Process: Focus-Setting

Our first step was to undertake a focus-setting session. By individually composing all our questions and uncertainties about the project into discrete notes and using them to compose an affinity diagram, we identified uncertainties that we all shared. These represented the topical fields that would become the foci of our research.

Our concerns quickly fell into dual foci: problem reporting as an intangible workflow, and handhelds as tangible interfaces. Although at first there was concern that a split in our research focus would present problems later on, we soon found the divide to be both enduring and appropriate.

The high-level categories of the focus-setting session are listed below.



The difference between "Individual Error" and "Systematic Error" is one largely of process. Individual error occurs because a single individual made a mistake or slip that caused or aggravated a breakdown; systematic error occurs when multiple individuals, going about their formally-assigned tasks, fail on an organizational level. NASA is currently aware of a blind spot in its ability to detect process problems, and by keeping these definitions within our focus; we hoped to be sensitive to the presence of such problems.

"Standardization" refers to problems largely within the domain of problem entry, including jargon and length of entries. "Compatibility" refers to the ability of the problem reporting system to reuse older legacy problems, and someday mature into a legacy system itself.

Finally, the "Context of Problem Reporting" and the "Handheld Context of Device Use" are subtly different in that the former refers mainly to social and psychological issues such as prioritization, while the latter is centered primarily on physical concerns, such as the ability to carry a handheld and myriad other engineering tools.