Professor Caroline Parker from Glasgow Caledonian University gave a presentation on the importance of user-centred tool design. Distilling 30 years of experience, mainly amassed in the interface between agricultural decision support tools and users, she argued that developers of tools were still not readily including users. A useful thought piece was presented. In it, a group of culinary experts had all the necessary skills to cook a good meal for a client requesting party food; however, the chefs failed to ask about user requirements, and designed a menu completely unsuitable for the intended audience (children’s birthday party not an adult party as they had envisaged). Professor Parker argued that decision support tool development was often done in a similar way by expert designers who had little knowledge about the demands of end users, but nevertheless had a solid conviction that they were able to solve ‘the problem’. She presented results from a structured literature review (see Rose et al., in press) which illustrated that fit to task/workflow was a key component of good user-centred design; in other words, rather than expecting the user to adapt to new tools, a tool was far more likely to be successful if it fit in with existing workflows. A tool should have a clear audience in mind and not be diluted by trying to target multiple groups without understanding the differences between them.

A panel session then discussed how to engage users in tool development. Melanie Ryan (Luc Hoffmann Institute), Stephanie O’Donnell (WILDLABS.NET, FFI), and Dr Prue Addison (University of Oxford), shared their experience of successful user engagement. Ms Ryan spoke about her experience of managing decision support tool design within the Australian Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme, which links research, industry, government and practitioners around multifaceted decision contexts. Dr Addison presented her insights as a NERC Knowledge Exchange fellow at the University of Oxford in which she worked with a variety of clients in the area of decision support (e.g., incorporating biodiversity into business decision-making), whilst O’Donnell offered her insights gained during the establishment of a network of conservationists interested in sharing technology (WILDLABS.NET). They each illustrated the benefits of engaging the user at an early stage, and then throughout the project (even afterwards to evaluate successful uptake of decision-support tools). Reaching out to users by highlighting mutual benefits, and having the empathy required to champion user involvement, were seen as important for a successful stakeholder engagement project. Panellists felt that developers of decision support tools might inadvertently be perceived as deliberately creating a divide between ‘experts’ and users if they did not reach out to their user communities (see Rose et al., in press), failing to recognise that all participants in developing decision support tools have relevant and useful knowledge and expertise. Involving users throughout the project was considered to build trust, allowing users to gain ownership of the project, thereby improving legitimacy, transparency, dissemination and uptake of the tool. Developing a good rapport with users also allow the tool to be improved iteratively by gathering feedback and may help to build an interested user community (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2.  

Panel session on user engagement. From Left: Melanie Ryan (Luc Hoffmann Institute), Stephanie O’ Donnell (WILDABS.NET, FFI), Dr Prue Addison (University of Oxford).

Dr Malcolm Ausden, Principal Ecologist at the RSPB, and Dr Leon Bennun from The Biodiversity Consultancy (TBC), shared user perspectives in the context of decision support tools. Both offered an insight into the decision-making process used at both organisations. The RSPB use a variety of different sources of knowledge in management decision-making (see Walsh et al., 2015). The main tool used by TBC is the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) that brings together key global datasets to help with decision-making about biodiversity (e.g. in relation to development projects). Dr Bennun argued that it was a useful tool since it collated multiple datasets, but some key datasets were missing, and there were some issues with access and cost. Both presenters presented a list of the types of questions posed at the RSPB and The Biodiversity Consultancy on a regular basis, also highlighting potential questions that decision support tools could help with. Dr Ausden argued that day-to-day decision-making on a nature reserve revolved around relatively simple questions, whereas more strategic plans were made at a higher level. Understanding the decision environment is therefore useful for ascertaining where and how a decision support tool might fit in. He also argued that decision support tools needed to be flexible enough to allow practitioners to use other forms of knowledge (e.g. experience & expert judgement) alongside them to form a decision cumulatively, and to allow decisions to also take into account site-specific factors. If tools were designed with user input, therefore, the chances that they would answer important questions would be increased, and so would uptake. Dr Bennun argued that there were few decision-support tools directly tailored to good biodiversity management for industrial-scale projects.

This was a theme touched on by many presenters, but Professor Caroline Parker and Dr Malcolm Ausden offered particularly useful insights. Dr Ausden argued that ‘scientists and conservation practitioners often appear to be operating in parallel universes’, presumably driven largely by the different requirements of journals and conservation practitioners which affected the development of support tools. Tools would often answer scientifically interesting or novel questions, but be poorly suited to the management questions posed by conservation practitioners. As such, tools would be irrelevant and unusable from a practitioner perspective. Professor Parker presented the following figure to explain the importance of highlighting clear benefits to use (see Fig. 3):

Figure 3.  

Cost v benefit - using a tool takes effort so the benefits of use must clearly outweigh this (credit: Parker).

Since use of a tool has certain costs to the user (time, effort), benefits must outweigh these costs to make use worthwhile. If a decision could be made in a more efficient way without using a tool, then the tool would be unnecessary. When designing tools, therefore, developers must be clear about highlighting clear benefits to use. This should be a key consideration at the conception phase; if the tool does not improve on current decision-making, or performs a similar role to an existing support tool, then it is not needed.

The themes of ‘can they use it?’ and ‘is it easy to use?’ are similar, but it is important to separate them out. A decision support tool must be usable by the intended end users, otherwise it will not be taken up in practice. Developers must understand the technical knowledge of their end users, whether the necessary infrastructure (e.g. internet) is available in the decision environment, and whether it works every time. More important than the mere ability to use it, the tool must also be easy to use, providing instantaneous answers, without unnecessary hassle. Users are busy and if decision support tools cannot facilitate efficient decision-making, then they will not be used (Rose et al. 2016). It is insufficient for the tools to be tested on scientific colleagues. Scientists will often use a more systematic, step by step, approach to decision-making, whereas conservation practitioners are more likely to make decisions based on information from a range of sources, and following discussions with colleagues and specialists.

The workshop contained a user testing session of eleven decision support tools. Exhibitors of these tools had 15 minutes to display these tools to revolving groups of delegates (over a two-hour period) and feedback on desirable design characteristics was captured in a group discussion session afterwards (see Fig. 4).

Figure 4.  

User testing of decision support tools. The list of tools exhibited were as follows: (1) Facilitator (Rowan Eisner), (2) Ecobat (Paul Lintott and Sophie Davison), (3) Local Evidence Assessment Tool (Claire Wordley, (4) IBAT (Kerstin Brauneder and Natasha Ali on behalf of IBAT Alliance), (5) Camgeocon (Dilkushi de Alwis Pitts), (6) Species+ (Kelly Malsch), (7) Protected Planet (Brian MacSharry), (8) TradeMapper (TRAFFIC), (9) LEFT (Peter Long), (10) NaturEtrade (Peter Long and Beccy Wilebore), and (11) WCS Offenders database (Andy Plumptre).

Based on their experience of testing tools, delegates proposed several good and bad design features. From a post-workshop survey (n=22), delegates also ranked from 1-10 various design features of decision support tools (based on factors identified by Rose et al. 2016). The ranking of design features as determined by total score (mean also presented) was as follows:

1. Relevance to user – 211 (9.6)
2. Benefits to use – 204 (9.3)
3. Ease of use – 202 (9.2)
4. Trusted evidence-based – 191 (8.7)
5. Helps to satisfy existing work requirements (e.g. legislation, targets) – 180 (8.2)
6. Cost (affordability) – 173 (7.9)
7. Fits user routine – 169 (7.7)
8. Matches decision habits – 168 (7.6)
9. Integrates with other systems – 168 (6.7)
10. Recommended by colleagues – 167 (6.7)

Craig Mills from Vizzuality also offered his key tips for good design, including the use of appealing visualisations and choice of colours, to generate an exciting and attractive user interface. They have an example of Global Forest Watch, pictured below, for which they developed an engaging design. Mills also mentioned the concept of progressive disclosure, in other words a simple interface at a superficial level, but a deeper layer that users can explore if they want to (see Table 1 and Fig. 5).

Table 1. Download as CSV 

Good and bad design features as described by delegates (number in brackets determines no. of mentions).

Positive design features	Negative design features
Ease of use (8)	Slow or difficult to use (4)
Ability to personalise it/flexibility/relevance for user (8)	Trying to do too much (3)
Simple language/interface (7)	Unclear who user is (2)
Fun to use/engaging design (5)	Unclear output (2)
Clarity over who the user is (5)	No sense of where underlying data is from (2)
Adaptive/integrated design (4)	No thought about ongoing maintenance (2)
Allow user feedback (3)	No unique selling point (1)
Transparent, evidence-based datasets (3)	Expensive (1)
Incorporate user-testing in design (2)	Poor reliability (1)
Clear benefits to use (2)	Complicated language (1)
Good legacy plan (1)
Do one thing and do it well (1)
Simple user tutorial (1)

Figure 5.  

Global Forest Watch had Vizzuality design input (credit: www.globalforestwatch.org).

Craig Mills from Vizzuality also gave advice on how to develop a good delivery plan. Delegates agreed that if users did not know that a tool existed, then it could not be used in practice. He argued that conservation organisations tend to adopt the same colour of branding, and therefore alternative colours might help a new tool to stand out from the crowd. In terms of engaging people, Mills suggested that tool developers should aim to convert ‘1000 true fans’ (http://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/). These fans would help spread the message, be brand ambassadors, and recommend the tool to others. The key to stimulating user interest is to get people to say nice things about the tool without the developer being in the room. The exhibitors from the World Café session also shared how they had promoted their tools – from organising workshops with end users, to the use of social media, and conference presentations (see Fig. 6).

Figure 6.  

Colour branding opportunities, very few in the purple to pink range. (credit: Vizzuality as presented by Craig Mills, CEO, Vizzuality).

Lauren Weatherdon from UNEP-WCMC shared insights on preserving tool legacy, drawn from her own experiences as well as those of Katherine Despot-Belmonte, Corinne Martin, and others at UNEP-WCMC, and from the European Biodiversity Observation Network project. Decision support tools designed by researchers with external funding can quickly become unusable if they are not adequately maintained once funding ends. Weatherdon encouraged designers to create a business plan for their tool at the beginning of the process. She also highlighted several key points to ensure that a tool has longevity (Credit: Weatherdon and Despot-Belmonte):

• Start with a clear and user-driven policy mandate/objective
• Locate your product’s niche within the biodiversity informatics landscape
• Engage in iterative co-design with users throughout the design process
• Develop strategies for ensuring continued capacity (financial; human)
• Reconcile ‘open access’ data with value-added services
• Don’t consult once, and never again!
• Don’t leave it too late to consider your business plan

Weatherdon proposed the following scoring exercise, designed by Katherine Despot-Belmonte, to determine the sustainability of a decision support tool, focusing on highlighting the unique selling point, the service provided by the tool, and the marketing potential (i.e. how revenue or partner support could be generated to secure long-term maintenance, see Fig. 7).

Figure 7.  

Sustainability scoring exercise (photo credit: UNEP-WCMC).