The 360-Degree Temporal Benefits Model Reimagines Value-Based Assessment of User-Centred Design Services
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:
 Kautonen, H., & Nieminen, M. (2018). Conceptualising benefits of user-centred design for digital library services. LIBER Quarterly, 28(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10231
 Abstract
 Objectives – The study has two central objectives: to examine the conceptual elements of evaluating and managing user-centred design (UCD) performance in library settings; and to propose a new framework, the 360-Degree Temporal Benefits Model (360°TB Model), that assesses value-based evaluation of UCD performance in libraries.
 Design – Data collection and analysis were conducted through literature reviews, case studies, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and reviews of digital library service documents.
 Setting – Two digital library service environments in Finland that use UCD approaches: one located at the National Digital Library and the other at a medium-sized special library.
 Subjects – There were 17 participants representing internal and external stakeholder groups such as digital service designers, end-users, and consumer organizations.
 Method – Through a literature review, the authors studied several topics related to UCD services including digital services, design management, public value frameworks, and services. They examined literature from two theoretical perspectives: 1) performance management, which explains why and how performance evaluation is necessary for public services, and 2) temporality, the concept of time in relation to service provision. This lens allowed the authors to identify existing knowledge gaps in professional literature and define key concepts. The literature review informed the framework for the 360°TB Model.
 Two digital library settings tested the model and served as case studies in the paper. Data collection activities in this phase included reviews of existing project documentation and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, at which time participants were also asked to complete an online questionnaire. The authors recorded and transcribed the interviews and combined these results with comments derived from questionnaires. Finally, participants received the data collected from their interview sessions and were asked to review and validate their answers.
 Main Results – The most significant result is the development of the 360°TB Model. The framework combines three components to evaluate UCD design: the identification of stakeholders; the benefits of UCD services; and the temporal phases (e.g., process-time, use time, and future service provisions) of UCD design efforts and outcomes. The authors summarize the relationship between the components of the framework as follows: “a Stakeholder anticipates Benefits of the design in different Phases” (p. 8).
 Regarding the case studies, the authors captured a range of diverse opinions through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Participants in Case 1 selected a range of benefits and there was little consistency in responses. However, two-thirds of participants in Case 2 selected quality of services as the most desirable benefit of UCD, while the remaining one-third selected options such as process time and societal problem solving.
 The participants stated that the 360°TB Model provided authority in matters of design goals. It was challenging to capture temporality in design performance because it is not easy to specify goals or state the anticipated benefits of design activities in library settings. This is because the impact of design is indirect and cannot be easily quantified or isolated from the larger context of the library environment. The model provides a method to justify managerial choices regarding UCD and frame service changes around phases of development (e.g., process-time, use-time, and future service provisions).
 Conclusion – The 360°TB Model pushes assessment activities beyond organization-centric evaluations and into intra-organizational and polycentric perspectives. It reaches beyond the boundaries of the institution to capture diverse viewpoints and service needs of external stakeholders. Finally, the 360°TB Model bridges the theoretical gap between Public Value frameworks and real-world information environments through the use of three key concepts: stakeholders, benefits, and phases.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,187 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».