Posters ITS'13, October 6–9, 2013, St.

Andrews, UK

Collaborative Task Assignment

on Tabletop Computer
Chayan Kumar Deb Abstract
National Institute of Design This paper proposes the use of Tabletop Computers for
PG Campus, GH0 Extension Road use in Project Management activities like Task
Gandhinagar 382010, INDIA Assignment. Task Assignment is essentially collaborative,
chayandeb@gmail.com which ideally should be done at table discussion, now-a-
days happens over network on personal devices even
though there is no constraint on common time and
space. Face-to-face collaboration is dwindling, even
though it is faster in reaching consensus, richer in terms
of quality of communication and tends to be more
satisfying for the group (as compared to computer-
mediated)[1]. Use of a tabletop computer, which
combines the productivity benefit of a computer with the
social benefits of around-the-table interaction, can
potentially enhance the effectiveness of such collocated
Task Assignment meeting without affecting the agility or
disturbing the traditional settings.

Author Keywords
Task assignment; face-to-face collaboration; direct
manipulation; tabletop (surface) computers.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-
party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact
the Owner/Author. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
ITS '13, Oct 06-09 2013, St Andrews, United Kingdom
ACM 978-1-4503-2271-3/13/10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2512349.2514908
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Group
and Organization Interfaces--- collaborative computing,
computer-supported cooperative work, synchronous
interaction; H.4.1 [Information Systems Applications]:
Office Automation---groupware, spreadsheets; H.5.2
[Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User

453
Posters
Interfaces---ergonomics, graphical user interfaces,
touchscreen, direct manipulation, screen design, user-
centered design
Background
The wide spread use of electronic network in the last two
decades has changed the way we communicate with
each other. Computer mediated (CM) communication
has permeated our professional and personal lives[6]. In
office/work scenarios, CM communication has kind of
become a norm owing to the numerous advantages it
has over traditional communication modes- like
independence from time/space constraints, ease of
reproduction/reference etc. Research[1] has shown that
face-to-face (FtF) communication as compared to CM
communication is richer in terms of quality of
information. In many work scenarios, however, speed
and ease of communication is more important than the
quality of information. CM communication has proved to
be excellent in such scenarios. CM communication has
been so pervasive that even in scenarios where it is not
required, users prefer CM communication over the
traditional modes.
Considering project management activities in office
scenario- Presently, all such activities are efficiently done
asynchronously on project management tools[4]. Typical
project management activities like task division and
assignment have been conventionally done over FtF
discussions. However, today task assignment activities
are done over CM communication using project
management tools, even though the concerned persons
are in same office.
Taking a typical scenario- Few managers, all in the same
office, have to discuss and assign multiple tasks to their
team members. Usually such task assignment happens
over multiple iterations on shared project plans or on
client-server applications. Every person involved in the
task assignment activity accesses the plan and makes
changes according to his/her estimation. With every
ITS'13, October 6–9, 2013, St. Andrews, UK
change, the others make changes in their plans till a
common consensus is met. All these happen over CM
communication. Ironically, to reach a consensus in such
a task assignment activity, all managers end up in a
meeting to discuss and assign tasks face-to-face. This
reiterates the research findings which state that FtF
communication is more effective than CM communication
in dissemination of work-related information to
colleagues[2] and is faster in reaching consensus in
groups[5][8][3].
Research Reflections
Precedent studies of existing applications for tabletop
applications revealed that almost all of the commercially
available ones are either multi-touch games or
visualization applications. Such applications essentially
utilize the multi-touch capability of the hardware and it’s
large screen real estate. However, the very form-factor
of the hardware, which distinguishes it as a computer
which is ‘collaborative’ and not ‘personal’, is under-
leveraged.
A series of focused observations and interviews with
managers in IT and HR organizations told that project
management tasks are majorly done using CM
communication. FtF communication is required in places
which require discussion and planning-task assignment is
one of them. Though project management tools support
task assignment activities, most of the times the final
assignment happens in a FtF meeting. But again,
existing meeting table does not offer the capabilities of
computing which the individual have on their work desk.
(The individual laptops/handheld devices at a meeting
table in no manner helps in the discussion, actually, it
limits the FtF collaboration)
454
 Posters
(front)
(back)
Front and back of a task card: More
important parameters like man
hours, due date, percentage
completion etc. are shown upfront.
In FtF communication, the participants become aware of
each other’s intent. Intent is something which is rarely
communicated in CM communication, though there’s eye
contact in many CM modes like video conferencing. FtF
communications are more effective in disseminating task
related information amongst colleagues[2] and are faster
in reaching consensus in a group[5][8][3].
Prototype
Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense (previously
called Microsoft Surface 2.0) was used for the purpose.
Consider a scenario of 2 (or more) managers who
manage multiple resources. They are through the
planning and estimation phase, where the tasks have
been broken down to granular level, with their dates
defined, their man hour requirement estimated and their
dependencies on other tasks have been defined as well.
Now they have to take up the tasks and assign them to
resources they are managing.
Task Assignment application can be launched from the
horizontal accordion menu. On opening up the
application, the landing page shows up 2 things: The
tasks cards corresponding to all unassigned tasks, and
two login screens. Users may add/delete login screens
depending on the number of people on the table. When
the users aren’t logged in, the whole area is public. Once
the user logs in, his/her dashboard appears and the area
adjoining the dashboard become private area for that
particular user.
The task cards shows important parameters up front and
the lesser important one on the back. The cards can be
flipped like physical cards. Zooming in and out of the
cards shows more and lesser parameters. More physics
ITS'13, October 6–9, 2013, St. Andrews, UK
can be rendered into them e.g. card representing a
crucial task (say, one on which many other tasks are
dependent) can have more weight than other cards. The
card’s movement on screen can mimic the weight of the
card. The various parameters on the card can be edited
using an occlusion aware menu.
The dashboard has three areas-Task List, Gantt Chart
and Resources. The task list shows the recently added
tasks. It can be vertically swiped to see the previously
added tasks. The selected task is highlighted and it’s
corresponding Gantt chart is displayed in the Gantt chart
area. The Gantt chart area is horizontally swipable. The
resources area shows each member in the team, their
corresponding details like name, usage percentage,
billing rate, etc. It also shows total man hours allocated
and available for the whole team. The dashboard is
customizable, where the user can add certain
parameters according to his/her needs.
The user may collect task cards and stack them in
his/her private area on the table before putting them in
the dashboard. The design draws parallels from work
practices on traditional table and from the concept of
“territoriality and orientation” in distributed collaborative
tabletop workspaces[7]. The area on the table around a
person is by default considered to be private where
notepad/any personal artefact is placed.
On putting the task in the dashboard, the parameters on
the dashboard changes according to the parameters of
the task- Thereby helping the user to decide if he/she
will have the bandwidth to take up the task. Since this
assignment activity happens across the table, all the
users remain on same page and reaching a consensus is
much faster.
455
Posters
As soon as the user logs out, the new tasks are all
synced with the user’s planner, and the individual
members can be notified (on email) about the new tasks
assigned.
Figure 1. Stack of task cards next to a user’s dashboard
(private area)
Conclusion
The table can be imagined at a place where apart from
task assignment meetings, casual discussion can also
take place- where team members can view unassigned
task and gauge the project development.
Going ahead, the concept can be attempted to be
extended to activities of a planning meeting other than
task assignment. The tabletop computer might leverage
on handwriting and speech recognition technologies to
make the experience multi-modal and more natural.
ITS'13, October 6–9, 2013, St. Andrews, UK
References
[1] Bernard, Michael, Chuang, Ta-Tao and Ali, Shahid
(2000). Does Computer-Mediated Collaboration Really
Improve Group Communication? Our General Findings.
Usability News, January 2000, Vol. 2, Issue 1.
[2] Cheng Ean, Lee (2010). Face-to-face Versus
Computer-mediated Communication: Exploring
Employees’ Preference of Effective Employee
Communication Channel. International Journal for the
Advancement of Science and Arts, 2010, Vol. 1, No. 2.
[3] Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. and Sethna, B. N.
(1991). The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in
Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making
Groups. Human-Computer Interaction.
[4] Grudin, Jonathan and Poltrock, Steven (2012):
CSCW - Computer Supported Cooperative Work. In:
Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.).
“Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction”. Aarhus,
Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation.
[5] McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S. and Siegel, J. (1987).
Group and Computer-Mediated Discussion Effects in Risk
Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
[6] Simon, A.F. (2006): Computer-Mediated
Communication: Task Performance and Satisfaction. The
Journal of Social Psychology.
[7] Stacey D. Scott, Sheelagh M., Carpendale T. and
Inkpen Kori (2006). Territoriality in collaborative tabletop
workspaces Tabletop design, Proceedings of ACM
Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,
ACM Press, New York.
[8] Weisband, S, P. (1992). Group Discussion and First
Advocacy Effects in Computer Mediated and Face-to-
Face Decision Making Groups. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes.
456