Search for: All records

Clinical practice guidelines, care pathways, and protocols are designed to support evidence-based practices for clinicians; however, their adoption remains a challenge. We set out to investigate why clinicians deviate from the “Wake Up and Breathe” protocol, an evidence-based guideline for liberating patients from mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted over 40 hours of direct observations of live clinical workflows, 17 interviews with frontline care providers, and 4 co-design workshops at three different medical intensive care units. Our findings indicate that unlike prior literature suggests, disagreement with the protocol is not a substantial barrier to adoption. Instead, the uncertainty surrounding the application of the protocol for individual patients leads clinicians to deprioritize adoption in favor of tasks where they have high certainty. Reflecting on these insights, we identify opportunities for technical systems to help clinicians in effectively executing the protocol and discuss future directions for HCI research to support the integration of protocols into clinical practice in complex, team-based healthcare settings. 

An emerging body of research indicates that ineffective cross-functional collaboration – the interdisciplinary work done by industry practitioners across roles – represents a major barrier to addressing issues of fairness in AI design and development. In this research, we sought to better understand practitioners’ current practices and tactics to enact cross-functional collaboration for AI fairness, in order to identify opportunities to support more effective collaboration. We conducted a series of interviews and design workshops with 23 industry practitioners spanning various roles from 17 companies. We found that practitioners engaged in bridging work to overcome frictions in understanding, contextualization, and evaluation around AI fairness across roles. In addition, in organizational contexts with a lack of resources and incentives for fairness work, practitioners often piggybacked on existing requirements (e.g., for privacy assessments) and AI development norms (e.g., the use of quantitative evaluation metrics), although they worry that these tactics may be fundamentally compromised. Finally, we draw attention to the invisible labor that practitioners take on as part of this bridging and piggybacking work to enact interdisciplinary collaboration for fairness. We close by discussing opportunities for both FAccT researchers and AI practitioners to better support cross-functional collaboration for fairness in the design and development of AI systems. 

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled unprecedented capabilities, yet innovation teams struggle when envisioning AI concepts. Data science teams think of innovations users do not want, while domain experts think of innovations that cannot be built. A lack of effective ideation seems to be a breakdown point. How might multidisciplinary teams identify buildable and desirable use cases? This paper presents a first hand account of ideating AI concepts to improve critical care medicine. As a team of data scientists, clinicians, and HCI researchers, we conducted a series of design workshops to explore more effective approaches to AI concept ideation and problem formulation. We detail our process, the challenges we encountered, and practices and artifacts that proved effective. We discuss the research implications for improved collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and discuss the role HCI might play in reducing the high failure rate experienced in AI innovation. 

Advances in artificial intelligence have enabled unprecedented technical capabilities, yet making these advances useful in the real world remains challenging. We engaged in a Research through Design process to improve the ideation of AI products and services. We developed a design resource capturing AI capabilities based on 40 AI features commonly used across various domains. To probe its usefulness, we created a set of slides illustrating AI capabilities and asked designers to ideate AI-enabled user experiences. We also incorporated capabilities into our own design process to brainstorm concepts with domain experts and data scientists. Our research revealed that designers should focus on innovations where moderate AI performance creates value. We reflect on our process and discuss research implications for creating and assessing resources to systematically explore AI’s problem-solution space. 

HCI research has explored AI as a design material, suggesting that designers can envision AI’s design opportunities to improve UX. Recent research claimed that enterprise applications offer an opportunity for AI innovation at the user experience level. We conducted design workshops to explore the practices of experienced designers who work on cross-functional AI teams in the enterprise. We discussed how designers successfully work with and struggle with AI. Our findings revealed that designers can innovate at the system and service levels. We also discovered that making a case for an AI feature’s return on investment is a barrier for designers when they propose AI concepts and ideas. Our discussions produced novel insights on designers’ role on AI teams, and the boundary objects they used for collaborating with data scientists. We discuss the implications of these findings as opportunities for future research aiming to empower designers in working with data and AI.