do you live? " Milan (City) " Milan (Province) " Lombardy " Other:
4. Postal Code 5. What level of education achieved?
" Middle school " High school " Undergraduate " PhD " Other:
5. Which is part of the annual income bracket? per household in !
" <18000 " from 18000 to 27000 " from 27000 to 36000 " from 36000 to 54000 " from 54000 to 72000 " 72000 " Other:
6. Where does the shopping for food normally? # Small neighborhood shops # Supermarket # Hypermarket # Local market # Producers' market (ex. Earth Market, Market Coldiretti, etc.) # Farm # Other:
7. How many times has already come to Earth Market in Milan? in times ( ) 8. How would you like to be able to shop at the farmers' market?
" Once a week " Once every 2 weeks " Once a month " Occasionally
210
9. How long have you use the Internet? In years. (If the period is less than a year, put '0 ') ( ) 10. How often do you use the Internet?
" daily " weekly " monthly " rarely
11. Why use the Internet? It can use a comma (,) to add more choices '(Other) Other'
# To be in touch with other people # Entertainment # Work / study # e-commerce (private use) # e-commerce (business use) # Other:
12. Please indicate your feelings with respect to the following statements relating to the Earth Market with 'yes' or 'no'. Yes No 1. I believe that the Earth Market is a good place to shop. " " 2. Consumers and producers in this market do not share the same values. " " 3. The producers and I want the same things from this market. " " 4. I can recognize most of the companies from which I make purchases. " " 5. The Earth Market I feel at home. " " 6. A few producers in the market I know. " " 7. I'm interested in what the producers think of my behavior. " " 8. I have no influence on how the Earth Market. " " 9. If there is a market issue, the producers and consumers can fix it. " " 10. To me it is very important to make shopping at the market. " " 11. Producers and Consumers in this market generally do not get along. " " 12. I expect to make purchases in this market for a long time. " "
13. Activities already taking place in contact with the producers? e.g. Community support agriculture, buying direct from manufacturers, service delivery of the food box, company visits, etc..
" Yes " No
Collaborative activities with the producers of the market. 14. If so, what?
# Community support agriculture (annual subscriptions for products from a farmer engaged in collection, cultivation of vegetable gardens on the farm, etc.).
# Direct purchase from producers (e.g. farm shop, market, etc..) # Food box delivery service # Educational activities # Farm visits # Agritourism # Others
15. If you chose other, he wants to tell us more about his contacts with the producers of the market? ( )
211
16. How many people? <10 10 to 29 30 to 50 > 50 not applic
able (n/a) Community Support Agriculture " " " " " Buy direct from producers " " " " " Delivery service of food box " " " " " Educational Activities " " " " " Company visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " more " " " " "
17. How long the place? in years <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 > 20 not applic
able (n/a) Community Support Agriculture " " " " " Buy direct from producers " " " " " Delivery service of food box " " " " " Educational Activities " " " " " Company visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " Other " " " " " 18. On average, how often it comes into contact with the producers to do it? daily weekly monthly rarely n/a Community Support Agriculture " " " " " Buy direct from producers " " " " " Delivery service of food box " " " " " Educational Activities " " " " " Company visits " " " " " Agritourism activities " " " " " Other " " " " "
19. What are the names of groups that participate in it? Leave blank if the communities to which it belongs have not been named. ( ) 20. Which works more farms? Give the name of reference person or the name of the farm. ( ) 21. Select three technologies that you use more frequently to the activities listed above. Use the comma (,) to write multiple items in Other.
# face-to-face # Phone # Mobile # email # mailing list # newsletter # Blog # website / e-commerce platform # Social networking services (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # online discussion forum # teleconference # Other:
212
22. He contributes regularly or carrying on activities with other users in the market? e.g. Creation / management of a network directly with producers, creating a critical mass, socializing, exchange of expertise, time, products, etc..
" Yes " No
Collaborative activities with other market users. 23. If so, what?
# Creation / management of a network directly with the producers (e.g. purchasing groups)
# Creating critical mass (e.g. participation in a movement of social interest) # Socialization (e.g. parties of the neighbors, etc.) # Mutual support for small common problems (e.g. sharing garden tools) # Exchange of expertise, time, products (e.g. bank of the time) # Sharing products, space and knowledge (e.g. carpooling) # more
24. If you chose other, he wants to tell us more about his contacts with others in the market? ( ) 25. How many people? <10 10 to 29 30 to 50 > 50 Not
applicable (n/a)
Creation / management of a network directly with manufacturers
" " " " "
Creating critical mass " " " " " Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems small " " " " " Exchange of expertise, time, products " " " " " Sharing products, space and knowledge " " " " " more " " " " "
26. How long the place? in years <1 1 to9 10 to1
9 > 20 n/a
Creation / management of a network directly with manufacturers
" " " " "
Creating critical mass " " " " " Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems small " " " " " Exchange of expertise, time, products " " " " " Sharing products, space and knowledge " " " " " more " " " " "
27. On average, how often it comes into contact with others to pursue them / manage them? daily weekly monthl
y rarely n/a
Creation / management of a network directly with manufacturers
" " " " "
Creating critical mass " " " " " Socialization " " " " " Mutual support for common problems small " " " " " Exchange of expertise, time, products " " " " " Sharing products, space and knowledge " " " " "
213
more " " " " "
28. What are the names of groups that participate in it? Leave blank if the communities to which it belongs have not been named. ( ) 29. Select three technologies that you use more frequently to the activities listed above. Use the comma (,) to write multiple items in Other.
# face-to-face # Phone # Mobile # email # mailing list # newsletter # Blog # website / e-commerce platform # Social networking services (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # online discussion forum # teleconference # Other:
Any ideas for the market ... Would you be interested to participate in: 30. The tape of the peasant: a weekly delivery service of fresh territory, delivered to the market or directly to your house?
" Yes " No
31. Basket making: a rental service for bike racks (both for the bike-sharing and for your bike) to comfortably carry the shopping back home, with the ability to return them to the market after use or buy.
" Yes " No
32. The carpooling Market: a carpooling service to carry the cost of the market, allowing those who do not have a car with someone else to agree to go to market and carry the shopping back home.
" Yes " No
33. If you would be willing to part with his car? " Yes " No " I can not
34. The tables Neighbourhood forums for discussion of issues related to the neighborhood, or activities proposed by the groups / associations to which it belongs, to be implemented in conjunction with the market in areas specifically made available?
" Yes " No
35. If yes, what kind of activities would you propose?
214
( ) Thank you for your cooperation.
215
A survey for producers (in Italian)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDIwMk8td2tQQUswYlMyWV9JYXBoRGc6MA Indagine sul Mercato della Terra - questionario per gli utenti Buongiorno e benvenuto dal gruppo di progetto di Nutrire Milano. Energie per il cambiamento. (www.nutriremilano.it). Il questionario che le proponiamo ha lo scopo di capire come i consumatori che partecipano al Mercato della Terra collaborano tra di loro e/o con i produttori e che tecnologie usano. La ringraziamo per la sua disponibilità a partecipare e speriamo di poter contribuire a rendere il mercato sempre più efficace. Il questionario le richiederà circa 10 min. per essere completato. Grazie. Per qualsiasi domanda relativa al questionario può rivolgersi a: Joon Sang Baek, e-mail: [email protected] Daria Cantù, e-mail: [email protected] Politecnico di Milano - dipartimento INDACO Via Durando 38 A, DIS-INDACO, 2 Piano, 20158 Milan, Italy Tel.: 02 2399 5967, Fax: 02 2399 7280
216
Qualche informazione su di lei 1. Quanti anni ha?
" < 30 " 30~39 " 40~49 " 50~59 " 60
2. Lei è Indicare il sesso
" Donna " Uomo
3. Dove vive?
" Milano (città) " Milano (provincia) " Lombardia " Other:
4. Codice postale ( ) 5. Quale titolo di studio ha conseguito?
" Scuola media " Diploma di maturità " Laurea " PhD " Other:
5. In quale fascia di reddito annuale si inserisce? per famiglia in euro
" < 18000 " da 18000 a 27000 " da 27000 a 36000 " da 36000 a 54000 " da 54000 a 72000 " 72000 " Other:
6. Dove fa la spesa di prodotti alimentari abitualmente?
# Piccolo negozio di quartiere # Supermercato # Ipermercato # Mercato rionale # Mercato dei produttori (es. Mercato della Terra, Mercato Coldiretti, ecc) # in fattoria # Other:
7. Quante volte è gia venuto al Mercato della Terra di Milano? in volte ( ) 8. Ogni quanto le piacerebbe poter fare la spesa al mercato dei produttori?
217
" 1 volta a settimana " 1 volta ogni 2 settimane " 1 volta al mense " saltuariamente
9. Da quanto tempo usa internet? In anni. (Se il periodo è meno di un anno, metta ’0’) ( ) 10. Con che frequenza usa internet?
" giornalmente " settimanalmente " mensilmente " raramente
3. 11. Per quale motivo usa internet?
# Può usare la virgola (,) per aggiungere più scelte in ‘(Other)altro’ # Essere in contatto con alter persone # Divertimento # Lavoro/studio # e-commerce (uso privato) # e-commerce (uso lavorativo) # Other:
12. Indichi le sue sensazioni rispetto alle seguenti affermazioni relative al Mercato della Terra con ‘si’ o ‘no’. Si No 1. Credo che il Mercato della Terra sia un buon posto per fare acquisti. " " 2. I consumatori e I produttori in questo mercato non condividono gli stessi valori. " " 3. I produttori ed io vogliamo le stesse cose da questo mercato. " " 4. Sono in grado di riconoscere la maggior parte dei produttori da cui faccio acquisti.
" "
5. Al Mercato della Terra mi sento a casa. " " 6. Pochi produttori del mercato mi conoscono. " " 7. Mi interessa quello che i produttori pensano del mio comportamento. " " 8. Non ho nessuna influenza su com’è il Mercato della Terra. " " 9. Se c’è un problema relativo al mercato, i produttori e i consumatori possono risolverlo.
" "
10. Per me è molto importante fare la spesa al mercato. " " 11. I produttori ed I consumatori in questo mercato generalmente non vanno d’accordo.
" "
12. Mi aspetto di fare acquisti in questo mercato per lungo tempo. " " 13. Svolge già delle attività a contatto con i produttori? es. Comunità di supporto agricolo, acquisto diretto dai produttori, servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare, visite in azienda, ecc.
" Si " No
Attività collaborative con i produttori del mercato. 14. Se si, quali?
# Comunità di supporto agricolo (abbonamenti annuali ai prodotti di un contadino,
218
partecipazione ad attività di raccolta, coltivazione di orti in fattoria, ecc.) # Acquisto diretto dai produttori (es. negozio in fattoria, mercato, ecc.) # Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare # Attività didattiche # Visite in azienda # Attività agrituristiche # Altro
15. Se ha scelto altro, vuole raccontarci altro sui suoi contatti con i produttori del mercato? ( ) 16. Con quante persone? < 10 da 10 a
30 da 30 a 50
> 50 non applicabile (n.a.)
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " altro " " " " " 17. Da quanto tempo le svolge? in anni < 1 da 1 a 9 da 10 a 19 > 20 non
applicabile (n.a.)
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " Altro " " " " " 18. Mediamente con che frequenza entra in contatto con i produttori per svolgerle? giornalm
ente settimanalmente
mensilmente
raramente
n.a.
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " Altro " " " " " 19. Quali sono i nomi dei gruppi a cui partecipa? Lasci vuoto se le comunità di cui fa parte non hanno un nome. ( ) 20. Con quali aziende agricole collabora maggiormente?
219
Indicare il nominativo della persona di riferimento o il nome dell’azienda agricola. ( ) 21. Selezioni 3 tecnologie che usa più di frequente per le attività di cui sopra. You can use comma(,) to write multiple items in Other.
# incontri faccia-a-faccia # telefono # cellulare # email # mailing list # newsletter # blog # sito web / e-commerce platform # servizi di social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # forum di discussione online # teleconferenza # Other:
22. Collabora regolarmente o svolge già delle attività insieme ad altri utenti del mercato? es. Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori, creazione di massa critica, socializzazione, scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti, ecc.
" Si " No
Attività collaborative con gli altri utenti del mercato. 23. Se si, quali?
# Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori (es. gruppo d’acquisto solidale) # Creazione di massa critica (es. partecipazione in un movimento di interesse sociale) # Socializzazione (es. feste dei vicini di casa, ecc) # Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni (es. condivisione attrezzi per il
giardinaggio) # Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti (es. banca del tempo) # Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze (es. carpooling) # Altro
24. Se ha scelto altro, vuole raccontarci altro sui suoi contatti con gli altri utenti del mercato? ( ) 25. Con quante persone? < 10 da 10
a 30 da 30 a 50
> 50 non applicabile (n.a.)
Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori Creazione di massa critica Socializzazione Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze altro
220
26. Da quanto tempo le svolge? in anni < 1 da 1 a
9 da 10 a 19
> 20 n.a.
Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori Creazione di massa critica Socializzazione Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze altro 27. Mediamente con che frequenza entra in contatto con gli altri utenti per svolgerle/gestirle? giornal
mente settimanalmente
mensilmente
raramente
n.a.
Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori
Creazione di massa critica Socializzazione Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni
Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti
Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze
altro 28. Quali sono I nomi dei gruppi a cui partecipa? Lasci vuoto se le comunità di cui fa parte non hanno un nome. ( ) 29. Selezioni 3 tecnologie che usa più di frequente per le attività di cui sopra. You can use comma(,) to write multiple items in Other.
# incontri faccia-a-faccia # telefono # cellulare # email # mailing list # newsletter # blog # sito web / e-commerce platform # servizi di social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # forum di discussione online # teleconferenza # Other:
Qualche idea per il mercato... Le interesserebbe partecipare a: 30. La cassetta del contadino: un servizio di consegna settimanale di prodotti freschi del territorio, consegnato al mercato o direttamente a casa sua?
" Si " No
221
31. Cestello a rendere: un servizio di noleggio di cestelli per le biciclette (sia per il bike-sharing sia per la propria bici) per trasportare comodamente la spesa fino a casa, conla possibilità di riconsegnarli al mercato dopo l’uso o acquistarli.
" Si " No
32. Il carpooling del Mercato: un servizio di carpooling per trasportare la spesa del mercato, che permetta a chi non ha la macchina di accordarsi con qualcun altro per recarsi al mercato e trasportare la spesa fino a casa.
" Si " No
33. Se si, sarebbe disposto a partecipare con la sua vettura?
" Si " No " Non posso
34. I tavoli del quartiere: spazi di discussione di questioni legate al quartiere, o attività proposte dai gruppi/associazioni di cui fa parte, da realizzare in concomitanza del mercato in spazi appositamente messi a disposizione?
" Si " No
35. Se si, che tipo di attività proporrebbe? ( ) Grazie per la gentile collaborazione.
222
A survey for consumers (in Italian)
https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDIwMk8td2tQQUswYlMyWV9JYXBoRGc6MA Indagine sul Mercato della Terra - questionario per gli utenti Buongiorno e benvenuto dal gruppo di progetto di Nutrire Milano. Energie per il cambiamento. (www.nutriremilano.it). Il questionario che le proponiamo ha lo scopo di capire come i consumatori che partecipano al Mercato della Terra collaborano tra di loro e/o con i produttori e che tecnologie usano. La ringraziamo per la sua disponibilità a partecipare e speriamo di poter contribuire a rendere il mercato sempre più efficace. Il questionario le richiederà circa 10 min. per essere completato. Grazie. Per qualsiasi domanda relativa al questionario può rivolgersi a: Joon Sang Baek, e-mail: [email protected] Daria Cantù, e-mail: [email protected] Politecnico di Milano - dipartimento INDACO Via Durando 38 A, DIS-INDACO, 2 Piano, 20158 Milan, Italy Tel.: 02 2399 5967, Fax: 02 2399 7280
223
Qualche informazione su di lei 1. Quanti anni ha?
" < 30 " 30~39 " 40~49 " 50~59 " > 60
2. Lei è Indicare il sesso
" Donna " Uomo
3. Dove vive?
" Milano (città) " Milano (provincia) " Lombardia " Other:
4. Codice postale 5. Quale titolo di studio ha conseguito?
" Scuola media " Diploma di maturità " Laurea " PhD " Other:
5. In quale fascia di reddito annuale si inserisce? per famiglia in euro
" < 18000 " da 18000 a 27000 " da 27000 a 36000 " da 36000 a 54000 " da 54000 a 72000 " 72000 " Other:
6. Dove fa la spesa di prodotti alimentari abitualmente?
# Piccolo negozio di quartiere # Supermercato # Ipermercato # Mercato rionale # Mercato dei produttori (es. Mercato della Terra, Mercato Coldiretti, ecc) # in fattoria # Other:
7. Quante volte è gia venuto al Mercato della Terra di Milano? in volte ( ) 8. Ogni quanto le piacerebbe poter fare la spesa al mercato dei produttori?
224
" 1 volta a settimana " 1 volta ogni 2 settimane " 1 volta al mense " saltuariamente
9. Da quanto tempo usa internet? In anni. (Se il periodo è meno di un anno, metta ’0’) ( ) 10. Con che frequenza usa internet?
" giornalmente " settimanalmente " mensilmente " raramente
4. 11. Per quale motivo usa internet? Può usare la virgola (,) per aggiungere più scelte in ‘(Other)altro’
# Essere in contatto con alter persone # Divertimento # Lavoro/studio # e-commerce (uso privato) # e-commerce (uso lavorativo) # Other:
12. Indichi le sue sensazioni rispetto alle seguenti affermazioni relative al Mercato della Terra con ‘si’ o ‘no’. Si No 1. Credo che il Mercato della Terra sia un buon posto per fare acquisti. " " 2. I consumatori e I produttori in questo mercato non condividono gli stessi valori. " " 3. I produttori ed io vogliamo le stesse cose da questo mercato. " " 4. Sono in grado di riconoscere la maggior parte dei produttori da cui faccio acquisti.
" "
5. Al Mercato della Terra mi sento a casa. " " 6. Pochi produttori del mercato mi conoscono. " " 7. Mi interessa quello che i produttori pensano del mio comportamento. " " 8. Non ho nessuna influenza su com’è il Mercato della Terra. " " 9. Se c’è un problema relativo al mercato, i produttori e i consumatori possono risolverlo.
" "
10. Per me è molto importante fare la spesa al mercato. " " 11. I produttori ed I consumatori in questo mercato generalmente non vanno d’accordo.
" "
12. Mi aspetto di fare acquisti in questo mercato per lungo tempo. " " 13. Svolge già delle attività a contatto con i produttori? es. Comunità di supporto agricolo, acquisto diretto dai produttori, servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare, visite in azienda, ecc.
" Si " No
Attività collaborative con i produttori del mercato. 14. Se si, quali?
# Comunità di supporto agricolo (abbonamenti annuali ai prodotti di un contadino, partecipazione ad attività di raccolta, coltivazione di orti in fattoria, ecc.)
225
# Acquisto diretto dai produttori (es. negozio in fattoria, mercato, ecc.) # Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare # Attività didattiche # Visite in azienda # Attività agrituristiche # altro
15. Se ha scelto altro, vuole raccontarci altro sui suoi contatti con i produttori del mercato? ( ) 16. Con quante persone? < 10 da 10 a
30 da 30 a 50
> 50 non applicabile (n.a.)
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " altro " " " " " 17. Da quanto tempo le svolge? in anni < 1 da 1 a 9 da 10 a 19 > 20 non
applicabile (n.a.)
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " Altro " " " " " 18. Mediamente con che frequenza entra in contatto con i produttori per svolgerle? giornalme
nte settimanalmente
mensilmente
raramente n.a.
Comunità di supporto agricolo " " " " " Acquisto diretto dai produttori " " " " " Servizio di consegna della cassetta alimentare
" " " " "
Attività didattiche " " " " " Visite in azienda " " " " " Attività agrituristiche " " " " " Altro " " " " " 19. Quali sono i nomi dei gruppi a cui partecipa? Lasci vuoto se le comunità di cui fa parte non hanno un nome. ( )
226
20. Con quali aziende agricole collabora maggiormente? Indicare il nominativo della persona di riferimento o il nome dell’azienda agricola. ( ) 21. Selezioni 3 tecnologie che usa più di frequente per le attività di cui sopra. You can use comma(,) to write multiple items in Other.
# incontri faccia-a-faccia # telefono # cellulare # email # mailing list # newsletter # blog # sito web / e-commerce platform # servizi di social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # forum di discussione online # teleconferenza # Other:
22. Collabora regolarmente o svolge già delle attività insieme ad altri utenti del mercato? es. Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori, creazione di massa critica, socializzazione, scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti, ecc.
" Si " No
Attività collaborative con gli altri utenti del mercato. 23. Se si, quali?
# Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori (es. gruppo d’acquisto solidale) # Creazione di massa critica (es. partecipazione in un movimento di interesse sociale) # Socializzazione (es. feste dei vicini di casa, ecc) # Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni (es. condivisione attrezzi per il
giardinaggio) # Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti (es. banca del tempo) # Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze (es. carpooling) # altro
24. Se ha scelto altro, vuole raccontarci altro sui suoi contatti con gli altri utenti del mercato? ( ) 25. Con quante persone? < 10 da 10 a 30 da 30 a
50 > 50 non
applicabile (n.a.)
Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori
" " " " "
Creazione di massa critica " " " " " Socializzazione " " " " " Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni
" " " " "
Scambio di competenze, tempo, " " " " "
227
prodotti Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze
" " " " "
altro " " " " " 26. Da quanto tempo le svolge? in anni < 1 da 1 a 9 da 10 a 19 > 20 n.a. Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori
" " " " "
Creazione di massa critica " " " " " Socializzazione " " " " " Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni
" " " " "
Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti
" " " " "
Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze
" " " " "
altro " " " " " 27. Mediamente con che frequenza entra in contatto con gli altri utenti per svolgerle/gestirle? giornalme
nte settimanalmente
mensilmente
raramente
n.a.
Creazione/gestione di una rete diretta con i produttori
" " " " "
Creazione di massa critica " " " " " Socializzazione " " " " " Mutuo supporto per piccolo problemi comuni
" " " " "
Scambio di competenze, tempo, prodotti
" " " " "
Condivisione prodotti, spazi e conoscenze
" " " " "
altro " " " " " 28. Quali sono I nomi dei gruppi a cui partecipa? Lasci vuoto se le comunità di cui fa parte non hanno un nome. ( ) 29. Selezioni 3 tecnologie che usa più di frequente per le attività di cui sopra. You can use comma(,) to write multiple items in Other.
# incontri faccia-a-faccia # telefono # cellulare # email # mailing list # newsletter # blog # sito web / e-commerce platform # servizi di social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) # forum di discussione online # teleconferenza # Other:
Qualche idea per il mercato...
228
Le interesserebbe partecipare a: 30. La cassetta del contadino: un servizio di consegna settimanale di prodotti freschi del territorio, consegnato al mercato o direttamente a casa sua?
" Si " No
31. Cestello a rendere: un servizio di noleggio di cestelli per le biciclette (sia per il bike-sharing sia per la propria bici) per trasportare comodamente la spesa fino a casa, con la possibilità di riconsegnarli al mercato dopo l’uso o acquistarli.
" Si " No
32. Il carpooling del Mercato: un servizio di carpooling per trasportare la spesa del mercato, che permetta a chi non ha la macchina di accordarsi con qualcun altro per recarsi al mercato e trasportare la spesa fino a casa.
" Si " No
33. Se si, sarebbe disposto a partecipare con la sua vettura?
" Si " No " Non posso
34. I tavoli del quartiere: spazi di discussione di questioni legate al quartiere, o attività proposte dai gruppi/associazioni di cui fa parte, da realizzare in concomitanza del mercato in spazi appositamente messi a disposizione?
" Si " No
35. Se si, che tipo di attività proporrebbe? ( ) Grazie per la gentile collaborazione.