The PVP scale: Measuring virtual reality for better business
by Tateru Nino 
Nov 3rd 2008 at 9:30AM
Filed under: News items, Academic, Virtual worlds
North Carolina State University's Dr Mitzi M. Montoya and Dr. Anne P. Massey, Dean's Research Professor of Information Systems at Indiana University have developed a system for measuring how 'real' virtual environments are. Rather amusingly it is called the "PVP scale" (for Perceived Virtual Presence). Yes, we know the acronym is a rather amusing one, and no this isn't a joke.
The interesting thing is what is being measured. 'This is an important issue,' Montoya says, 'because we believe that if users feel they are 'present' in the virtual world, they will collaborate better with other members of their team – and the more effective the virtual world will be as a setting for research and development or other collaborative enterprises.'
Well, we can't argue with that, really. The interesting thing is that what makes a virtual environment more 'real' and effective according to Montoya is immersion.
Now we've written quite a bit on the topic of immersion as a basic tool of augmentation in the past, so we're already inclined to agree with that position. Things that break the metaphor, or diminish the sense of presence are generally to be avoided in order to obtain maximum utility from a collaborative virtual environment. Mostly any debates around augmentation revolve around exactly what does and does not shatter the overall metaphor.
'An increased sense of presence in the virtual world', says Montoya, 'leads to better comprehension and retention of information if the technology is being used for training purposes, and trainees are happier with the process.'
Montoya was named the Zelnak professor of Marketing Innovation at North Carolina State University in January last year (the professorship itself was established by Steve Zelnak, hence the name). An expert on managing concept-to-market cycles, Montoya's project-based marketing innovation management class provides hands-on experience with new product development and innovation management for MBA students as well as graduate students from the colleges of textiles and engineering.
Massey is Professor of Information Systems at Indiana University and part of research projects including "Measuring Collaboration Quality" and "Innovation via Virtual Worlds", the latter funded by Xerox.
'Now that we have developed the PVP scale,' Montoya says, 'it can be used to determine what PVP levels are most conducive to training, collaboration or other applications.'
The applications of the PVP scale are obvious, as it would enable environments (and user interfaces) to be better tailored to the purposes that they purport to target. We are hoping to see more information about the scale itself, how it is determined, and how common virtual environments rate on that scale. The results should be enlightening.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Shawk said on 10:14AM 11-03-2008
They should have thought a bit harder about the acronym that is going to be problematic since it is generally better known for describing combat settings.
Reply
rightasrain said on 10:42AM 11-03-2008
they should call it "simstim" from Gibson = simulation stimulation measure heartbeat etc on users. Higher the simstim the more engaged the participants. PVP is dopey.
Reply
Pavig Lok said on 7:23AM 11-04-2008
immersion... tis important... and particularly for folk adopting a new technology...
There's a geek way of explaining it that may help geekish folk understand (seeing they write these often awful systems). And to explain i'll use the Ruby language (look it up). This was a computer language that popped onto the scene fairly recently and took the world by storm.. it didn't change the world, but well it was adopted by lots of web2.0 folk. But why?
Well these geeky coders had many computer languages to choose from, so Ruby entered the market at a disadvantage (many competitors) but somehow looked good. This was because a clever japanese fellow designed this new language by... as he called it "the principle of least surprise".
In short that meant when you learned the basics this geek computer language stayed pretty pure to it's roots as you learned more stuff. Geeks loved it - insanely.. and it got a lot of attention.. in fact ruby on rails (a kinda geek methadology that linked code to outcome) became a brief fad that was pivotal in the development of the web 2.0 economy... it was shallow and failed mostly.. but i digress.
To get a whole bunch of people to do a thing (such as hang out in virtual worlds) you need to find a way of not surprising them. Having taught folk from postgrad to developmentally delayed children I've noticed this.. folk like stuff to make sense. If it doesn't it's an impediment to basic survival.
So for folk to live in virtual worlds they need to be immersed... that means they don't think about the virtual world, they just act in it.
Teaching an old person to use a computer is a similar process - the mere abstraction of the thing is an impediment to it's use. They need to absorb new rules of behavior, new abstrations... new distractions to just doing the job.
The less surprise the better.. the more immersion - ie.. the more stuff just works how you think it should - the more you ignore the medium and work thru it.
Sometimes when the geeks design this stuff that gets lost. When social scientists analyze it it also gets lost. The basic principle though is a constant.. the more you can forget the medium the more powerful it is.
Hopefully business and academia will figure this out at some point and start aiming for a nice solid middle ground where folk aren't hand-held, nor dictated to by the system, and can just get things done.
My background was in user interface design, and if I learned anything it's that you can't idiot proof a system - and for a complicated system such as virtual worlds the mere idea is absurd. You can however create a toolset that lets people do what they want and forget (for the most part) they're doing it in a strange way...... you can make the tools intuitive and sensible.
I could say more.... but i've already spent my two cents today.. Sincerely.. Pav.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 8:31AM 11-04-2008
Indeed, if you're spending all your time thinking about how to take action in the world, rather than acting in it, your efficiency is vastly reduced.