What you see is what you (can) get? designing for process transparency in financial advisory encounters

Authors:
Philipp Nussbaumer;Inu Matter
Affiliations:
University of Zurich, Department of Informatics, Zurich, Switzerland;University of Zurich, Department of Informatics, Zurich, Switzerland
Venue:
INTERACT'11 Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer interaction - Volume Part I
Year:
2011

Citing 4
Cited 3

Hypermedia-based support for cooperative learning of process knowledge

Journal of Network and Computer Applications - Special issue on support for flexible e-learning on the WWW
Integration of knowledge management and collaborative learning by technical supported communication processes

Education and Information Technologies
Improving the coordination of collaborative learning with process models

CSCL '05 Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!
The effects of representation on students' elaborations in collaborative inquiry

CSCL '02 Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community

From telesales to tele-advisory in travel agencies: Business problems, generic design goals and requirements

ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS)
“Enforced” vs. “Casual” Transparency -- Findings from IT-Supported Financial Advisory Encounters

ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS)
Enabling relationship building in tabletop-supported advisory settings

Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, we report on a study to establish process transparency in service encounters of financial advisors and their clients. To support their interaction, we implemented a cooperative software system for tabletops, building on transparency patterns suggested by the literature. In evaluations, however, we found that our design did not improve the perceived transparency and comprehensibility. Introducing the IT artifact into advisory failed to enhance the client's overall experience and even seemed to negatively influence the client's perception of the advisory process. Using the representational guidance of depicting the process and its activities as a navigable, interactive map made clients believe that interactions with their advisor were restricted to the system's functionality, thus expecting that what they see is all they can get.