Interactive Innovation of Technology for Mobile Work

European Journal of Information Systems (2008) 17, 305–320
& 2008 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/08
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis

Interactive innovation of technology for
mobile work

Jan Kietzmann Abstract
Despite the increasing popularity of mobile information systems, the actual
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada processes leading to the innovation of mobile technologies remain largely
unexplored. This study uses Action Research to examine the innovation of a
Correspondence: Jan Kietzmann, Faculty of mobile RFID technology. Working from Activity Theory, it departs from the
Business, Simon Fraser University, prevalent product-oriented view of innovation and treats technology-in-the-
250-13450-102nd Avenue, Surrey, making as a complex activity, made possible through the interaction of
British Columbia V3T OA3, Canada.
manufacturers, their organisational clients and their respective mobile workers.
E-mail: jan_kietzmann@sfu.ca
The lens of a normative Interactive Innovation Framework reveals distinctive
interaction problems that bear on the innovation activity. In addition to
difficulties emerging from dissimilar motivations for the innovation project, the
mobile setting presents unique contradictions based on the geographical
distribution of its participants, the diverse role of mobile technology, the
complexity of interacting through representations and the importance of
the discretion with which mobile work activities are carried out today.
European Journal of Information Systems (2008) 17, 305–320.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2008.18

Keywords: interactive innovation; mobility; technology for mobile work; mobile
technology; action research; activity theory

Introduction
The past decades have unveiled an impressive trajectory of mobile
technology, marked primarily by the advancements from early mobile
telephones, available to the elite few, to the highly advanced and diffused
mobile devices of today. Intrigued by new technological affordances
(Gibson, 1977), Information Systems (IS) scholars increasingly turn their
attention to the impact of mobile devices on individuals and organisa-
tions. In the meanwhile, manufacturers, concerned with staying compe-
titive in an industry actively rivalling for corporate accounts, are starting to
invite their future users to participate in the process of innovation.
These evolving cooperative innovation projects between manufacturers
and users are highly complex and benefit from an innovation approach
that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of each participant. Some
lessons can be learned from fairly recent co-constructive developments;
however, these lessons are largely based on single organisational contexts,
non-mobile computing devices and a dialogue between innovators and
users in fixed-location settings. But since mobile settings and technologies
that span time and location fundamentally challenge the interaction
habits subsumed by non-mobile contexts, manufacturers and innovators
Received: 7 August 2007
Revised: 4 December 2007 support a fresh approach for interactive innovation within mobile
2nd Revision: 12 June 2008 environments.
3rd Revision: 24 June 2008 Commissioned by a leading mobile device manufacturer, our research
Accepted: 25 June 2008 focused on first developing a conceptual framework for interactive

306 Interactive innovation of technology for mobile work Jan Kietzmann

innovation in mobile settings, and second assessing such the mobile guard had been and what the status of each
framework in a real innovation project. A fundamental premise was.
assumption of this inquiry was that innovation as an In the process of developing this innovation, both
interactive activity in mobile work settings involves Nalle and Morrison relied on the help of Morrison’s
categorically different participants, including innovators, mobile employees. These mobile workers formed the
primary and secondary users. The aim of this paper is to primary users for the interactive innovation activity,
analyse how these groups and their respective work those who would use the actual artefact under develop-
activities established an influential context for the ment. As secondary users of Nalle’s technology (Friedman
interactive innovation of new technologies for mobile & Cornford, 1992), Morrison’s managers would not use
work. the technology directly but would benefit from tying
We pursued this research objective in a 1-year Action information gathered from the field with the help of
Research study. The technology under development was a mobile RFID into existing corporate IS.
synchronous, mobile radiofrequency identification, or The empirical findings were analysed using Enges-
‘mobile RFID’ device, and the innovation activity was ¨
trom’s interpretation of Activity Theory (AT). Particularly
driven by the innovator, a handset manufacturer anon- his framework of activity systems allowed the researcher
ymised here as Nalle. The company, experienced in to examine interactive innovation as a complex process
developing personal mobile devices, understood that it that involved different groups of participants. AT’s
needed to ground this organisational innovation within premise of contradictory motivations played an impor-
real mobile work settings. Nalle found an appropriate tant role in the analysis of the individuals’ contribution
sponsor for its project at Morrison Patrolling, a security to the collective activity of developing the handheld,
services company that had an interest in learning more synchronous RFID device. The resulting discussion
about how their mobile security guards conducted work. acknowledges both social and technical constituents of
Morrison Patrolling’s problem was that the organisa- IS that are tied to mobile work practices; it does not
tion only had a basic understanding of how its mobile specifically focus on mobile RFID affordances (Angell &
security guards carried out work. Essentially, a mobile Kietzmann, 2006). To understand how participants
security guard arrived at work, collected a car and actually interacted, the principle of mediated actions
navigated an enormous terrain throughout his workday enabled the researcher to look at the role of tools,
to secure buildings, check the status of schools, patrol the including mobile technologies, and explicit and implicit
perimeter of construction areas, etc. Throughout this rules that affected the activity and its outcome.
time, Morrison had no information about the specific This study yielded a number of interesting results.
location of each guard and the status of the premises. Specific to the scope of the project, it led to many
When a guard was needed for an emergency, a suspected refinements of the mobile RFID systems within
break-in for example, all guards who could possibly be in Morrison’s organisational settings. Beyond the study, it
the vicinity needed to be called via their mobile phones. helped Nalle innovate its mobile RFID technology for a
This uncertainty also affected clients, who never knew if much wider audience. More conceptually, the study led
their premises had been checked, and therefore called to the development of an Interactive Innovation Frame-
Morrison’s managers, who then had to contact the guard work that was evaluated empirically during the study.
via mobile phone. By and large, the information flow to Here, the theoretical result of its analysis quite clearly
and from those in the field was very inefficient, and a underlined that interactive innovation is different when
solution to Morrison’s problems was sought. conducted in mobile environments. The very specific
Morrison and its mobile workforce decided to partici- complexity of the activity of innovation, in AT parlance,
pate in the interactive innovation activity of mobile resulted from unique contradictions of motives of its
RFID, a technology that promised to address many of participants, from the effects of geographical distribution
these mobility-based shortcomings. RFID essentially and modalities of mobility and from contradictory
consists of two components. A number of transponders, roles that technology assumed. Further contradictions
or tags, in the shape of small stickers, would be attached emerged from representations as boundary-spanning
to various elements of the premises patrolled by objects and contradictory interaction requirements of
Morrison’s guards (e.g., to a gate). The main innovation the discretionary practices of mobile workers and the
was the mobile transceiver, a synchronous reader that interactive, knowledge-sharing innovation activity.
communicated with the tags once they were in close The following section briefly introduces aspects of
proximity. Once tag and reader had connected, the guard mobility and innovation that are relevant to this study.
could select a message on the reader, for instance ‘all ok’. Next, AT with its focus on motivation, object-oriented-
Immediately, the serial number of the tag, tied to the ness and transformation is introduced as a theoretical
specific premise, would be sent along with a time-stamp foundation. Contradictions, as the impetus for change
and the selected message to Morrison’s office. This within these activities, are emphasised as the main
synchronous information exchange would also update analytical tool. After setting the theoretical foundation,
the field data stored on an extranet, so that Morrison’s the individual stages of Action Research provide the
managers as well as the company’s clients knew where structure for the subsequent sections of this paper. The

European Journal of Information Systems

Interactive innovation of technology for mobile work Jan Kietzmann 307

diagnosis outlines the motivation for the interactive However, the cooperation, coordination and collabora-
innovation project, the planning stage provide details of tion (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997) with mobile workers and
the normative interaction framework that was developed the connection to mobile work continue to present a
for it, the action taking stage describes the introduction considerable struggle. What truly happens in the field is
of the mobile RFID technology, and the evaluation and really only known to mobile workers. The rich informa-
learning stages outline the results, for scope of the project tion from the multitude of contexts they navigate is often
and more generally for interactive innovation of tech- reduced to paper logs or summarised through voice
nology for mobile work. conversations with mobile phones. In this process,
important contextual detail gets lost, requiring frequent
The messiness of mobile work and innovation of verification and validation between communication
technology partners. Similarly, not all mobile work contexts are
In the midst of recent advances of mobile technology and suitable for all mobile technologies, and mobile workers
emergence of new mobile devices, it is hardly surprising select how to deploy and appropriate technologies in
that mobility is at the fore of academic work, too. correspondence to their actual needs in the field. It
New developments are theorised as emerging mobile appears that mobile technologies do not fully respond to
(Sørensen & Pica, 2005), pervasive (Hansmann et al., the needs of mobile work, and at times exacerbate rather
2003), nomadic (Lyytinen & Yoo, 2002b) and ubiquitous than improve mobile work and managerial efforts
(Lyytinen et al., 2004) constellations of work and (Wiredu & Sørensen, 2005).
interaction. In order to address these difficulties and to improve the
In the course of these conceptualisations, some authors interaction among mobile and non-mobile individuals,
primarily study technological aspects of mobility (e.g., manufacturers are busy innovating new devices. Caught
Pierre, 2001; Izadi et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2003), while in the traditional trajectory of invention–innovation–
others examine mobility from a social (e.g., Castells, diffusion, mobile devices are often developed before users
1996; Ling, 1998; Urry, 2000; Agre, 2001; Fortunati, 2001; become actively involved. The actual mobile work
Plant, 2001) or a socio-technical research perspective activities that these innovations are to serve are black-
¨
(e.g., Kristoffersen et al., 1998; Wiberg & Gronlund, 2000; boxed, and users are only involved in testing the
Lyytinen & Yoo, 2002a; Pedersen & Ling, 2003; Pica & functionality and interface design. At this stage, the
Sørensen, 2004). Contrary to earlier arguments that innovations are already conceptually fixed, closed, and
proclaimed the proverbial Death of Distance (Cairncross, non-malleable, and the primary concern of innovation
1997) and Anytime, Anywhere computing (Kleinrock, studies is the technology’s effect on the user. Examples
1996), this abundance of recent mobility-related research include innovations that are regarded as eliciting
projects and publications highlight that space, location disembodied changes to knowledge and skill sets (Cohen
and the distribution of data, individuals and devices & Levinthal, 1990), leading to competitive advantage
continue to be important factors of human interaction (Porter & Millar, 1985; Davis & Devinney, 1997), or
(Olson & Olson, 2000; Wiberg, 2001). introducing key changes in production or process
In this context, mobility is associated with the management in the work organisation (Whipp & Clark,
conscious, rational choice of people to move, to meander 1986; Christensen, 1997; Tidd et al., 1997, p. 23; Porter,
and to change location, often in a fluid, unstable way and 2001). In most cases, these effects are examined post-
at times unpredictable to themselves and to others innovation, based on historical accounts and before-and-
(Kakihara & Sørensen, 2001; Brown & O’Hara, 2002; after comparisons. The innovation practice is treated
Lilischkis, 2003). Various modalities of mobility delimit purely as an outcome, the opus operatum, rather than in
mobile work according to the mode of transportation and concert with the activity of innovation, the opus operandi
use of technology (i.e., travelling occurs when people (Bourdieu, 1977).
move in vehicles), the time spent at any one site (i.e., Those who involve the user as a valuable input into the
visiting occurs when a person temporarily stays at one innovation process often pay close attention to how
place on a transitory basis before moving on) and consumers and lead-users modify existing products.
location (i.e., wandering occurs when a person moves Bricolage, user-innovation and technologies that emerge
about a building or specific premises) (Kristoffersen & in situ demonstrate how the use of technologies can differ
Ljungberg, 2000). Throughout their workdays, most from their intended application (Ciborra, 2002; Shah &
mobile workers negotiate a multitude of modalities and Tripsas, 2004; Haddon et al., 2005; Von Hippel, 2005).
contexts (Scheepers et al., 2006); they may drive or walk, Nonetheless, these phenomena still do not describe
then spend time at a specific place, perhaps wander about co-constructive activities or the underlying motivation
and then continue to drive to different sites. of the various parties involved. However, they underline
At first sight, the affordances of mobile technology the disconnect between existing innovations and the
suggest that others could easily relate to such diverse actual needs of their users.
mobile work activities from a distance, that mobile With a focus on the causal involvement of the user and
information systems provide the communication link the activity of co-constructive efforts, studies have been
between those in the field and those in the office. conducted in non-mobile environments. An essential



premise is that developers and users are teams of different collective activities. We selected AT (Leontiev, 1974,
experts (Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1987), and that innova- ¨
1978; Vygotsky, 1978; Engestrom, 1987) as an analytical
tions ‘should be done with users, neither for them nor by lens that focuses on the context of meaningful, goal-
them’ (Ehn & Kyung, 1987, p. 54). Participatory Design, oriented and socially determined interaction between
for instance, underscores the involvement of users in the human beings and their material environment (Bannon,
planning and designing of information systems (Floyd 1997).
et al., 1989; Bødker & Grønbæk, 1991; Ehn, 1993; Jones, AT lends itself to IS studies in general and to mobility
1995, p. 72; Piller et al., 2003). Particularly Bødker’s studies in particular as it pays particular attention to the
participatory human–computer interface (HCI) design role of tools and artefacts as mediators of human
studies adopt such an activity-lens; however, Participa- activities. In this realm, a number of ISscholars (including
tory Design and interactive innovation place the user in a Bødker, 1991; Nardi, 1995; Wiberg, 2001; Wiredu &
fundamentally different role. Sørensen, 2005) have demonstrated the usefulness of AT.
Participatory Design, with the underlying assumption ¨
Especially Engestrom’s interpretation and extension of
that design is mostly concerned with determining details to AT (1987), through his framework of activity systems
meet a particular purpose, focuses on an emancipatory (Figure 1), has become a recognised conceptual frame-
element that is guided by conflicts and concerns as work for describing the structure, development and
perceived by the user. Examples include HCI work, in context of computer-supported activities (Kuutti, 1996;
which the functional properties of the respective devices Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997).
are already established and inscribed into the artefact. In an A T approach to understanding human beha-
Users are involved to identify the drawbacks of current viour, ‘all human experience is shaped by the tools and
interfaces and are tasked with improving their usability sign systems we use’ (Nardi, 1995, p. 5). These so-called
and usefulness (Bødker, 1991), without a direct focus on mediators are represented above through tools, rules and
the actual functions, the affordances, of the device. a division of labour that mould our interaction with
Interactive innovation, on the other hand, is first and objects in the real world. In AT, subjects’ activities are
foremost concerned with determining the purpose of an motivated to transform these objects into desired out-
innovation. In other words, innovators invite users to comes (Vygotsky, 1978). For instance, a Nalle engineer
help develop the functions that the device is to serve. The used his tools, physical or intangible, to transform a
resulting back-and-forth between innovators and users regular mobile phone into an RFID-enabled handset. A
indicates that contradictions, perhaps between what is mobile security guard used his keys to transform an
technically possible and what users demand, require unlocked building into a secured premise. Accordingly,
further negotiation. Such a struggle emphasises that each activity is expressed through a clear object-orient-
learning occurs when these two parties try to align their edness, and the motivation to transform each object into
respective activities, which then informs the actual a new outcome.
innovation process and the resulting product itself. ¨
Favourable for this study, Engestrom’s activity systems
Overcoming these contradictions during this collective suggest a move from an instrumentalist approach of
innovation activity affects the actual purpose the in- looking at discrete tools, etc. to an interactionist
novation will serve, not just its design component. perspective that supports the holistic interplay of the
Consequently, a practice-based approach to innova- inherent elements. In recognition of the impact of the
tion, one that involves the interaction of a number of supra-individual influences on activities, even when a
participants, motives and concurrent activities, responds subject is apparently working alone, the community
most favourably to a mobile reality that is often messy, component gives weight to the social and cultural
non-linear and not necessarily sequential. Nonetheless, context of the work environment and to neighbouring
despite calls for investigating these emerging practice- activities. For an interactive innovation study, this focus
based activities (Fontana & Sørensen, 2005; Scarbrough & is of paramount importance, as it allows the researcher to
Swan, 2005) within the ‘bewildering array of definitions
and approaches’ regarding innovation (Swan & Newell,
2000, p. 27), the causal involvement of the user has Tools
hardly been studied. The interactive innovation lens
introduced below treats the process of innovation ‘not in
a normative or naturalistic way, but as a socially
constructed constellation of activities and practices’ Transformation
(Scarbrough & Swan, 2005, p. 2) involving technology Subjects Object Outcomes
and mobile work. Process

Innovation and the theory of activity
An investigation that aims to examine the process of Rules Division of Labour
Community
interactive innovation, not its outcome or its effect on
the user, requires a theoretical framework centred on Figure 1 Engestrom’s framework of Activity Systems (1987).
¨



examine the activities of Nalle, Morrison and the security into the dynamic aspects of their work through the eyes
guards and their impact on each other’s activities. of a researcher and the researcher’s findings were
In this complex view of activity systems, all the enriched through actual active participation in the
elements are interdependent and (re)shape each other complexities of work; ‘research inform[ed] practice and
throughout the duration of the collective activity. practice inform[ed] research synergistically’ (Avison et al.,
However, the framework of activity systems does not 1999, p. 94).
suggest harmony between all of its elements. On the The research study was grounded in a highly complex
contrary, the value of their interaction lies in the learning interactive innovation project that involved the manu-
that occurs during the negotiation of problems that occur facturing company Nalle, who as the primary innovator
either between the nodes (for instance when a subject had set out to innovate a mobile RFID technology.
does not have the appropriate tools for the activity), or Moreover, it involved the security services company
within them (for example when there are two rules that Morrison Patrolling, as a secondary user and innovation
contradict each other). These problems, called contra- partner that agreed to host a number of highly interactive
dictions in AT, may at first sight be seen as complications trials within the boundaries of its organisation. Lastly, the
from an innovation perspective. Nonetheless, they also trialists were Morrison’s respective mobile security guards,
lead the activity system through constructive, expansive the primary users of the technology (Table 1).
cycles, in which the negotiation of contradictions Empirical materials were collected over the course of a
provides the sources of new knowledge and drives the 12-month project in which the chosen AT lens was
resulting transformation of an object into an outcome. operationalised through Action Research. The principal
When considering a complex collective activity such as researcher actively engaged in both action and research
interactive innovation, neighbouring activity systems of activities with the innovator Nalle, mobile workers as
innovator, primary and secondary users add to the primary users and Morrison as a secondary user of mobile
potential for problems and to the learning that can arise RFID. Evidence was collected through logs of interviews,
from their interaction. The fluid negotiation of contra- audio and video recordings of work activities, with and
dictions within and between their activities permits a without the new mobile RFID device, drawings of work
practice-oriented view of interactive innovation instead practices and server data (Table 2). Through the interac-
of a mechanistic product-oriented perspective of innovation of the participants and the interdependency of their
tions. In combination with its premises of motivation, activities, AT principles were applied in Action Research
mediation, object-orientedness and transformation, AT to develop an interactive innovation framework.
allows us to examine interactive innovation as a process The Action Research project took place in 2005, and
rather than a product, as dynamic and flexible as opposed strictly adhered to the basic stages of (a) diagnosing,
to rigid, and as open rather than closed to interpretation. (b) action planning, (c) action taking, (d) evaluating
In light of the growing mobilisation of work and the and (e) specifying learning (Susman & Evered, 1978;
increasing diffusion of mobile devices, this study un- Baskerville, 1999), which are discussed in the same
iquely addresses the merger of three key interests for sequence throughout the remainder of this paper.
scholars and practitioners. First, it looks at co-construc-
tive efforts, aimed at the innovation, not the design, of
technology. Second, it examines innovation as an A case of interactive innovation of technology for
activity, not a product, and third, it questions how user mobile work
involvement and mutual learning is affected by mobile Before this particular innovation project, RFID was at a
work settings. With this background, the question that very interesting junction; it had existed for quite some
motivated this research project was: How does the time as asynchronous or mobile systems. Synchronous,
interaction with mobile work affect the innovating of mobile handheld RFID devices had been heralded as a
technology? ‘killer combination not killer application’ (Roberge, 2004,
p. 1). The potentially enormous impact of contactless
The method of action research interaction on work encouraged the three different
In pursuit of this question, the researcher needed to parties’ involvement with the interactive innovation
become part of the social forum that engaged with the
innovative process. Especially for a study of mobile
activities, which are not really ‘observable’ from a Table 1 Interactive innovation participants
distance, proximity to all research subjects was essential. Subject Individuals
Further, the activity of innovation needed to take place
within real, mobile settings. As a methodology that Innovator: Nalle Nalle product innovation, R&D and IT
supports such intervention, while at the same time mobile solutions managers
contributing to scientific knowledge, Action Research Innovation partner: Mainly managers and IT staff, secondary
Morrison patrolling users of mobile RFID and field data
was adopted as the most suitable research method
Trialists: Mobile Mobile security guards, traffic dispatchers,
(Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 1999; Baskerville & Myers,
workers primary users of the technology
2004). In this case, all practitioners gained an insight



Table 2 Action and research activities
Subject Location/medium Action and research activities

Innovator (Nalle) Various physical locations Action: In meetings and interviews, we discussed the development
Meetings, conference calls, email, of mobile RFID technology, its constraints and affordances, the role
written reports, memos of the primary and secondary users. We worked on developing the
device in accordance with the contradictions that emerged, within
Nalle, but also at Morrison and its mobile workforce.
Research: On a conceptual level, what was the motivation for
involving other participants? How could the interaction between
subjects be facilitated? How could empirical materials be collected
and analysed?
Secondary user Morrison headquarters and regional Action: In meetings, the technology and its objective affordances
(e.g., Morrison patrolling) offices were introduced, including the fundamental properties of mobile
Face-to-face meetings, but also email RFID. We discussed the context of work at Morrison, but also out in
and telephone communication the field, and designed trial applications accordingly. Further, we
discussed the role of the technology for Morrison, potential trial
difficulties, access to organisational data, research sites and how
mobile RFID would be implemented throughout the geographically
dispersed and mobile settings.
Research: How do we trigger feedback from primary users? What
was Morrison’s motivation? What transformation was necessary?
How could both action and research be staged at this company?
Primary users Regional offices, patrolling vehicles, Action: The researcher accompanied security personnel on day and
(e.g., Mobile security public spaces, client sites, restaurants, night shifts to learn about the central activities of these mobile
guards) etc. workers. Later, the researcher introduced the device, provided
training, helped troubleshoot the technology if needed, tested its
functionability and introduced the interaction protocol and fora that
were to be followed throughout the project (contact details, issue
logs, change logs, etc.).
Research: Approximately 200 open-ended, formal and information
interviews, conversations and field observations elicited what
functions the technology should offer, but also how mobile RFID
performed in the trials, how it changed mobile work activities and
how the innovation could be improved. Also, how could these
individuals interact with Nalle and Morrison to help negotiate the
functionality of the actual device, etc? How did they interact?

project. However, each party participated for different Nalle spent immense time and energy on enabling the
reasons, or in AT terms each party was motivated to technological aspects of the mobile RFID system, but the
develop mobile RFID by its own real-world contradictions real innovation of the technology and its business
and problems. The first step in Action Research was applications only began after the functionality of its
therefore to diagnose these different motives according to synchronous communication and auto-identification
the chosen Activity System framework. Built on this technology was achieved. Nalle was motivated to com-
conceptual understanding of motivations in terms of pete actively in the corporate sector; however, a contra-
object-orientedness and outcome-transformation for diction existed between the experience the company
each participant, an action plan for interactive innova- possessed, based on generic technologies, and the skills it
tion was developed and executed. now required. Nalle’s previous activities were focused
solely on device manufacturing; the company did not
have the expertise needed to tie its technologies specifi-
Diagnosing the motivation for the interactive cally to mobile work. Accordingly, Nalle’s motive for the
innovation project project was to gain this knowledge to extend its mobile
As introduced earlier, mobile device manufacturers have RFID prototype into an auto-identification device that
been very successful at tailoring to the needs of private would enable new work practices and information flows
users. For the innovator Nalle, the current shift to the across changing mobile work contexts. Based on the
corporate clientele meant developing technologies that abovementioned contradiction of experience vs skills
were not generic, off-the-shelve solutions, but that could required, this meant that the technology needed to be
be embedded within various organisational contexts. grounded in actual work contexts, co-constructed by



those who would later use it. An interactive and activity- mobile workers became involved in the project with the
focused approach was seen as elemental to the success of objective of actively interacting with their managers and
this innovation. The project was further supported by the with Nalle throughout the innovation process in order to
fact that interactive innovation had no precedence in improve mobile working conditions and practices.
mobile environments, which motivated the design of a Lastly, the researcher was interested in examining the
interaction framework that would lay out how innovator, effect of mobility on interaction and innovation. This
innovation partner and trialists would exchange infor- desirable outcome was an empirically tested and practice-
mation pertinent to the technology under development. based understanding of innovation, interaction and
As an innovation partner, Morrison Patrolling was mobility of work.
motivated to take part in this project to improve the Applying the activity lens to the context of all
company’s ability to understand and manage mobile participants in the diagnostic stage not only revealed
work. The diagnostic stage uncovered contradictions many interesting contradictions within each activity, but
within the organisation between information sought also unveiled contradictions between them. Each party
from the field and information available from the was motivated to overcome its own contradictions, but
workers. Morrison’s interests in mobile RFID was further all three pursued a different object transformation and
motivated by the promise to improve such organisational outcome (Table 3). The shared motivation that brought
information flows and to overcome many other non- all parties together was their common desire for the final
automatic interaction difficulties previously experienced outcome of the interactive innovation activity, the
between mobile workers and their stationary colleagues. mobile RFID system. In recognition of the uniqueness
Morrison was reluctant to wait until a suitable technol- of the different perspectives (motivations and object
ogy was available, and hesitant to buy an off-the-shelve transformations), and the complexity of an activity that
solution that could not be tested thoroughly. Interactive aims to align them, all parties emphasised that an
innovation promised the development of a technology interaction forum was needed that also placed emphasis
that was developed around Morrison’s contexts, that on the interactive activity itself. Based on these premises
would address the contradictions within its current of AT, a practical framework need to be established that
mobile work activities and that could be improved would outline an interaction system for the duration of
throughout the various iterations of innovation cycles. the innovation activity, including who would commu-
Although trialists did not instigate the innovation nicate with whom about specific topics related to the
project directly, indirectly their actual mobile practices project and how. This request provided the motivation
motivated it. Their participation, however, was motivated for developing a methodology that would ensure the
by their need to improve their professional relationship continued discourse between innovator, innovation
to their colleagues and superiors by enhancing the partner and trialists.
interaction and information flows with them. Contra-
dictions within the mobile work activities emphasised a
disjoint between the guards’ central activity (ensuring the Action planning: how should participants interact
security of various premises), and the administrative tasks throughout the project?
that often took most of their time. For example, During action planning, the researcher conducted a base-
recording every task via paper-based methods was not line study to set the start parameters for the innovation
an appropriate solution for their demanding mobile work activity. This included reflecting on the results of the
environments. Similarly, a guard’s use of his mobile diagnosis stage, and facilitating the interaction between
phone as a means of constantly updating others on his the different participants. For this purpose, the researcher
location and current job tasks interrupted his work and and practitioners (innovation partner, Nalle and trialists)
thereby contradicted with his central activity. As a result, collaborated in designing a normative framework that

Table 3 Motivation for interactive innovation participants
Participant Transformation of object Desired outcome

Innovator Nalle Exploit proof-of-concept (of mobile RFID) in a A mobile RFID device that responds to the
manner useful for mobile work contexts. requirements of mobile work environments.
Innovation partner Improve existing information systems by Improved organisational information flows at
Morrison embedding technologies throughout mobile work Morrison involving mobile work(ers).
settings.
Trialists mobile security Reduce effort required to log work activities, Ability to focus solely on central work activity,
guards replace paperwork with automatic data capture. without need to report everything manually.
Researcher Examine interaction and innovation in the context Empirically tested and practice-based
of technology and mobility of work. understanding of innovation, interaction and
mobility of work.



would lay out how the interaction protocol for the
duration of the innovation project.
Clearly, different sets of knowledge existed among the
participants, which needed to be communicated Innovator Innovation
and combined in order for interaction to be fruitful C
Nalle Partner
and innovation to be successful (Von Hippel, 2005). Morrison
In recognition of the complexity of the parties involved,
the acknowledgment of different, exclusive skills and D
sets of knowledge became an important factor in the A B
development of technology for mobile work. In AT
terms, the contradictions between these knowledge
sets lead the interactive innovation activity into Trialists
expansive cycles, in which the existing knowledge Security Guards
asymmetries can be balanced. This information exchange
would anchor the innovation within the context of
the mobile work setting and ensure that the technology
under development was suitable for the organisational
context. Figure 2 Interactive innovation framework.
The innovator’s expertise was undeniably the develop-
ment of mobile technology. In this setting, it was Nalle’s
know-how of building a synchronous, mobile RFID
reader and driving the transfer of RFID data from the the information asymmetries that existed between them
reader to the corporate back-end system. From an (Von Hippel, 2005). Three different sets of knowledge
innovation perspective, Nalle took a solution-based shaped the interactive innovation of technology for
approach by offering a technology aimed at solving mobile work, which should interactively inform one
organisational inefficiencies. The innovator’s knowledge, another, eventually allowing the innovator to develop
accordingly, was solution-based. technology that is responsive to both primary and
The innovation partner, Morrison Patrolling, possessed a secondary users (Figure 2).
different set of knowledge. As experts within the context Interaction in Innovation Space A: The interaction in this
of their organisational setting, managers knew the particular space involved the innovator and the trialists.
capabilities and limits of their existing IS and how these While the former would provide input regarding the
were tied into their daily operations. In most settings, technological possibilities and the possible affordances of
these practices involved technological IS and manual mobile RFID, the trialists would provide the needs-based
procedures, mobile security guards and office-based knowledge of work requirements and practical feedback
managers and traffic dispatchers. In other words, the on the functionability of the technology. This represented
innovation partner understood how mobile telephony, talk about work practices and technology development.
for instance, and asynchronous, often paper-based Interaction in Innovation Space B: In the diagnosis stage,
procedures existed side-by-side within the confines of both innovation partner and trialists realised that the
their respective organisational objectives and contexts. In corporate understanding of mobile work was removed
order to take advantage of these new developments for from its reality. The input from trialists was needed to
their organisational processes, the innovation partner balance their needs-based understanding of mobile work
offered context-based knowledge to the interactive innovation practices with the context-based knowledge of organisa-
project. tional requirements. Their interaction would provide
The trialists, Morrison’s mobile security guards, focused input to the improvement of information flows and work
on the actual work to be completed. The immediacy to at Morrison. This represented talk about work practices and
everyday tasks placed them into the remarkable position the future of mobile work.
that they were the only individuals who really knew what Interaction in Innovation Space C: In an effort to remain
happened out in the field. Although their superiors had responsive to actual work practices, the innovator needed
access to paper-based logs and other asynchronous to place strong emphasis on the organisational contexts
records of their work, these were merely accounts of a of the innovation partner. Similarly, for the innovation
subsection of mobile work. Only mobile guards, the partner it was important to learn about the actual
future primary users, understood their work environment properties and capabilities of mobile RFID so that use-
in all of its finesse, and knew the skills and shortcuts cases could be designed and work practices amended. It
needed to get the work done. Consequently, trialists was elemental that Nalle and Morrison Patrolling closely
possessed needs-based knowledge. interacted so that the new mobile RFID systems and
Next, these knowledge sets needed to be combined in a corporate legacy systems could be prepared and inte-
way that would allow individuals to transfer their grated. This represented talk about work contexts and systems
respective knowledge to those who required it, to balance development.



Collective Interaction in Innovation Space D: Once made to the actual device, the RFID tag technology and
combined, the knowledge exchanges from individual work practices at Morrison.
Innovation Spaces (A–C) include all of the different One trialist was recorded saying: ‘I no longer have to
perspectives that should inform the innovation of a new answer the phone to respond to the constant questions
technology. Solution-based, context-based and needs- from the dispatcher. He knows my most recent stop, and I
based knowledge would coalesce as a united result from can concentrate on my job. The other thing that is really
individual dialogues and negotiations within the respec- helpful is that he can look at the electronic log and find
tive Innovation Spaces. This does not suggest that all out what happened in the past days. I no longer have to
three parties needed to come together physically in come in to help him read my writing. Now, when we talk
Innovation Space D, but rather that the outcomes of it’s about topics that actually make sense’.
the previous Innovation Spaces and the resulting knowl- But feedback was not positive all the time, as one
edge bases needed to be combined and aligned. Through respondent pointed out: ‘At the beginning, finding the
continuing interaction between innovator, innovation tags was a bit of a problem. Different guards installed tags
partner and trialists, the interactive innovation activity at different locations on the premises. Although we had
would always remain relevant and constantly validate the agreed before where the tags would be, it often took time
mobile RFID technology under development – in theory. to find them’. Another trialist reported that ‘tags were
very good when they worked, and it was surprising how
Action taking: enacting the interactive innovation quickly we got used to the new system. The trouble was
framework when a tag had fallen off, or when the reader malfunc-
After diagnosing and planning the interactive innovation tioned. This hardly happened, but when it did we needed
project, in the action taking stage it was time for Nalle and to figure out what was wrong, replace the tag or reboot
Morrison to execute their respective plans. This step the device, which was a nuisance and did not always fix
involved the action researcher and managers from Nalle the problem’.
and Morrison intervening with the everyday work In terms of interaction, Nalle and Morrison were in
practices at Morrison. The interactive framework and regular communication, via email, face-to-face meetings
mobile RFID system that were planned and prepared in and telephone conversations. This interaction resulted in
the previous stage were now implemented. the improvements of the technology and the organisa-
All three parties were actively engaged with the new tional information systems (Innovation Space C, above).
technology. At Morrison, many areas of the mobile work The interaction of mobile workers with Nalle and with
environments were equipped with RFID tags. Over 2000 Morrison (in Innovation Spaces A and B), however,
tags were installed, and each security guard was trained proved to be more complicated than anticipated, and
how to use the mobile RFID reader throughout his work primarily fuelled the evaluation stage of the action
shift. Training sessions were hosted and manuals were research project.
distributed to patrolmen to ensure that participants were
able to use their new tools. Throughout their subsequent Evaluation of the interactive innovation activity
workdays, these mobile workers read tags attached to a The mobile work at Morrison provided a suitable
number of objects (e.g., at gates, doors and windows) and environment for an analysis and evaluation of interactive
selected among responses from the menu on their RFID innovation in action. It allowed the researcher to
reader. For instance, when a property was checked, a compare the participants’ ideal, normative interaction
security guard read its tag and selected ‘secure’ from the planned and expressed through the Interactive Innova-
handset’s menu. This tag event and the status update tion Framework to how these parties actually interacted,
were then automatically and synchronously transmitted substantiated through the empirical evidence collected
to Morrison’s main offices. The auto-identification prop- during the action taking stage.
erties of the mobile RFID system virtually eliminated The original assumption of various knowledge sets was
manual logs and worksheets and drastically reduced the quickly validated. Participants had no expert knowledge
time guards had to spend talking on a mobile phone to beyond their respective work domains. Nalle in fact knew
report on their whereabouts. Managers, too, had to spend nothing about security services, either practically or
much less time manually locating and coordinating the conceptually, and only provided solution-based know-
security guards, reports could be drawn up within how. Morrison added the much-needed organisational
minutes and Morison’s customers could access RFID context and trialists offered their needs-based expertise
events via extranet sites. grounded in their mobile work. The bird’s eye view of this
The researcher was active with all three parties, helping array of activities presented in the Interactive Innovation
Nalle reflect on the events in the field and learn from the Framework suggested a well-balanced relationship be-
contradictions that emerged, working with Morrison on tween the three different parties, where the individual
improving the information flows and redesigning the parties would interact through the Innovation Spaces.
actual functionality of the mobile RFID system and Together, it would appear, the subjects from each activity
accompanying mobile workers throughout their work. would form a collective of individuals with a common
As a result of these expansive cycles, various changes were goal in the trial activities. But could their different sets of



knowledge really be communicated effectively or if they by the need to improve its knowledge and control of
were too ‘sticky’ (Von Hippel, 2005, p. 8), too hard to mobile work practices. Mobile workers, on the other
transfer from one party to another? How did the tidiness hand, were motivated to participate by a wider array of
of the normative framework hold up against the messi- needs, including their own desire to advance their work
ness of mobile work? practices, the felt animosity towards outdated, paper-
By and large, the interaction followed protocol. based systems and the persistent need to justify their
Individuals knew whom to contact to discuss problems, work to superiors.
to ask specific questions or to offer suggestions. Mobile These dissimilar motivations imply that participants
workers contacted their superiors to talk about misalign- had different predispositions towards the outcome, in
ments between new information flows and the reality of terms of success or failure, of the trials and the interactive
their work, and they called Nalle’s support-line for innovation activity. In this context, the innovator Nalle
answers or recommendations specific to the device. was fully aware that failure in the trial activities was a
Regardless, while the interaction procedures were fol- possibility, despite all efforts of negotiating the individual
lowed, in principle, interaction did not occur as regularly elements. However, even in such an occasion, the
or frequently as desirable or warranted by the contra- evaluation of the trials would still be considered a
dictions that emerged. Mobile workers, above all, did not valuable source of learning for further innovation,
always interact with the other parties when they research and development. At Morrison, the abovemen-
experienced problems in the field, or when they had tioned EMI problem occurred when the RFID tags could
improvements to suggest. This was evident when the not be mounted onto the steel containers, since these
researcher accompanied them, indicating that funda- interfered with the electromagnetic field of the RFID
mental problems existed within the innovation activity communication. The tags had to be re-engineered to
that kept participants from interacting. The analysis of withstand the shielding of the containers. Although this
these contradictions unveiled important lessons for presented a problem in the context of the innovation
future interactive innovation studies. partner and trialists by affecting both the schedule and
the budget of their operations, the continued interaction
Specifying learning focused on the failing artefact, which enabled Nalle to
From a research perspective, the events that were advance its solution-focused innovation accordingly.
observed during the action taking stage and outlined in For Morrison as the innovation partner, on the other
the evaluation stage were the sources of learning. The hand, the project was a considerable investment that was
problems that occurred, or in AT parlance the contra- very clearly aimed at solving real, context-specific needs
dictions of the collective activities, illustrated an imbal- of their understanding of mobile work. Especially given
ance within and between the activity systems of the financial commitment and time investment, the trial
innovator, innovation partner and trialists. Some of these had to succeed not to be seen as an ill-investment and
contradictions could be resolved, leading to an improve- waste of organisational resources. Success was not
ment of technology, systems and work practices. For measured in terms of learning, and failure was most
instance, electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred definitely seen as an entirely negative outcome.
between a tag and a container that it was mounted to, Trialists measured the success of the trial against how it
which led to the re-engineering and thus the improve- contributed to or infringed on their everyday work
ment of the tag technology. From an innovation practices. In the event of failure of the innovation, there
perspective, these contradictions were meaningful for were no negative consequences, as trialists had no real
the specific product under development, but they did not investment in the project, and mobile workers would
truly advance our understanding of interactive innova- return to their usual work practices and tools. None-
tion as an activity. theless, the properties of the new technology would
Higher level contradictions, on the other hand, can shape their future work practices, so their involvement
focus on interaction difficulties beyond the setting of this and interaction in the innovation process had a definite
trial. More generally, they emphasise if and how the bearing on their own welfare. In this light, trialists were
uniqueness of mobility shapes the process of interactive placed in a difficult position. In addition to placing their
innovation and vice-versa, and the expansive cycles own needs and interests first, they had to ‘serve two
provide the main contribution to the conceptualisation masters’. Should a mobile worker focus his attention on
of interactive innovation. helping Nalle develop a new technology or his employer,
the innovation partner, understand mobile work and
Contradictions of motivation improve organisational information systems? This
From the outset of the trials, all three participant groups problem set aside, how should mobile workers interact
expressed collaboration readiness (Olson & Olson, 2000); with the other two parties?
however, they were each driven by different motives.
Nalle was motivated by a need to innovate and develop Contradictions of mobility and technology
synchronous mobile RFID as a grounded and practice- Important considerations for this study were the mod-
driven technology; the innovation partner was motivated alities of mobile work and their potential impact on the



innovative activity. From this perspective, the geographi- Here, Nalle transformed a mobile RFID reader based on
cal distance, distribution and mobility of trialists led to the needs and context-based knowledge obtained in the
contradictions unique to mobile interactive innovation. Innovation Spaces. Contrary to mobile workers, Nalle did
In the Morrison case, trialists moved across large not work with mobile RFID at all. Rather, Nalle’s activity
geographical terrains, some wandered or visited and yet involved working on the technology. Using a selection of
others travelled (Kristoffersen & Ljundberg, 1998). In that other tools, engineers and programmers at Nalle saw the
respect, they covered different distances from their main artefact as their immediate focus, the content and
places of employment (e.g., Morrison Patrolling’s main outcome of their work, not as a tool for mobile workers.
offices). The importance of these physical, geographical The Innovation partner, on the other hand, was less
places of employment vis-a `-vis their mobile places concerned with the innovation of technologies for
of work also introduced interesting contradictions for general use. Attention was closely placed within the
interactive innovation. context of the organisational work. The technology
One security guard commented: ‘If there’s no one I can under development, as a result, was to improve the
talk to about using the device, I will not. Sometimes the organisational information flows, to contribute to the
reader does not work and I need help, but in other cases overall access to and understanding of mobile work.
there should be another function added. If someone was Accordingly, the innovation partner desired to work
here, I would tell them, but later I don’t remember y or virtually through mobile computing systems to reduce
I just want to go home after my round’. the distance to the situated, mobile spaces. The trialists’
In the Interaction Framework, the Innovating Spaces A main objective was neither to improve generic devices by
and B focus on talk about work practices, mobile working on them, nor to gain access to others’ work by
technology development and the improvement of orga- working through them; mobile workers plainly worked
nisational information flows. However, interacting with with technology in the pursuit of their everyday opera-
mobile workers is more easily said than done. For the tions. For trialists, interactive innovation aimed at
innovator and the innovation partner it was difficult to developing tools to improve their working conditions
get in touch with mobile workers, to get a practice-based and mobile work practices.
understanding of the needs-based requirements during Viewed from these three perspectives, technology
the action planning stage and throughout action taking. under development received a dramatically different
Interestingly, this importance of mobility, distance and focus and level of attention from the various participants.
distribution appeared to be valid from both sides, as While at first sight mobile RFID appeared to be quite
mobile workers found it difficult, too, to interact with fixed in its ability to perform technical functions and
other project participants. The immediate needs of their support mobile workers, the various roles determined the
central activity, for example, to check a gate at a specific degree to which individual parties were able to relate to
time required that they moved from location to location, one another. In other words, while a mobile worker saw
which stood in sharp contrast to the requirements of and treated mobile RFID as a tool, he was less able to
interactive innovation, for example, to return to the relate to RFID as an outcome (for Nalle’s engineer). By the
office to illustrate the shortcoming of the device or to same token, mobile workers were unable to relate to the
take time to compose a detailed error log. higher-level involvement of the technology for improved
Another comment was: ‘Sometimes, it [the device] acts information flows for the innovation partner. Similarly,
up. I just don’t know what to do; I just restart it and hope for Nalle’s engineers and programmers it was difficult to
it goes away. I don’t have time to try to fix it; I have my view the technology as a tool through the eyes of a
normal work to do. When I am back at the office I try to mobile worker or as an object for improved information
describe what happened, but then I cannot show them flows in the organisational contexts. Nalle’s engineers’
and it’s hard to put what happened into words because expertise supported an outcome perspective, not a tool or
I am no techie’. object perspective. These object, outcome and tool lenses
In their very essence, mobile technologies are to address were intrinsically incongruent and did not allow partici-
such problems of spatial, temporal and contextual distance, pants to interact effectively.
and to enable and facilitate interaction from a distance. In In cases where the different participants desired to view
these interactive innovation trials, mobile technology the technology through a different lens, to balance their
adopted a dual role, as technology under development respective know-how and support each other’s activities,
and technology in use (Bødker, 1991), it became the focus mobile devices, although synchronous communication
of innovation at the same time as it was used as a tool in its tools, did not always prove to be helpful. On the contrary,
pursuit. Defined by the very nature of their profession and at times subjects found that reporting a technological or
their respective motivation for participating in the inter- procedural problem over the mobile phone was particu-
active innovation projects, innovator, innovation partner larly difficult and did not help bridge mobility-related
and trialists treated technology quite differently, and in contradictions. For instance, mobile workers often
stark contradiction to one another. needed to call the innovator or innovation partner to
As outlined above, the motivation of the innovator was report a limitation of the device or to ask for help. In
to create devices in general and for the trial specifically. many cases, this required that the device was used to



replicate an error (e.g., read a specific tag), which was traffic managers and dispatchers) made the notion of
difficult when the trialist was already navigating and representations quite important and interesting. To
holding his mobile phone. One security guard commen- request a summary of the actions and operations of
ted: ‘Sometimes, something goes wrong and I call the security guards turned out to be quite difficult; their
Nalle helpline. Daniel [from the support team] asks me externalisations (e.g., drawings of maps, verbal summa-
what happened, but in order to redo and describe the ries and demonstrations of their tasks) were often
error I need to read a tag with the device – but I can’t do incomplete and even plain wrong. Reason for this
that while I am on the phone’. This is an interesting incompleteness was the routine fashion with which they
re-occurrence of the contradiction between tools and carry out their work; calling their unconscious operations
objects outlined earlier. When a worker experienced a back into the conscious out of the context of work was
problem with the RFID device, it moved from being a tool felt to be very problematic. Consequently, the activity of
(unconsciously working with it) to being an object of his interactive innovation was partially based on representa-
labour (consciously working on it). When he tried to tions that were difficult to derive and needed to be
report this problem from a distance, via a mobile phone, verified and validated throughout the trial activity,
he discovered that this, too, degraded from an otherwise leading in some cases to a need to re-design use-cases
common tool of his work to an object, leaving him and technological devices.
essentially with two objects and no tools – another very One security guard noted: ‘It is good that you [the
interesting contradiction of tools based on the inherent researcher] are here, since I would not know how to talk
mobility of the worker. to the engineers at Nalle about our work, the technology
and the changes. It’s like they have to imagine what we
Representation and contradictory mediation do here and we have to try to tell them everything about
During the interactive innovation project, mobile work- our work to help. The other problem is that we almost
ers used the technology under development and subjec- speak two different languages. Sometimes what they say
tively interpreted it within the context of their work. makes no sense to us. It’s good, too, that we have our
Relaying their experiences to other innovation partici- managers to talk to, although they’re never where we are’.
pants (in the Innovation Spaces) fuelled the iterative This statement illustrates that problems emerged when
innovation cycles. But given the mobility of the worker, these representations and externalisations were exchanged.
the distribution of innovation partner and innovator and In their boundary-crossing role (Star & Griesemer, 1989;
the ineffectiveness of mobile technology, this knowledge Carlile, 2002), they shaped the interaction between
exchange rested on the exchange of representations. The innovator, innovation partner and trialists. The subjects’
actual device under development was the most obvious incongruent work contexts led to contradictions of
representation, which as shown before proved to be a representations as mediators in the Innovation Spaces.
highly contradictory mediator. Moreover, as a mediator it Nalle and the innovation partner were quite able to relate
was ineffective since only Nalle could manipulate it. to one another’s notations and models (Innovation Space
One trialist was recorded stating: ‘Some of the features C), including technical mappings of the design elements
are spot on, but some others could be improved. Some of mobile RFID, project management charts, charters and
changes are very small and I know what the mobile RFID flow charts. On the other hand, the experience of the
device should do to work better for me, but of course I mobile workers had to be connected with the work of the
cannot make any changes to it’. innovation partner and Nalle’s developers (Innovation
Other representations included drawings, use case Space A and B), so that future improvements of work-
abstractions, flow charts and device menus. Here, the flows, hardware, software, middleware and midlets could
interaction of Nalle, innovation partner and trialists incorporate important fixes, minor corrections and
relied on the manipulation of these common objects, relevant suggestions. Not only were these representations
from a distance, as mediators of their subject-object- difficult to construct in the first place, especially for
subject relationships, leading to two main contradictions mobile workers, but also their interpretation was highly
of representations. dependent on sender and recipient, their respective work
In their communicative roles, participants were to know-how, work contexts and frames of reference.
varying degrees used to express, or externalise, their Interpreting even the most accurate descriptions out of
cognitive understanding through mappings and abstrac- context, by subjects with a different knowledge base, led
tions of their respective work practices and the trial to numerous misunderstandings in the interactive activ-
technology. While some participants were engineers who ity and correspondingly to ill alignments of technological
were used to group work and abstract notations, others developments, systems and work practices.
drove security vehicles for a living and were seldom
required to describe their work to outsiders. Accordingly, Contradiction of discretionary and standardised
their experience with and ability to compose and activities
comprehend representations of work activities were quite Mobile work, although collaborative in nature and part of
different. The sheer number of different subject cate- collective activities, is frequently carried out alone.
gories (project managers, developers, security guards, Security guards, for instance, communicated through



mobile technologies and other representations with their was met with resistance by mobile worker and led to an
peers and superiors, but conducted their central work important contradiction for the interactive innovation of
activity of checking premises and securing buildings, etc. technology for mobile work. Perhaps surprisingly, this
by themselves. The majority of contradictions they was also seen as contradictory by their superiors, who
commonly encountered in the field did not require now had explicit data on the work conducted in the field,
collaborative decision-making, and mobile workers used could no longer allow discretionary actions and had no
their discretion, their good judgement, to form their choice but to reprimand their employees for behaviour
decisions. This was evident when contradictions emerged that was previously tolerated.
that required a quick decision, which were never
documented but were part-and-parcel of being a good Conclusion
mobile security guard. For instance, if a guard faced a For Nalle, the appreciation of Innovation Spaces, com-
traffic jam, he prioritised between alternate routes and bined with the respective knowledge sets, was recognised
changed the sequence in which he visited his remaining as invaluable for staging interactive innovation projects.
sites. His familiarity with the mobile work environment Moreover, the Interactive Innovation Framework had
defined him and his mobile peers as the only true experts proven beneficial not only for setting out the normative
of the mobile work environment, which allowed them to interaction model, but also as an analytical tool for
exercise various degrees of discretion in their decision- identifying interaction contradictions. All of the contra-
making in the field. Accordingly, discretionary decisions dictions that emerged in this project (summarised in
regarding the multiple contexts are fundamental to Table 4) directly affected the interaction between in-
mobile work (Pinelle & Gutwin, 2003; Al-Taitoon, novator, innovation partner and trialists, and indirectly
2005), but interactive innovation challenges this discre- shaped the technology under development.
tionary work in two ways. Interactive innovation is different in mobile settings.
Interaction and knowledge exchange requires that Innovators of mobile technology, striving to involve their
work practices are formalised and exchanged. Developing future primary and secondary users, face distinct chal-
abstract notations of otherwise unconscious operations lenges within mobile settings. Contradictions rooted in
was already discussed as problematic, as was the creation dissimilar motivations provide a complicated foundation
and exchange of representations that describe extraor- for interactive innovation activities. The unique condi-
dinary events in the field. Moreover, mobile workers tions of mobile work then add novel spatial, temporal
expressed ambivalence towards disclosing how they and contextual contradictions, which mobile technology
exercise discretion in the field. While they wanted itself might be unable to resolve. In fact, the duality of a
to help the innovation of the mobile RFID device to device-in-use and a device-under-development can be
advance their mobile work practices, they did not want to disadvantageous to the interaction between participants.
disclose the ‘tricks of their trade’, the shortcuts, the As a result, the knowledge exchange with mobile workers
workarounds and the quick fixes that nobody had ever rests on asynchronous representations, including nota-
asked about or controlled before. For instance, one guard tions of work practices and more abstract descriptions of
expressed: ‘We always pinch 20 min here and there; we workflows. However, such externalisations are hard to
work long shifts and need breaks. In the meanwhile, the develop, especially by mobile workers who are not often
vehicle is empty – they [managers] don’t like that. It’s required to reflect on their work practices, and difficult to
always been like that and they have always turned a blind exchange and interpret across the different activities of
eye if we did not overdo it and got the work done. And we innovator, innovation partner and trialists. The fact that
always did. But now they have proof of where we are and the different parties work either on, through or with
when, and they have to act on it. They never did this technology adds further complication to interactive
before and we need to figure out a way around this’. innovation, as individuals are much less able to relate
This testimonial shows how mobile workers used to each other’s work. Lastly, an important contradiction
discretion to structure their workdays, and how their of discretion reveals how mobile workers might object to
superiors tolerated this level of uncertainty. The inter- revealing their unique work practices in the field.
active innovation project now required that such beha- Inscribing their actions and operations into new innova-
viour was disclosed. The notion of embedding such tions suggests standardising previously flexible and
discretionary actions into the functions offered through a discrete work practices. For mobile workers, this inher-
new product was seen as contradictory by both parties. ently reduces their future ability to negotiate work
Mobile work activities that are highly discretionary allow practices and to exercise discretion in the field, a
a continuous negotiation between mobile workers and contradiction that strongly influences their motivation
superiors. Inscribing these activities into new innova- to interact and support the innovation of a new
tions would put an end not only to the discretion of the technology for mobile work.
mobile worker, but the inherent standardisation also For manufacturers who desire to develop technologies
prevents his ability to negotiate aspects of his work. For tied to mobile organisational environments, interactive
instance, the RFID system facilitated insights into mobile innovation activities are important sources of critical
work that were previously not possible or required, which mobility-specific lessons. Although inviting a multitude



Table 4 Contradictions of interactive innovation
Contradiction Conflict Impact

Motivation Innovator Success desired, failure acceptable and not Interactive innovation is flawed if participants
negative (solution-focus) are motivated to transform the object into a
Innovation partner Success imperative, failure not acceptable different outcome and if success and failure of
(context-focus) this transformation are to different degrees
Trialist Failure has no impact, success possibly positive acceptable.
or negative (needs-focus)

Mobility Innovator and Interactive innovation demands stopping work, Interactive innovation is flawed if it requires
innovation partner potentially returning to the office, to report different degrees of mobility. Trialists’ primary
errors or to refine information flows, etc. concern is motivated by the mobility required
Trialist Mobile work activities demand continued by their central work activity, not the mobility of
mobility. interactive innovation.

Technology Innovator Working on technology Interaction is flawed if parties are unable to
Innovation partner Working through technology relate to the central activity of each other (e.g.,
Trialist Working with technology developers of technology do not know what it is
like to work through it, or with it).

Representation Innovator and Collaborative work externalised through Interaction is flawed if trialists are unable to
innovation partner abstractions of technology or work practices. express their work practices in abstract terms. In
Trialist Mostly isolated, individual work, collaborative any event, effective interaction is hindered
mostly for exchange of explicit field data. through interpretation out of context (solution-
vs context- vs needs-based).

Discretion and Innovator Solution-based activity requires feedback from Mobile workers’ motivation is to retain flexibility
control the field. and ability to (re)negotiate working conditions.
Innovation partner Context-based activity requires formalisation of This opposes interactive innovation, which
mobile work practices. eventually supports closedness and standardi-
Trialist High degree of discretion is a primary condition sation. Information from trialists might there-
of mobile work. fore not support interactive innovation.

of categorically different parties with different activities This activity-based discussion aims to complement
into the innovation process adds to its complexity, the the predominantly product-focused and diffusion-
interaction with organisational customers and end users oriented body of innovation and mobility literature.
promises access to solution, context and needs-based We anticipate that as the mobilisation of work continues
knowledge sets. Through their initial input, in combina- and the mobile technology industry matures, interactive
tion with contradictions that emerge during the innova- projects will become increasingly imperative and
tion activity, innovators are able to go through expansive activity-focused methodologies even more crucial for
cycles to improve the technology under development. the successful innovation, and study, of technologies
However, for the interaction within the innovation for mobile work. We believe that our findings are
activity it is elemental to recognise that mobile workers relevant for other innovation projects, and hope
are motivated to support the development of the that they will not only help motivate research concen-
technology on the one hand, but on the other hand trating on the innovation, but also the design,
they might resist the impact innovation has on the future adoption and appropriation of technologies for mobile
of their mobile work practices. work.

About the author
Jan Kietzmann is an assistant professor in the Faculty of School of Economics, University of London, specialised
Business at Simon Fraser University in Surrey, British in the intersection of innovation, technology and the
Columbia, Canada. His Ph.D. research at the London mobility of work, with a particular focus on emerging



mobile auto-identification technologies. Kietzmann’s outside of the mobility domain and IT project manage-
current research continues to concentrate on mobile IS, ment leading up to the Olympic Games in Vancouver in
but also investigates the topics of interactive innovation 2010.

References
AGRE PE (2001) Changing places: contexts of awareness in computing. FONTANA ER and SøRENSEN C (2005) From idea to blah! understanding
Human-Computer Interaction 16(2–4), 177–192. mobile services development as interactive innovation. In 2nd
AL-TAITOON A (2005) Making sense of mobile ICT-enabled trading in CONTECSI: International Conference on Information Systems and
fast moving financial markets as volatility-control ambivalence: case Technology Management (RICCIO EL and FLEURY MTL, Eds), Sao Paulo,
study on the organisation of off-premises foreign exchange at a Brazil.
Middle-East Bank. In London School of Economics, Information Systems. FORTUNATI L (2001) The mobile phone: an identity on the move. Personal
University of London, London. and Ubiquitous Computing 5(2), 85–98.
ANGELL I and KIETZMANN J (2006) RFID and the end of cash? FRIEDMAN AL and CORNFORD DS (1992) Computer Systems Development:
Communications of the ACM 49(12), 90–96. History, Organization and Implementation. New York, John Wiley &
AVISON D, LAU F, MYERS M and NIELSEN PA (1999) Action research. Sons, Chichester.
Communications of the ACM 42(1), 94–97. GIBSON JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and
BANNON LJ (1997) Activity theory. In CHI 97 from http://acm.org/sigchi/ Knowing (SHAW R and BRANSFORD J, Eds), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
chi97/proceedings/tutorial/bn.htm. Hillsdale, NJ.
BASKERVILLE R (1999) Investigating information systems with action HADDON L, MANTE E, SAPIO B, KOMMONEN K-H, FORTUNATI L and KANT AE
research. Communications of the AIS 2(19), 2–31. (2005) Everyday Innovators: Researching the Role of Users in Shaping
BASKERVILLE R and MYERS MD (2004) Making IS research relevant to ICTs. Springer, Berlin.
practice. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 329–335. HANSMANN U, MERCK L, NICKLOUS MS and STOBER T (2003) Pervasive
BASKERVILLE R and PRIES-HEJE J (1999) Grounded action research: a method Computing: The Mobile World. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
for understanding IT in practice. Management and Information IZADI S, PEDRO C and RODDEN T (2002) The FUSE platform: supporting
Technology 9, 1–23. ubiquitous collaboration within diverse mobile environments. Auto-
BJERKNES G and BRATTETEIG T (1987) Perspectives on description tools and mated Software Engineering 9(2), 167–186.
techniques in system development. In System Design for Human JONES MLW (1995) Where do you want to go tomorrow? Shaping
Development and Productivity: Participation and Beyond (DOCHERTY P, alternative technological futures via ethnographically informed parti-
FUCHS-KITTOWSKI K, KOLM P and MATHIASSEN L, Eds), North-Holland, cipatory design. In School of Communication. Simon Fraser University,
Amsterdam. Vancouver.
BøDKER S (1991) Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User KAKIHARA M and SøRENSEN C (2001) Expanding the ‘mobility’ concept.
Interface Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Siggroup Bulletin 22(3), 33–37.
BøDKER S and GRøNBÆK K (1991) Cooperative prototyping: users and KAPTELININ V and NARDI BA (1997) Activity theory: basic concepts and
designers in mutual activity. International Journal of Man-Machine applications. In CHI 97. from http://acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/
Studies 34(3), 453–478. tutorial/bn.htm.
BOURDIEU P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University KIM S, CHO H, HAHM H, LEE S and LEE MS (2003) Interoperability between
Press, Cambridge. UMTS and CDMA2000 networks. IEEE Wireless Communications 10(1),
BROWN B and O’HARA K (2002) Place as a practical concern of mobile 22–28.
workers. Environment and Planning A 11(11), 1–23. KLEINROCK L (1996) Nomadicity: anytime, anywhere in a disconnected
CAIRNCROSS F (1997) The Death of Distance. Harvard Business School world. Mobile Networks and Applications 1, 351–357.
Press, Boston, MA. KRISTOFFERSEN S, HERSTAD J, LJUNGBERG F, LøBERSLI F, SANDBAKKEN JR
CARLILE PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: and THORESEN K (1998) Developing scenarios for mobile CSCW.
boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science First Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices
13(2), 442–445. 34–47.
CASTELLS M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell Publishers, KRISTOFFERSEN S and LJUNDBERG F (1998) Mobile informatics: innovation of
Malden, MA. IT use in mobile settings. IRIS 21 Workshop Report – SIGCHI Bulletin
CHRISTENSEN CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When new Techno- 31(1), 29–34.
logies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, KRISTOFFERSEN S and LJUNGBERG F (2000) Mobility: from stationary to
Boston, MA. mobile work. In Planet Internet (BRAA K, Ed), pp 137–156, Studentlit-
CIBORRA CU (2002) The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom teratur, Lund.
of Systems. Oxford University Press Oxford, United Kingdom. KUUTTI K (1996) Activity theory as a potential framework for human
COHEN WM and LEVINTHAL DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new computer interaction research. In Context and Consciousness: Activity
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quar- Theory and Human Computer Interaction (NARDI BA, Ed), 17–34, MIT
terly 35(1), 128–152. Press, Cambridge and London.
DAVIS J and DEVINNEY T (1997) The Essence of Corporate Strategy: Theory LEONTIEV AN (1974) The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet
for Modern Decision Making. Allen & Unwin, Australia. Psychology 13(2), 4–33.
EHN P (1993) Scandinavian design: on participation and skill. In LEONTIEV AN (1978) Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall,
Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (SCHULER D and NAMIOKA Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
A, Eds), pp 41–77, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. LILISCHKIS S (2003) More yo-yos, pendulums and nomads: trends of
EHN P and KYUNG M (1987) The collective resource approach to mobile and multi-location work in the information society. In STAR
system design. In Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Project Issue Report N. 36.
Challenge (BJERKNES G, EHN P and KYNG M, Eds), Avebury, Aldershot, LING R (1998) She calls, [but] it’s for both of us you know: the use of
England. traditional fixed and mobile telephony for social networking among
ENGESTRoM Y (1987) Learning by Expanding – An Activity Theory Approach
¨ Norwegian parents. In R&D Report 33/98. Kjeller, Norway.
to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki. LYYTINEN K, VARSHNEY U, ACKERMAN MS, DAVIS G, AVITAL M, ROBEY D,
FLOYD C, MEHL W-M, REISIN F-M, SCHMIDT G and WOLF G (1989) Out of SAWYER S and SøRENSEN C (2004) Surfing the next wave: design
Scandinavia: alternative approaches to software design and system and implementation challenges of ubiquitous computing environ-
development. Human-Computer Interaction 4, 253–350. ments – social and organizational issues in ubiquitous computing.



Communications of the Association for Information Systems 13, SCHEEPERS R, SCHEEPERS H and NGWENYAMA OK (2006) Contextual
697–716. influences on user satisfaction with mobile computing: findings from
LYYTINEN K and YOO Y (2002a) Issues and challenges in ubiquitous two healthcare organizations. European Journal of Information Systems
computing. Communications of the ACM 45(12), 6–65. 15, 261–268.
LYYTINEN K and YOO Y (2002b) The next wave of nomadic computing. SHAH S and TRIPSAS M (2004) When do user-innovators start firms?
Information Systems Research 13(4), 377–388. Towards a theory of user entrepreneurship. In University of Illinois
NARDI BA WHITTAKER S et al (2001) NetWORKers and their activity in Working Paper 04-0106.
intensional networks. Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Work SøRENSEN C and PICA D (2005) Tales from the police: mobile technologies
11(1–2). and contexts of work. Information and Organization 15(3),
OLSON GM and OLSON JS (2000) Distance matters. Human-Computer 125–149.
Interaction 15, 139–178. STAR SL and GRIESEMER JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and
PEDERSEN PE and LING R (2003) Modifying adoption research for mobile boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkley’s Museum
internet service adoption: cross disciplinary interactions. In Hawaii of Veterinary Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Study of Science 19(3),
International Conference on System Science. IEEE Computer Society 387–420.
Press, Big Island, HI. SUSMAN G and EVERED R (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of
PICA D and SøRENSEN C (2004) On mobile technology in context: action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603.
exploring police work. Journal of Computing and Information Technol- SWAN J and NEWELL S (2000) Linking knowledge management and
ogy 12(4), 287–295. innovation, In European Conference on Information Systems. (BICHLER M
PIERRE S (2001) Computing and ubiquitous computing: concepts, and MAHRER H, Eds) Vienna.
technologies and challenges. Telematics and Informatics 18, 109–131. TIDD J, BESSANT J and PAVITT K (1997) Managing Innovation. Wiley,
PILLER F, BERGER C, MOESLEIN K and REICHWALD R (2003) Co-Designing the Chichester.
Customer Interface: Learning from Exploratory Research. TUM Business URRY J (2000) Mobile sociology. The British Journal of Sociology 51(1),
School, Munich. 185–203.
PINELLE D and GUTWIN C (2003) Designing for loose coupling in mobile VON HIPPEL E (2005) Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cam-
groups. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP bridge, MA.
Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp 75–84, ACM Press, Sanibel VYGOTSKY LS (1978) Mind in Society – The Development of Higher
Island, Florida, USA. Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts,
PLANT S (2001) On the Mobile. Motorola, http://www.motorola.com/ U.S.A.
mot/doc/0/234_MotDoc.pdf. WHIPP R and CLARK P (1986) Innovation and the Auto Industry: Product,
PORTER M (2001) Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review Process and Work Organization. Francis Pinter, London.
79(3), 62–78. WIBERG M (2001) In between mobile meetings: exploring seamless
PORTER M and MILLAR VE (1985) How information gives you competitive ongoing interaction support for mobile CSCW. In Informatics. Umea ˚
advantage. Harvard Business Review 63(4), 2–13. University, Umea.˚
ROBERGE PA (2004) Killer combination not ‘killer application’ defines RFID ˚
WIBERG M and GRoNLUND A (2000) Exploring mobile CSCW. In IRIS 23.
¨
and contactless in ‘05. RFID News and RFID Operations, Publisher, Laboratorium for Interaction Technology (SVENSSON L, SNIS U, SC, FH,
http://www.rfidnews.org/news/2004/12/21/killer-combination-not- ¨
LINDROTH M, MAGNUSSON M and OSTLUND C, Eds), University of
killer-application-defines-rfid-and-contactless-in-05/ 1 October 2005. Trollhattan, Uddevalla.
¨
SCARBROUGH H and SWAN J (2005) Developing the process perspective on WIREDU GO and SøRENSEN C (2005) The dynamics of control and mobile
networked innovation. In Theorizing Process in Organizational Research. computing in distributed activities. European Journal of Information
Santorini, Greece. Systems 15, 307–319.


Interactive Innovation of Technology for Mobile Work

More Related Content

What's hot (7)

Similar to Interactive Innovation of Technology for Mobile Work (20)

More from Simon Fraser University (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Interactive Innovation of Technology for Mobile Work