IS action research: State of the art and future directions

1. IS action research: State of the art and future directions Ola Henfridsson Viktoria Institute & Halmstad University

2. Action Research • Dual goal: “The action researcher is concerned to create organizational change and simultaneously study the process” (Baskerville and Myers 2004, p. 329-330) • Common motivations: • Epistemology: pragmatism • Relevance to practice • Promising methodology, but many different models of action research • Action research characteristics (Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1998): • Process model (Iterative, reflective, linear) • Structure (rigid, fluid) • Researcher involvement (collaborative, facilitative, experiment) • Primary goals (organizational development, systems design, scientific knowledge, training)

3. Types of IS action research (Baskerville & Wood-Harper 1998)

4. IS action research Two observations: 1. Few examples of empirical AR studies (with the objective of making a domain-specific (substantive) contribution to, e.g., KM or ERP) • Relatively many examples of AR theorizing (new models of, or perspectives on, AR) 2. The IT-artifact has a marginal role in IS action research • IT-artifact = “bundles of material and cultural properties packaged in some socially recognized form such as hardware and/or software” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001)

5. Observation #1: Few examples of empirical AR studies (with the objective of making a domain-specific (substantive) contribution)

6. Dominance of AR methodology contributions Dominance of AR methodology contributions • Two lately published special issues: • IT & People (2001: Editors: Kock and Lau): 6 articles • MIS Quarterly (2004: Editors: Baskerville and Myers): 6 articles • Domain-specific (substantive) contributions • Davison (2001) • Iverson et al. (2004) • Kohli and Kettinger (2004) • Lindgren, Henfridsson, and Schultze (2004) • Street and Meister (2004) • Yoong and Gallupe (2001) • AR methodology contributions • Avison, Baskerville, and Myers (2001) • Braa, Monteiro, and Sahay (2004) • Chiasson and Dexter (2001) • Mårtensson and Lee (2004) • McKay & Marshall (2001) • Mumford (2001)

7. Reflections on the current state • Methodological development important • However, the value of AR must be evaluated in light of alternative methodologies • in terms of its capacity to facilitate substantive research contributions • in terms of its promised relevance to practice • MISQ special issue important to legitimize AR • However, action researchers have still things to prove

8. Observation #2: The IT-artifact has a marginal role in IS action research

9. IT-artifact: “bundles of material and cultural properties packaged in some socially recognized form such as hardware and/or software” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001) Less inclusive than Hevner et al (2004): (constructs, instantiations, methods, and models) Role: Part in the researchers’ action Part in developing the research contribution Background: the role of the IT-artifact in AR

11. Reflections on the current state • The IT-artifact is part of the researchers’ action in some IS action research (3 out of the 6/12) • The IT-artifact is basically never a significant part of the contribution (developing the contribution) • This is a problem in IS action research

12. Two recent AR projects • Design principles for Competence Management Systems [1999-2001] • Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., and Schultze, U. "Design Principles for Competence Management Systems: A Synthesis of an Action Research Study," MIS Quarterly (28:3) 2004, pp 435-472. • Multi-Contextuality in Ubiquitous Computing [2002-2004] • Henfridsson, O., and Lindgren, R. "Multi-Contextuality in Ubiquitous Computing: Investigating the Car Case through Action Research," Information and Organization (15:2) 2005, pp 95-124.

13. AR Methodology in Use at Viktoria • Canonical action research (Davison et al. 2004; Susman & Evered 1978) • Prototype-based action • Delivering “design principles” for a specific system type grounded in socio-technical theory • IT-artifact in focus: without leaving social issues behind?

14. Background • Modern automobile – success for ubiquitous computing technologies • Whole set of computer systems • Weaved into the fabric of our everyday life • However, the vehicle has been traditionally a closed system • Telematics is slowly changing this • The connected car • Implications for product development, insurance, car maintenance, transportation,

15. What is telematics? • The integrated use of telecommunications, positioning technologies, and IT • Specifically, the use of such systems within road vehicles • GM’s OnStar • All GM brands (and a few other) sold in the US • Subscription model: different service packages • Fleet management, infotainment, remote diagnostics, vehicle management, and many more

16. Personal telematics • Integrated use of mobile devices and embedded computing platforms for providing in-car user services • Provides temporary and synchronized networks between vehicles and mobile devices for leveraging the convenience and safety such services • Lifecycle differences • Competition from aftermarket solution providers

17. Mobile services are multi-contextual Used over different spatio-temporal contexts by people on the move Combining mass-scale with situated support: design challenge Different use requirements in boundary-spanning mobility Minimal assumptions about use contexts for maximizing mobility and personalization (Lyytinen and Yoo 2002) Multi-contextuality: the co-existence of different use contexts Multi-contextuality in ubiquitous computing

18. Multi-Contextuality in the Car Setting • The Car Setting • Supports spatial/physical mobility • Mobile devices used for handling the temporality of social activity (cf. Kakihara and Sørensen 2002) • Provides advanced computing and connectivity capabilities • What are the socio-technical design implications related to the co-existence of different use contexts in the car? • Grounded action research study (Baskerville & Pries-Heje 1999) • Saab Automobile, Mecel, and Vodafone • Objectives • Develop and evaluate design principles for handling multi-contextuality surrounding mobile device use in cars • Explore socio-technical implications in an authentic setting

20. Mobile phone use in cars: categories, concepts, and data

21. MOBILE DEVICE MANIPULATION (PHYSICAL) CONTEXT CHANGE ATTENTION-SHIFTING PRE-PARING (WIRED) WORK-AROUNDS

22. Design principles • The principle of context switching support: • Support switches between different physical and social contexts. • The principle of contextually adapted manipulation: • Provide the user with device or service controls adapted to the spatio-temporal conditions in question. • The principle of context-sensitive service synchronization: • Make selective services associated with the mobile device available (deemed plausible for the car setting) to users.

23. The SeamlessTalk prototype • Facilitates driver (or passenger) control of Bluetooth-equipped mobile phones brought into the car • Embeds the design principles developed

25. Evaluation overview

26. UbiComp challenges • Synchronizing fluid use patterns • Differences in individual use patterns make it hard to deliver mass-scale services • The openness of mobile devices triggers an abundance of such use patterns • Increased number of services provided by multi-purpose devices • Scaling service manipulation • A UbiComp environment cannot always be assumed to meet the specific requirements of the services hosted • Different interaction models, e.g., differences in temporal assumptions • Signaling context-switches through awareness support • Context-switching can be a source of uncertainty • Signaling context-switches can be an appropriate way to place computing in the background, e.g., audio, motion, and visual feedback

27. Many thanks for your attention!