Jarvenpaa, moblie

UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING

MANAGINGTHE PARADOXESOF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY

Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa and Karl R. Lang

This article reports on a large-scale, international focus group study that examined the experi-ences of mobile technology users in Hong Kong, Japan, Finland, and the United States. It iden-tifies eight central mobile technology paradoxes that shape user experience and behavior,suggests possible design features that relate to the experienced paradoxes, and discusseshow these features could be better managed.

SIRKKA L.JARVENPAA is theBayless lRa uscherPierce Refsnes Chair in

BusinessAdministration and

co-founder and co-director of the Center

for Business,

Technology, and Lawat the McCombsBusiness School,University of Texas atAustin.

KARL R. LANG'sresearch interestsinclude decisiontechnologies,management of digitalbusiness processes,and mobileinformationenvironments. Dr.Lang holds a Ph.D. inmanagement sciencefrom the University ofTexas at Austin and is

currently an associateprofessor ininformation systems atBaruch College,CUNY

I HE MOBILE PHONE HAS ARGUABLY

evolved into the first truly personal com-puter. It combines communication andcomputing capabilities with mobility

and personality. Unlike desktop or even laptopcomputers, the mobile phone is typically al-ways with its user. It is rarely separated from itsowner, and it is in use, or ready for use, all thetime. Users develop deep relationships withtheir mobile devices (Kopomaa, 2000; Rhein-gold, 2002; Lyytinen and Yoo, 2002). Of course,they use them to perform utilitarian tasks, but,increasingly, they also use them as personal ex-pressions of their identities .As technology tran-scends many facets of users' lives, expectationsabout service capabilities clash with perfor-mance in reality. Users' experiences with tech-nology are paradoxical.

The positive and negative impacts of mo-bile technology are conceptually inseparableand grow in strength with new releases. Newdesigns of handsets and service functions arecontinuously introducing new capabilities andimproving performance on some dimensions(Schlosser, 2002; Balasubramanian et al., 2002;Jarvenpaa et al., 2003; Urbaczewski et al.,2003; Dekleva, 2004; Frolick and Chen, 2004;Jarvenpaa et al., 2005). But new capabilities of-ten negatively affect user experience on other

dimensions. Pogue (2005a) reviews a newly re-leased mobile phone that offers a number ofadvanced features, including a high-resolutiondigital camera, a business card scanner, speechrecognition,TV and video display, built-in TransFlash memory cards, and others, and con-cludes:

The trouble is, all of these features sad-dle the poor little device with a com-plexity that will boggle even the veterancell fan. Just looking up your ownphone number requires eight buttonpresses.

The idea that technology is paradoxical andbehaves paradoxically has been noted before(see, e.g., Mulgan, 1998). For the purpose ofthis article, we define paradox as a situation,act, or behavior that seems to have contradic-tory or inconsistent qualities. Arnold (2003),in his review of prominent philosophies oftechnology, points to Heidegger as the sourceof the position that our world is enframed bytechnology, in an ambiguous but not in a deter-mined way. Heidegger claims that (communica-tion) technology destroyed distance bydestroying closeness, that technology didn'tbring people closer together but merely creat-ed a condition wherein everyone is at the same

INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

FALL 20057


Wn

international

focus group

allowed us to

ei-andnel thelarger question

of the valuemobile devices

and services

really offer totheir users.

time close and far, independent of geographicaldistance. Easterbrook (2003) argues that thetechnologies that brought progress have alsocreated economic and social paradoxes that in-creasingly challenge people in their individualand social lives.

In a more business-oriented approach,Handy (1994) makes the case that the ability tomanage paradoxes is key to corporate successin today's high-tech world. Similarly, Mick andFournier (1998) describe a postmodernist con-

sumer society in which consumers areconfronted by multiple and conflictingconsequences from the consumption of prod-ucts that provide them with both new free-doms and new forms of enslavement. Amongthe information systems researchers, Orlikows-ki (1991) and Chinn (2001), for example, dis-cuss the paradoxical nature of informationtechnology (IT). In an article debating IS re-search directions, Robey and Boudreau (1999)call for efforts that explicitly address the ambi-guities resulting from IT rather than eliminatecontradictions for methodological conve-nience.

In the present article, we discuss manifesta-tions of paradoxes with regard to this technol-ogy. To better understand the contradictoryand ambiguous reality of mobile technologyuse, we conducted an international focusgroup study' in which we examined the larger,question of the value mobile devices and ser-vices really offer to their users. Specific re-search questions included the following:U Why and how do people use mobile devices

and services?J What value do mobile device users perceive

in their personal and professional lives?]What frustrates or frightens the users?iHow have mobile solutions influenced their

lives - how do they interact and spend timewith colleagues and friends?

After analyzing the user experience, we discussthe design and use features that relate to theparadoxes and their management.

RESEARCH STUDYWe conducted 33 focus group sessions com-prised of 222 urban mobile device users in fourhighly developed countries with a high pene-tration of mobile technology devices.The ses-sions were held in the metropolitan areas ofHelsinki (Finland), Tokyo (Japan), Hong Kong(China), and Austin,Texas (United States) fromJanuary to October 2001. As a qualitative

WWW. ISM-JO URN AL. COMFALL 2005

research method, focus groups use the interac-tion among participants to reveal shared reac-tions, issues, experiences, and opinions on thetopic of the study. Sessions are recorded andtranscribed to produce qualitative data that canbe analyzed for theoretical or applied purposesby using, for example, the grounded theorymethod (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This re-search followed the commonly accepted guide-lines of focus group research (Krueger, 1994;Fern, 2001).

For the purpose of this article, we definemobile technology as handheld IT artifacts thatencompass hardware (devices), software (in-terface and applications), and communication(network services). Because they are so inter-twined, it does not make sense to disentangledevice, interface, and applications when study-ing how mobile services create value for users.Our definition includes mobile phones,. porta-ble digital assistants, and integrated wirelessenterprise solutions such as the popular hand-held BlackBerryT'. Advanced mobile phonesprovide mobile Internet access via 3G net-works. However, wireless laptops and otherWiFi- or Bluetooth-enabled devices were notconsidered for this study because they dependon short-range network signals, which stronglylimit their mobility.

All 33 focus groups were urban based, butthey varied in age, gender, culture, and eco-nomic standing. For each focus group we se-lected voluntary members who wereconsidered representative of a social groupthat was meaningful for this study. Withingroups, we sought group members homoge-neous in educational background and socialstatus. Across groups, we sought to representdiversity and included a variety of user profilesthat could be considered a fair approximationof general mobile technology users, albeit notrepresentative in a statistical sense.The groupsranged from ten-year-old girls and boys toadults in various professional and age groups.

When possible, focus groups occurred infamiliar and relaxed settings (e.g., someone'shome or a restaurant of their choice). In othercases, behavioral labs and meeting rooms on alocal university campus were used to run thesession. Locally hired moderators who had pre-viously acted in similar roles ran the focusgroups.The main role of the moderators was tofacilitate productive discussions among groupmembersAnonymity was maintained in data col-lection and analysis procedures and was con-veyed to members to encouage more open andtruthful discussion. The focus group discussion


IA obiletechnolog,_"

penetralionrates approach

or e(rceed 100percenl in lMefour countriesselected for

questions were made as broad as possible to en-sure open forums. The open-ended approachnaturally uncovered issues that were salient tothe individuals in the group without biasingthe members toward specific issues the re-searchers thought were important. For exam-ple, we never used the word "paradox" or anyother term that could have led participants totalk about experienced tensions from usingtechnology; nor did we ask them explicitly totell us about their strategies for dealing withthe challenges and complexities that arosefrom using mobile technology.

Each focus group session lasted from aboutninety minutes to two hours and was conduct-ed in the local language. Finnish,Japanese, andChinese session transcripts were translatedinto English before we began coding and ana-lyzing the data. From the data emerged centralparadoxes that shaped user experience as wellas some situational factors, different purposesfor using mobile technology, and strategies thatusers developed to cope with challenges. Ini-tially, we identified 23 paradoxes; however, af-ter crosschecking the literature and severaliterations of regrouping data and labels, wearrived at eight paradoxes that seemed both fun-damental and specific to mobile technology.

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY PARADOXES

Our findings suggest conceptualizing the phe-nomenon of mobile technology usage experi-ence from a context-based and process-oriented perspective (Orlikowski, 1993). Theprocess of experiencing mobile technologyfrom the user's perspective is depicted inFigure 1; it shows the main concepts thatemerged from our data and the relationshipsthat indicate significant interactions betweenthem. Among the focus group participants,voice communication clearly dominated theusage profile, followed by data services such ase-mail,Web browsing, and text messaging. Oth-er informational and transactional serviceswere only moderately used on a regular basis.

Although users almost universally acknowl-edged that mobile technology had improvedtheir lives in terms of convenience, flexibility.,connectedness, and new freedoms of choice, itbecame apparent that their overall experiencewas, to a large extent, determined by conflictsituations they had encountered. By conflictsituations we mean circumstances that promptusers to take actions whose consequencesclash with their original intentions or expecta-tions. The process model in Figure 1 does not


FALL 20059

explain why and how consumers decided toacquire mobile technology. Mobile technologypenetration rates approach or exceed 100 per-cent in the four countries selected for thisstudy. In societies where most people between16 and 60 own mobile devices, adoption deci-sions relate more to switching and upgradingmodels than to becoming first-time users.Hence, the adoption decision is treated as anexogenous prior event in this article.

The actions and experiences of mobiletechnology users depend on situational andcontextual factors (see Figure 1). The giventechnology, social (personal or organizational),and cultural contexts influence users' motiva-tions, goals, and usage patterns when usingmobile technology for a particular purpose (ar-row 1).Technology factors include the particu-lar composition of the service portfolio towhich a user subscribes, the complexity of de-vices and applications in use, and the frequen-cy and intensity of mobile technology use.Social context refers to the user's personal ba-sic social unit; that is, for example, whether theperson lives with family or alone. It also distin-guishes between in-group and out-group com-munication and differentiates the varyingpersonal experience levels of users with regardto mobile technologies. Social context also re-fers to organizational factors such as organiza-tional structure and organizational policies andpractices that determine the role of mobiletechnology in the firm. This includes how acompany regulates the use of mobile technolo-gy. For example, some companies mandate theuse of mobile technology for some jobs.Whether technology usage is mandatory or vol-untary influences how employees use and per-ceive it.

Cultural context refers to cultural differen-ces, for example, between individualistic soci-eties (e.g., Western countries such as theUnited States and Finland) and collectivist soci-eties (e.g., Asian countries such as Japan andChina). Another important cultural factor re-lates to technology use among different agegroups (youth versus adult culture).

Decisions to use mobile technology in dif-ferent situations for different purposes provideaccumulative context feedback over time,which can change or reinforce those contexts(arrow 2). Purposes of technology use includecommunication (voice and data), coordination(tasks and people), and sociability (family,friends, and colleagues). But regardless of thespecific. purpose, eventually and recurrently,technology use will create conflict situations

this study,


for the user, although the specific nature of theconflict may differ between, for example, main-taining social relationships and performingbusiness tasks (arrow 3). Obviously, not everytask or event in the user-technology interac-tion process will generate paradoxical situa-tions, but sooner or later users universallyexperience conflict. Furthermore, users are un-able to eliminate tension with the technology.

Repeatedly, users run into conflict situationsthat are shaped by technology paradoxes.Again, context-dependent (arrow 4) conflictsituations arise from paradoxes that are inher-

ently and systemically linked to technologyuse.

The repeated confrontation with paradoxi-cally behaving technology significantly affects

the total user experience. Reinforcing or modi-fying context feedback is generated as users ex-

perience conflict (arrow 5). A direct responseto the challenges presented is the developmentof behavioral strategies to help users better copewith these conflict situations (arrow 6).We iden-

tified a number of coping mechanisms that canbe broadly classified into two categories: avoid-

ance and confrontative coping strategies. The

former refers to user strategies that try to min-imize interaction with the technology and thelatter describes strategies that are based on ne-gotiating with technology. The particular reac-tions of users and their ability to manageconflict and cope with the technology chal-lenge are once more influenced by situationalcontext factors (arrow 7). Context feedbackis generated as users gain experience withcoping strategies (arrow 8). In the followingsections, we elaborate on the technologyparadoxes faced by the mobile users in thisstudy.

The EmpowermentVEnslavementParadoxNew freedoms of choice from mobile technol-ogy use surfaced as a highly salient issue acrossall types of users. Nearly everyone praised newpossibilities related to the 24/7, "always on" na-ture of mobile technology. Permanent connec-tivity allows people to take charge anytime,wherever they are, whether it concerns busi-ness, family. or friends. This newly found free-dom definitely empowers users. But the verysame connectivity prevents users from creating

WWW.ISM-JOURNAL.COMF FALL 2005

FIGURE 1 User-Technology Interaction Process

Situational Factors

Technology Personal Organizational CulturalContext Context Context Context

121 8

Purposes(1) Empowerment/EnslavementCopingPurposes of (2) Independence/Dependence Cpn

Technology Use (3) Fulfills Needs/Creates Needs StrategiesCommunication (4) Competence/Incompetence 6 Avoidance

Coordination (5) Planning/improvisation StrategiesEfficiency (6) Engaging/Disengaging

Mobility (7) Public/Private ConfrontativeSociability 8) Illusion/Disillusion Strategies

Technology Paradoxes

Legend for Arrows1. Influence of context on users' motivation, 5. Context feedback (reinforcement or change). goals, and usage patterns as users experience conflict.

2. Context feedback (reinforcement or change) 6. Adaptation process, behavioral changes,3. Usage process for problem solving, task and learning curve.

performance, information acquisition, media 7. Influence of context on reactions of usersconsumption and entertainment, and social and ability to manage conflict and to copeinteraction, with the technology challenge.

4. Influence of context as users are confronted 8. Context feedback (reinforcement or change)with conflict situations. as users adopt particular coping strategies.

10


and maintaining distance from others. "The factthat you have to interact with these devices isbad," explained one participant. It has becomedifficult to get away from people with whomyou would presently rather not communicate.An elderly woman reminisced about old times,

... when we did not have any of thesetechnologies. Doing any kind of job wasreally hard back then. I can tell you thatthe cell phone really is a tremendoussafety and access device. But I should becontrolling it, not it controlling me.

"The unpredictability and uncertainty of if andwhen a call may come and demand unwantedattention counteract the power that users de-rive from the technology:

I am in a dilemma that I cannot leave mycell phone at home, but just the factthat I am always connected is stressful.

Availability all the time! This is not whatwe humans were made for. And withGPS [global positioning system], it feelslike the last piece of privacy has beentaken away.

Some users had a pretty good sense of the pow-er they could exert but also anticipated that itcould backfire in just the same way:

The mobile is great for controlling otherpeople, like your wife and kids, for ex-ample. That would be pretty good if Ihad the choice to decide who knowswhere I am and where I have been.

Life has become so un-free.The mobileeven rules kids' lives.

Many users reported great pressures and feltforced to respond to the technology, whetheror not they wanted to. Some feared that theyhad become slaves to the machine.

The workplace was another area where theempowerment/enslavement paradox manifest-ed itself on a regular basis. Most professionalswelcomed the introduction of mobile technol-ogies in their companies. They appreciated in-creased productivity, more flexibility, and moreefficient ways to coordinate tasks and people.However, the same tools that empoweredthem in their jobs in so many ways also tookaway long-cherished freedoms in others. Be-sides "less personal time," study participantsfrequently cited increased work pressure, clos-er monitoring and supervision, and the inabili-ty to separate and keep distance from work.Participants expressed displeasure having to

play multiple roles at all times, especially hav-ing to constantly switch between family andwork roles.

Sometimes while driving, I feel like in-stead of relaxing, I should be more pro-ductive, like calling people back, callingmy customers back. Sometimes it'sgood that people I am working with canreach me 24 hours, 7 days a week.Sometimes, however, it might be de-structive; it makes me feel I should beworking more than I am.

I think there would be a problem if Iturned my walkie-talkie off. My bossdoubts that I'm working properly if hecan't reach me.Yes, and he'll be very an-gry if he can't get ahold of us. It's veryimportant to react promptly.

In our business, schedules are prettytight. If you are on your vacation andyour project is not done ... this is notsomething that you are able to do any-more.Whenever I am about to take a va-cation, my boss tells me to keep my cellphone and pager on.To me this is not a

vacation at all.

Not surprisingly perhaps, a few partici-pants expressed the need for presence manage-ment, including features beyond caller ID thatwould allow them to screen incoming callsmore effectively and thus regain some controlover their availability to others.

Some participants expressed concern thatthe device manufacturers were deliberately try-ing to tie their customers to their specific prod-uct designs. Thus, if you want to enjoy thefreedoms their technology promises, you willbe bound to a particular company, eitherthrough long-term service contracts or intri-cate design logics:

If you buy, for example, a [name of aspecific manufacturer] phone, you willget so used to their interface logic. So af-ter that, it becomes very hard to switchto another manufacturer's design logic.They lock you in after you have chosenyour first model.

The Independence/Dependence Paradox"My cell phone does everything," said one fo-cus group member. More independencethrough mobility was a freedom enjoyed by theparticipants of our study. But it became clearthat the power to connect independent of

INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENTFALL 2005

11


IFU Rissedcalls attain ta

inore

meaningful

status than

most answered

calls.

WWW.ISM -JOURNAL. COM

FALL 2005

space and time created a new form of depen-dency that invariably coexists with indepen-dence. Or, as one of our participants described,"Always being available results in lack of inde-

pendence. It is like having an electronic anklechain." Although the resultant indepen-

dence/dependence paradox could be consid-ered just a special case of the previouslydescribed empowerment/enslavement para-dox, it warrants its own category because this

particular aspect was almost universally ac-knowledged as an issue with which users werestruggling. Some denied technology dependen-cy, or at least qualified it, but most found it

quite difficult to break the "always on" habit

they had acquired and admitted quite bluntlythat they had become dependent on total con-nectivity:

You can always leave your mobile athome, though I never do.

For me, switching off my mobile is notdifficult at all, if I can turn it to silence

mode. But it's difficult for me to com-pletely switch it off.

No problem, as long as it is only for ashort while.

If I am not on night shift it's okay for me

to switch it off at night, but I can'tswitch off my phone at work. I'm a pro-duction assistant in a TV station and I

work in different locations. Everyonecontacts me via my cell phone and it isthe only connection between my boss

and me.

I even use my mobile phone at home. Iguess I'm too lazy to go to the livingroom to pick up a call.

I never turn my phone off.The day is ru-

ined if you forget it home.

I carry the battery charger with me allthe time. I keep a charger in my car also.[And another person adds] I actually

have several chargers.

I can't go out without my mobilephone. It's always on and always with

me. You can't just switch off yourphone; people wonder where you are.

Being cut off from her usual mobile services,

one participant experienced withdrawal-likesymptoms, which fortunately went away after

.some time:

Once I went on a trip to [nearby] Macau

without my cell phone. Whenever I

heard a ringtone I thought someone is

calling me. I got so tense and thought it

was my phone. But on the second day of

the trip, I started getting used to living

without a cell phone and I actuallyfound it very relieving.

Once people get used to being always on, it

causes them great discomfort when they need

to disconnect, even if it is only temporarily.Most users loath turning off their devices for

fear they may miss an important call. Missed

calls attain a more meaningful status than most

answered calls.The mere chance that someone

may have tried to communicate something sig-

nificant is given substantial consideration de-

spite the fact that most of those calls turn out

to be noncritical or outright trivial.This leaves

users in a state of constant anticipation for

some elusive messages that may never get sent.

The possibility of failing to immediately re-

spond to either a great opportunity or some

emergency is perceived as a great threat, al-

though it is understood, from a rational per-

spective, that the odds are rather small that an

event with significant consequences would be

passed over because of a missed call:

My friends don't bother to leave mes-

sages on my answering machine. I haveto have my phone turned on or in silent

mode to know when they call.

Sometimes when I forget to bring my

cell phone, I feel very uncomfortable.

I won't shut down my cell phone even

during lectures, but I'll switch it into si-

lence mode. I keep my cell phone on

because I want to know when some-

body calls me. I can tell from the caller

ID.

1 don't turn it off even on the plane.

Switching off the phone makes me feel

so tense. I always worry if I missed any

calls. What if someone called me and I

didn't know?

I'm looking at my cell phone at every

chance I get.

When I turn it off, my only concern is

about the children ... that I cut the con-

nection with them.


!Maradoxzi-cally, the samefeature thatfulfills a userneed createsanother one.

I don't like turning the service off. I canturn the ringer off, but I don't like turn-ing the service off.

Although "there was life before these gad-gets," for most users, mobile technology has be-come part of their lives, for better or worse.Many agreed that "life without cell would beterrible" and that "once you get one you don't

know how to live without it." Besides not hav-ing connectivity, people were afraid of losingor misplacing their devices, which routinely

store irreplaceable contact information:

When I was in Korea for half a yearsome time ago pretty much everyonehad pagers or cells. It felt odd because Idid not bring mine. Now, I would not

give it away anymore. It has become im-portant for me to know that I can easilycontact people. It is good to know thatyou can reach people if you want to.

One can't live without a cell phone. Ifyou lose it, you lose all your contacts.The cell phone has become part of mylife. At my age [teenager], we don't stay

at home much, but spend most of ourtime on the street. It's just impossible to

be without a cell phone, or else no onecan reach you.

It's always with me. If I lose it, I'll losenot only the phone, but also the infor-mation stored on the SIM card [address

book]. People rarely use pens to writedown phone numbers anymore.We de-pend much more on our mobile phonesnow. You may ask others to call you, sothat you can store their number withouthaving to write it down or enter it man-ually into the mobile.

A rancher friend of mine was going madbecause he left his PDA at a friend'shouse and he could not reach him for acouple of days.All his contact numberswere on it. When you rely on technolo-gy that much, it is hard to live withoutit.

In one interesting case, a father revealedthat his son leaves his mobile at home when he

goes out so that he can regain his indepen-dence. "My son doesn't feel like bringing hiscell phone when he's out. He claims that hiscell is too unfashionable. But I think that's justan excuse. If he doesn't have his phone withhim, I can't reach him."To which someone else


retorted, "Would you like it if your parentswould know where you are? No!"

The Fulfills Needs/CreatesNeeds ParadoxMobile technology "has taken simplicity out ofour lives," commented one participant. Our

data clearly shows that technology really is pro-viding a solution to many problems that benefitmobile connectivity, but, at the same time, ithas also caused a whole range of new prob-lems, problems that users didn't have before ordidn't perceive having.This can be as trivial asthe new need of always "having to carry a bagthat holds the mobile" or "the battery runsdown quickly," but often it creates much moreintricate needs.The irony that solutions createproblems did not go unnoticed. One person

urged, "It is very important that users thinkabout what specific need a particular service isreally satisfying," and someone else wondered,"if adding more services is really productive.Every time they add something, people haveproblems." Paradoxically, the same feature thatfulfills a user need creates another one. Mobili-ty fulfills the need for more security because itallows people to stay in touch - for example,parents with their children when they're out,spouses with each other when one goes on aroad trip, or elderly people with caretakers ifthey encounter difficulties at home and can'treach the regular phone - but ironically thisnewfound security seems to create a new senseof vulnerability, as people fear, "what if I loseit?" Similarly, there was general agreement that"using a really posh cell phone makes it more

likely that it will be stolen" and that mobilebanking fulfills a great need "but creates someserious security issues."

A new need for privacy was recognized bya number of participants.This need arose be-cause the devices had fulfilled the user's need

to be able to talk in public places. Once usersexperienced situations in which they had aconversation in public that they really didn'tmean to share with anyone, and certainly notwith random bystanders, they realized that go-ing public with mobile communication createsa new need for privacy:

There is always somebody hearing whatI am talking about on the phone. Peoplearound you hear you.

1 mean, is it safe to do any kind of bank-

ing over the phone? You got to say allthe information aloud, even the secret

13


M there;ramplesillustra/ed

how the use

of a new

conlpelence

compromise

anolher.

WWW.ISM-JOURNAL.COMFALL 2005

word. People can get your credit cardnumber easily.

Most prevalent, however, were cases whereusers had taken an active step to fulfill a per-ceived need, only to find out that this same ac-tion created a new need. Sometimes this newneed was simply wanting more of the same;

that is, wanting more than they had previouslyfelt the need for (e.g., more minutes than the

current service plan allows). Sometimes it waswanting to add something similar, but some-thing they didn't know they needed before(e.g., an additional device accessory or another

data service). For some users, an action createdthe need to undo it or compensate for an unex-pected side effect of it. Never reaching con-tentment, several users admitted that, as soonas one need is taken care of, they move on tofind new needs they would like to have ad-dressed.

The CompetencellncompetenceParadoxThe ability to do anything, anytime, anywhere

gives mobile technology users a whole set ofnew competencies. It allows them to do thingsthey couldn't do before. It enables them to dothings more efficiently and effectively thanthey could before. As people use their newlyacquired, technology-enabled competencies toperform new tasks or perform tasks more effi-ciently and effectively, they soon experience anew sense of incompetence. Seemingly simple

services turn out to be hard to use and newlygained efficiencies tend to be limited in scopeand actually cause inefficiency at a higher level.The idea that a newly obtained competencelowers another, directly related competence ormakes users experience incompetence, wheth-er real or just perceived, emerged from ourdata in several different contexts.The most ap-parent case relates to situations in which users

explore new device functions or try out newapplication services in the expectation of be-coming a more competent user, only to be con-fronted with unexpected difficulties that leavethem feeling less competent than before. Suchless-for-more bargains were reported frequent-

ly across groups:

I've used some of these [name of a mo-bile service operator] services, like get-ting address info via SMS [short messageservice]. But I couldn't remember thesyntax to get the service to work for me.On weekends at my cottage I was some-

times trying to figure out how to get theresults of the Formula 1 car races, but itwas just too difficult.

WAP [Wireless Application Protocol forInternet browsing] is entirely useless.After one week of trying, it was still toodifficult to use. I thought I know some-thing about IT and that I could use theseservices on my phone, but I was notable to do that.

I won't be able to use all of the func-tions offered. In addition to the oneswith so many features, I think it's neces-sary to offer a simple one for elder peo-ple.

I don't use it [mobile banking] becauseI don't want to be worried about memaking mistakes.

Other examples illustrated how the use of anew competence can compromise another.The new competence of talking on the phonewhile driving can make someone a bad andpossibly dangerous driver. The new compe-tence of using mobile text communicationmethods can negatively affect language compe-tence. Relying on electronic memory may bedetrimental to one's own memory. Using mo-bile technologies in meetings may give usersbetter information but may be distracting andactually weaken their performance, thus, mak-ing them less competent participants in themeeting:

I used to remember a lot of phone num-

bers from memory.

It is unbelievable when people justdrive and talk to their cells.

Turns and lane changes are problematicwhen I am on the phone.

SMS is impoverishing the language. It's athreat to language especially for youngpeople.

[Using mobile devices] can also be dis-tracting in meetings.

In many ways, particular mobile servicesthemselves turn out to be much less compe-tent than expected when applied in varying sit-uations and are often outright incompetentwhen used in ways that are only slightly differ-ent from the prescribed user instructions. In ei-ther case, mobile technology competencies aretoo often too narrow in scope and incapable ofadapting to specific user environments to be of

14


Soordesign ortechnicallimitations

such as smallscreen size,tiny inputkeys, ornetworkconstraintscan render aserviceineffective andmake it lookincompetent.

much value. This leaves the user with the im-pression that the technology itself is incompe-tent or, worse, it makes users themselves feelincompetent as they struggle to make effectiveuse of it.

Poor design or technical limitations such assmall screen size, tiny input keys, or networkconstraints can render a service ineffective andmake it look incompetent. On the other hand,complicated usage logic or incomprehensiblebehavior of a service diminishes self-efficacy andtends to create a sense of user incompetence:

The screen of the cell phone is too tiny.It can't display enough information. I'vetried, but it's useless. The cell must bebigger, it uses a lot of battery, and thedisplay is too small. Some services areso slow that there is no real benefit.

I would use mobile banking services ifthey were better.

In my opinion, it feels funny to readlong e-mails on a small cell.

It would be nice if my phone workedmore globafly. Every time I go to theStates my phone becomes useless.

I used a flight arrival information ser-vice twice, but it gave me odd informa-tion.That was enough for me. I haven'tused it since.

I ordered a couple horoscopes, but itwas not that interesting, so I just triedthe service once. I tried to make an airticket reservation ... I did not like it.

Similarly, tools that are meant to offer usersnew competencies often break down whenused in daily activities and create just the oppo-site effect. Designed to increase the efficiencyof communication and coordination tasks,some services actually produce inefficiencywhen put to work:

I don't think it can really support Inter-net services. For example, I don't thinkusing a cell phone for e-mail is any good.It's too hard to type. If it takes me sucha long time to write an e-mail, why notjust give the recipient a call instead?

It is interesting that it takes more timeto write an SMS that says,"I am five min-utes late," than to call and tell it.

It increases your rush ... when you are al-ways available, you make more appoint-ments, even when you are on the move.


Both e-mail and mobile phone calls havedisturbed efficient working.... I do twominutes of something and then comessomething else that disturbs my concen-tration. Concentrating on just one taskat a time is not possible anymore.

The Planning/Improvisation ParadoxMobile technologies can be employed as effec-tive planning tools, allowing people to bettercoordinate meetings and plan work and socialactivities. One user, for example, said:

I use the mobile to be polite and call totell when I am five minutes late or I maycheck if the other person is really therewhere I am supposed to pick him up....It is used for being polite and checkingthings.

Users can prepare schedules in advance,then update and refine them, independent oftime and location, and provide involved partieswith additional information as they go along.This should result in more efficient planningand less unproductive time. In practice, how-ever, the opposite occurs all too often. Know-ing the powers mobile technologies bestow ontheir owners, people tend to spend less timeand effort working out schedules and, instead,rely more on the technology that allows themto make up for lack of preparation with contin-uous improvisation. Some users welcomed thisnew flexibility that makes "life more unplannedbecause you can plan on the spot," and found itliberating that "you don't have to make arrange-ments in advance anymore if you don't like."Tosome extent, technology substitutes for plan-ning rather than augmenting it.

Moreover, some people seem to lose theskill to plan ahead and simply "are not able tomake appointments in advance anymore." Sev-eral participants described situations in whichvague planning of a meeting led to numerouschanges and improvisations, resulting in extracoordination efforts, modified agendas, and, inthe end, increased lateness, leading to less timespent together:

Even at parties, people come at theirown time now and it's become impossi-ble to get everybody together at thesame time. I think about like those wel-coming toasts that we used to have, forexample. You simply can't have every-one around at the same time anymore.

15


WI! thoughmobiletechnologiesare designedas instrumtents

for supportingcontrol, theycan create

chaos ifimproperly

In the past, I used to schedule the meet-ing time and meeting point in advance

when I had a date with friends. Butnow, I usually make up a rough meeting

time, then call up my friend and con-firm the exact meeting time with thecell phone when I am about to arrive.

Technology has been changing people's be-havior.It used to be socially unacceptable to belate, without a reasonable excuse. But now be-ing late is almost expected; it has become thenorm. It is acceptable as long as you updateyour party on your whereabouts and reporthow you are progressing toward the meeting,even if you are arriving late or not at all. Whatis unacceptable, however, is not having a mo-

bile phone and thus being out of reach. Forget-ting the mobile at home or running out ofbattery have become inexcusable faux pas thatcan easily result in social exclusion. Anotherconsequence of this emerging improvisationculture is the erosion of social conventions re-garding acceptable calling times:

It has [for example] become easier to

get ahold of a married friend. Since heanswers his cell phone, I can call him inthe middle of the night without givingany consideration to his family mem-bers.

Too much improvisation causes disorgani-zation. Although mobile technologies are de-signed as instruments for supporting control,they can create chaos if improperly used. Toomuch communication creates chaotic distur-bances in people's physical space; receivingtoo much information leads to informationoverload; and messages are sent and ignored,which triggers more messages and corrupts so-cial communication protocols. Senders nolonger know which of their messages havebeen received and recipients lose messages in

an uncontrolled fashion:

I attended a Formula One [car] raceonce and could not follow the race be-cause I had to send SMS messages all thetime.

Of course, I want more information but,on the other hand, we get too much in-formation to deal with. It should be sim-pler. It can be damaging to your

personal life.

Sometimes, I want to erase messageswithout having to listen to them. It is

WWW.ISM-JOURNAL,COMFALL 2005

tiresome to have to listen to messagesbefore you can erase them.

The Engaging/Disengaging ParadoxMobile technology enables users to .choosewhen to engage in a discourse and when to dis-engage.This desire to retreat from stressful en-vironments, but at the same time stayinginvolved, surfaced in several of the focus groupdiscussions. For example, one participant ex-pressed that:

People want to know what is going on,but on the other hand, they also want tobe in the middle of a forest ... meaningthat once you have all these communi-cation tools you want them to work inremote areas also.

Unfortunately, most people find it difficultto engage in parallel activities, to engage insomething new without disengaging fromsomething else.When calls interrupt a conver-sation (in the physical space), the caller willtypically abruptly disengage from the currentconversation and engage in a new one, oftenleaving others stranded. When driving, peoplemake calls and engage in conversation whiledisengaging from their driving activity:

And in meetings, the call comes first. Iam there in person ... but it feels that itwould have been better to call and notbother to come in person.

If I am talking on the phone while cross-ing the road, I am less aware of the traf-fic situation.

The most serious problem [with mobiletechnology] is your lack of personal at-tention, especially while driving. It isthe most serious problem. It is a risk toyourself when you're in the car, but oth-ers' driving is a problem for us too.

The realization that mobile technologies"might be a detriment to other kinds of com-munication" was widely acknowledged. Com-munication patterns in the family home havebeen altered since the fixed-line family phonelost its role as the communication hub in thehome:

The phone at home does not ring thatmuch anymore since everybody has hisown cell phone. When it does ring, itusually is somebody trying to sell ussomething. No one else calls our homephone anymore.

used.

16


WI ithoughtechnology cansupport users

in managing

multiplevirtual

communication

.spaces, it

cannot

elidiuate

interference

with activities

in the

surrounding

phiysical space.

When family members, especially teenag-ers, develop their own personal mobile com-munication channels, they are prone todisengage from family life. "I would be evenless home, if I didn't need to go home to readmy e-mails [on the desktop computer]," con-ceded a young girl. Parents in the study gener-ally thought that heavy use of mobiletechnology among teenagers is detrimental tofamily life and social interaction. Many usersexpressed concern that engaging with mobilecommunication technologies may lead users todisengage from face-to-face social activities:

It decreases the time the kids spendwith their friends. Even when they arctogether, they just use their mobiles andchat.

They are teaching our daughter technol-ogy rather than content.The kids don'tlearn how to conceptualize anymore,only how to use tools.The new genera-tion is not learning how to interact withothers; they are learning to be discon-nected - becoming antisocial.

There are a lot of activities that I don'tdo anymore, like visiting my friends.I've noticed that I have not talked muchwith some people lately, because I usee-mail and SMS all the time.

When I see someone with lots of pag-ers, phones, and other devices on them,I don't find it very nice. I wonder, whodo you belong to?

The Public/Private ParadoxMobile. technology devices are usually consid-ered personal tools for private communication.Users are able to set up their own personal vir-tual communication spaces anywhere, any-time. In the past, personal communication,voice or data, took place only in personal phys-ical spaces such as the office or the home,where it was by and large possible to set andcontrol an adequate level of privacy. Now,freed from spatial and temporal constraints,people are increasingly taking private conver-sations into the public space. This can createfriction and interfere with other people's activ-ities and privacy. When exchanging messagesor talking, the conversing parties create virtualcommunication spaces. Although technologycan support users in managing multiple virtualcommunication spaces, it cannot eliminate in-terference with activities in the surrounding


physical space. It is not just the noise and chat-ter that disturbs people. Overhearing calls thattake place in public, often unintentionally, andhearing only one part of the conversation,makes people wonder about the missing piec-es and the absent person. It involuntarily drawsthem into interpersonal exchanges that shouldbe private but are happening in public.

At the same time, people assume differentroles as they switch between physical and vir-tual space, displaying behaviors, gestures, andemotional states that may befit an ongoing vir-tual interaction but may appear out of place inthe context of the present physical space:

There is no peace on trains anymore, orin other public places - there is alwayssomeone talking on his mobile. It is dis-turbing.

People talk just about anything, any-where. On buses or at the airport, forexample, people talk business all thetime. It seems that industrial espionagewould not be that difficult; people donot think that other people can hear ev-erything.

Other people's mobiles sometimes dis-turb in public places. For example,when someone writes SMS messages onthe train - it is annoying. Keypad clicksbother me even more than ringtones.

As far as manners are concerned, I pre-fer not to be forced to listen to someoneelse's private conversation. It breaks myconcentration.

The Illusion/Disillusion ParadoxWhen users in our study acquired their firstmobile devices or upgraded to newer modelsand services, they did so with certain expecta-tions of partaking in joys promised and pro-moted. Whether these expectations werereasonable or unrealistic, people anticipatedthat their new gadgets would make their liveseasier and enable them to do things theycouldn't before. Users came away disappointedwhen they realized the new designs deliveredonly a crude approximation of perceivedpromises. Many users recounted frustrationand disillusionment as they discovered thatan)!where communication really means insome places and areas only, because limitedcoverage and dead spots seriously constrainconnectivity. As one respondent lamented:

17


"A ifficult-to-use

interfaces and

cryptic

command

syntaxes were

also significant

factors

contributing to

disappointment

about new

services.

When I tried to send data from the Shin-kansen UJapanese bullet train], the trans-mission was interrupted every time thetrain went through the tunnels.

Likewise, anytime communication is severelycompromised by short battery runtimes:

If I don't use my phone, the battery willlast for three days. But, if I use it a lot,the battery won't even make it through

the day.

Of course, anytime also requires that the in-tended communication partners are availableand willing to communicate. Lastly, anythingbarely covers voice communication, becausemany connections are unstable or of poor qual-ity, and hardware and bandwidth limitationsrender access to Web sites and delivery of mul-timedia content inadequate. For example, oneuser thought:

... it is a great idea to make comics avail-able over cell phones, but the screen istoo tiny. It takes the fun away.

In general, disillusionment regarding newlymarketed wireless services was prevalent. "Ithink of WAP services [for browsing the Inter-net] as Tamogotchis for adults!" exclaimed oneparticipant. Whether because of hardware lim-itations, clumsy user interfaces, slow or spottyconnections, poorly designed services, or lim-ited trust in these services, users perceivedmany of the new mobile services as inferiorsubstitutes for similar wired Internet servicesor immature offerings that provided little or novalue to them:

Games are great; that is, if you want torun down your battery!

We have GPS [global positioning sys-tem] in our car, but it doesn't feel usefulat all.

A couple of weeks ago when I pickedup my parents from the airport, I or-dered an SMS service that deliveredflight information to my phone. I guessthe service worked, but the informationthat the flight was three hours late be-came known only 15 minutes beforethe scheduled arrival time at the airport.

There is a lot of advertising on thesenew SMS-based services. But how canyou remember how to get these servic-es to work? You have to remember abunch of phone numbers, you have to

WWW.ISM -JOURNAL.COM

FALL 2005

remember the correct keywords, andalso the right syntax ... it is too difficult.

When adopting new mobile services, userswere under the impression that they would en-joy an upgrade in service level or quality, but af-ter using the new services, users felt they werequite inadequate for the given tasks and actual-ly perceived a service downgrade. For exam-ple, the ability to access the Web with mobilephones promises a service upgrade, but the ac-tual experience of struggling with small key-pads and screens and slow connections createsthe perception of a downgrade, especiallywhen contrasted with the ubiquitously avail-able wired Internet or wireless WiFi networks.Difficult-to-use interfaces and cryptic commandsyntaxes were also significant factors contribut-ing to disappointment about new services:

I feel this Internet and mobile thing islike skis that are designed for classicalstyle Nordic skiing and freestyle Nordicskiing.The middle way may not be thebest - some services belong to the In-ternet and others will be mobile.

Since we have computer and modemeverywhere, we don't need to use cellphones for Internet access.The screensare too tiny for using the Internet, andthe connection is too slow. Keying char-acters in is not that difficult, but I can-not type fast.Three lines seem to be themaximum one can do at a time.

It's kind of strange to use a cell phonefor Internet access. I've gotten used tousing the PC for Internet access. I havea big color screen and other features

too.

A few people pointed out that more com-munication does not necessarily mean bettercommunication and that the ease of communi-cating with mobile technologies may have in-creased the quantity of communication but, atthe same time, decreased its quality:

Compared to'the time of letters andtelegraphs, cell phones facilitate morecommunication. However, compared toa fixed-line phone, the content of thecommunication has become trivial.With a stationary phone, I would pre-pare myself mentally and call in a quietenvironment, but with a cell phone, Iend up calling without giving anythought.


Mystemdesigns that

align well with

users 'personal

coping

strategies will

be niore

successful thandesigns that

bank on the

latest bells

and whistles.

My kids are connected too. At a recentschool event, four out of six studentsand two out of four adults were all talk-ing on the phone. I wonder how crucialthese talks could have been.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEDesigns that Support Individual CopingMechanismsBetter management of the resulting tension in

the user-technology relationship emerges as akey challenge in designing mobile solutions.When users are regularly confronted with thedifferent manifestations of technology para-doxes (as described previously) it impactsthem not just on a functional level but alsoemotionally When the technology works ac-cording to expectations, or beyond, users feeljoyous, delighted, and empowered and experi-ence a sense of belonging as they build socialand professional relations. On the other hand,when it doesn't, they feel angry frustrated,fearful, stressed, lonely, and depressed.

As a result, and in order to maintain emo-tional poise, users develop mechanisms tocope with technology paradoxes.As indicatedin Figure 1, we identify a number of particularcoping mechanisms that can be broadly classi-fied into two categories: avoidance and con-frontative coping strategies (Holahan andMoos, 1987).The former refers to user strate-gies that try to minimize interaction with thetechnology. Choosing to ignore, neglect, sus-pend, distance, or (in the extreme) abandontechnology use are examples of avoidancestrategies.Avoidance may be selective in termsof people, services, situations, and personalstate of mind. Not calling people or not bother-ing with trying to figure out how to set up a

new data service, for example, are commonways for users to deal with technology. Avoid-ance is a typical reaction when technology ap-pears confusing or unreasonably demandingand occurs especially in situations where usersare tinder stress or pressure. The increasingubiquity of mobile communication contributesto user overload; that is, information and com-munication overload.

Other users, however, take a different routeand confront technology when it behaves un-expectedly. Confrontative coping strategies de-scribe user actions (and reactions) that aim atunderstanding and accommodating technolo-gy. These types of users spend effort learninghow to use features and services and are will-ing to adjust their expectations as they better


FALL 2005

understand the possibilities and constraints ofmobile technology. The user-technology rela-tionship is seen as a partnership.

The particular coping mechanism that auser cultivates is a personal matter, but we sug-

gest that device manufacturers and service pro-viders can design products and services thatbetter assist users with balancing technologyparadoxes and thus also help them with devel-

oping more effective coping strategies. Userswho are comfortably and confidently copingwith technology are happier and, usually, bet-

ter customers. In other words, users who dealbetter with technology paradoxes will engagemore productively with mobile solutions and

are more likely to develop more positive part-nerships with mobile technology. Those cus-tomers are also more likely to increase usage,upgrade device models, try out new services,

and generally spend more money on mobiletechnology.

Table I indicates possible directions for de-sign solutions that can help bridge the maintechnology paradoxes and, thus, contribute to

better supporting the various coping mecha-nisms users adopt.Although the development

of detailed specifications for design solutionsfor both device technology and service applica-tions is beyond the scope of this article, we ar-gue that it is important to make systems

available that put the user in control - systemsthat are easier to grasp and easier to manage.

System designs that align well with users'personal coping strategies will be more suc-cessful than designs that bank on the latestbells and whistles. This means different levelsof capabilities and technical sophisticationshould be developed for different consumer

groups. For example, seniors may prefer sim-ple solutions and may be willing to pay for ex-

tra services and accessories that help them doaway with small screens and keypads and com-plicated user interfaces.

Users are happy when their mobile devicesact like reliable allies that don't miss important

communications, don't reveal private informa-tion, improve their professional and social per-formance, protect them from unwantedrequests, and provide them with joy, comfort,and security. Today's available technology candeliver those things only partially. When tech-nology does the opposite of what is expected,

the ally turns into an enemy and users areforced to renegotiate the relationship withtheir mobile partners.

19


For system designers, however, these prob-lems also offer opportunities to develop solu-

tions that better suit user needs. Althoughoffering better privacy protection and data se-curity features is clearly necessary, adding con-text awareness is perhaps the most promisingdirection for helping users better manage their

mobile interactions. This extends to locationawareness, role management, and presencemanagement. Location-aware systems would

adjust their behavior depending on the user'slocation. That is, the system could distinguish

between office, home, travel, leisure, and so-

cial contexts and filter and display data andvoice communication and information differ-

ently. Role management allows the user to se-lectively act in different roles. For example,family and work roles could be assumed at dif-ferent times, implying different prioritizations

for message management. Presence manage-ment allows users to set different availabilitylevels to different people, signaling different

communication levels depending on users'present situation and pursuit. Better changemanagement needs to be provided to helpcustomers navigate through needed service

upgrades and avoid unnecessary setups andsystem changes.

However, design tradeoffs between privacyand awareness and between awareness and dis-turbance have been recognized as fundamentalin the computer science literature and are un-likely to be eliminated (Hudson and Smith,1996). Nevertheless, features that increase con-

text awareness can significantly reduce the gapbetween users' expectations and actual tech-nology performance in mobile communica-tion.

Implications for Organizational andIndustry PracticesBesides individual user-level concerns, thereare also significant implications to practice atthe organizational and the industry level. Froma technology management point of view, orga-nizations must consider several important is-sues when adopting mobile technology. Mobiletechnology, often acquired by employees whobring their own devices to work, has contribut-ed to a blurring of the boundaries betweenwork and leisure. At times, this allows manage-ment to push for increased work productivity

WWW.ISM -JOURNAL. COMF FALL 2005

TABLE I System Design Options for Balancing Technology Paradoxes

Technology Paradoxes System Design Needs Possible Design Features

Empowerment/Enslavement Presence management Prioritizing messagesFiltering messagesIndicating availability status

Independence/Dependence Presence management Summarizing usage informationCategorizing usage informationPresenting behavioral information

Fulfills needs/Creates needs Change management Managing software upgradesManaging service changesAiding system installation

Competence/Incompetence Simplification, customization Streamlining servicesReducing complexityDifferentiating device and service optionsPersonalizing system configurations

Planning/Improvisation Collaboration support Synchronizing clock and event timeManaging updatesSharing information

Engaging/Disengaging Context awareness Activity-based responsesRelaying context information

Public/Private Role management, location awareness Choosing rolesSharing location informationPlace-sensitive user interfaces

Illusion/Disillusion Context awareness, location awareness Context-sensitive responsesLocation-sensitive responsesPersonalized interfaces

20


Wlirins thattare able toprovide highlydifferentiated

service

solutions to

differentcustomers arepositioned to

e.-rtract exltra

profits froin

themarketplace.

from their staff, but this is often achieved at thecost of higher stress levels and lower employeesatisfaction. Clearer rules that separate workfrom family activities and establish reasonableorganizational communication protocols areneeded. Such rules could be encoded formallyby businesses as technology usage policies.They could also be developed informally aspart of organizational culture.

When companies choose mobile solutions,it is crucial to consider cross-platform interop-erability and upgrade compatibility, especiallybecause mobile systems are increasingly de-ployed off premises where they need to inter-act with external technology. Proliferation ofdevices, application services, and vendors cre-ates numerous implementation possibilitiesbut also uncertainties about the long-term sta-bility and viability of particular technology con-figurations. Data security is another issue thatneeds to be addressed, because large amounts

of sensitive data are transmitted over wirelessnetworks.

Regarding mobile service and commerceproviders, several interesting business oppor-tunities should be explored. Location-basedservices using the global positioning system(GPS) to determine the exact position of mo-bile users offer an entirely new way of interact-ing with customers. For example, a coffee shopchain could lead its customers to the nearestbranch outlet when they feel a need for a cap-puccino or a latt6. If companies succeed in pro-viding products and services just in time, whenthe need arises as consumers move aroundplaces, they may be able not just to attract newbusiness but also to charge premium prices forproviding the pleasures of instant gratification.

Underserved customer groups are anotherarea that could provide profitable business.This includes services that are tailored for se-niors, teenagers, minorities, homemakers, andother people with specific interests and needs.Firms that are able to provide highly differenti-ated service solutions to different customersare positioned to extract extra profits from themarketplace. New service innovations such asad hoc wireless community support are alsoexpected to become viable business opportu-nities. Supporting professional meetings - forexample, with mobile technology that lets at-tendees who may have never met communi-cate and - coordinate with each other and theorganizers could indeed be profitable, becausethere is a captive audience that already payssubstantial registration fees. In fact, some tech-nology conferences are already experimenting


FALL 2005

with short-range mobile communication chips,which are typically embedded in the badgesthat registered attendees wear in the meetingspace, to provide ad hoc network support tothe conference participants.

In terms of industry trends, it is clear thatgrowth rates for voice communication areslowing as more and more markets reach satu-ration. Rates for phone calls continue to godown and there are obvious limitations to howmuch more people can talk on the phone.Hence, mobile data services, including mediaand entertainment services, offer the greatestbusiness potential for service providers. Thisexplains the continuing investments in 3G net-works and 3G-enabled devices. Whereas datasales in the United States still lag behind Asiaand Europe, spending on data services hasbeen growing swiftly and is expected to be-come the main source for revenue and profitsfor telecom operators by the end of the de-cade. It is hard to anticipate what services con-sumers will be willing to pay for, but a bigadvantage for telecom operators is that theyhave long-standing accounting and billing rela-tionships with their customers, who have gen-erally accepted the payment of a substantial feefor mobile services every month.Although mo-bile shopping turns out to be difficult in gener-al, there are also a number of unanticipatedmobile commerce successes.

When location, time, or mobility really mat-ters, consumers are willing to order and pay formobile services. This includes mobile betting(in some places) and downloading ringtonesand ringbacks, a business that has already sur-passed selling digital music downloads over theInternet. Once again, to really entice consum-ers to embrace mobile commerce, service pro-viders will need to offer a more balanced userexperience.Tools for better managing technol-ogy paradoxes will be an essential componentof future mobile technology solutions.

CONCLUSIONTechnology paradoxes are an intrinsic part ofthe user experience. Because users engage incloser and more personal relationships withmobile technology than with other forms of IT,they feel the impact of paradoxical technologybehavior more strongly. Currently available mo-bile technology solutions offer only limited as-sistance for balancing paradoxes when theyoccur.

Although our empirical analysis was largelybased on data collected in 2001,we believe the

21


paradoxes that we derived, and their implica-tions, have remained remarkably stable overthe years. Technology writer David Pogue, forexample, in his recent product reviews of state-of-the-art mobile phones (Pogue, 2005a) andpalmtops (Pogue, 2005b), corroborates thisview. Users develop their own coping strategiesto deal with conflict situations caused by tech-nology.The results of these ad hoc strategies aremixed, however. We believe technology de-signers need to address the paradoxes their so-lutions create and better integrate technologyaffordances and user cognition.

This article offers initial steps in that direc-tion, but more research is clearly needed to de-velop mobile solutions that allow users toeffortlessly garner the benefits that technologyproduces, without succumbing to the detri-mental side effects that also occur. Studies thatexamine the impact of particular design fea-tures on the effectiveness of user coping strat-egies could contribute to this endeavor. Ingeneral, linking people to people who havecome together to a particular place and sup-porting relationships between people and places

is emerging as an active area for research andproduct development (Jones et al., 2004).Anoth-er interesting area for further research concernshow mobile technology can be used to increasethe effectiveness of improvisational approachesto organizational problem solving. A

ReferencesArnold, M. (2003). On the Phenomenology of

Technology: The "Janus-Faces" of MobilePhones, Information and Organization, 13:231-256.

Balasubramanian, S., R.A. Peterson, and S.L.Jarvenpaa (2002). Exploring the Implications ofM-Commerce for Markets and Marketing,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,30(4): 348-361.

Chinn, S.S. (2001). The Technology Paradox,Industrial Management, March-April 2001:25-27.

Dekleva, S. (2004). M-Business: Economy Driver ora Mess? Communications for the Associationfor Information Systems, 13:111-135.

Easterbrook, G. (2003). The Progress Paradox: HowLife Gets Better White People Feel Worse.Random House.

Fern, E.E (2001).Advanced Focus Group .Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Frolick, M.N. and L.D. Chen (2004).Assessing M-Commerce Opportunities, InformationSystems Management. Spring: 53-61.

Handy, C. (1994). The Age of Paradox Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Holahan, C.J. and R.H. Moos (1987). Personal and

Contextual Determinants of Coping Strategies,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52(5): 946-955.Hudson, S.E. and I. Smith (1996).Techniques for

Addressing Fundamental Privacy and DisruptionTradeoffs in Awareness Support Systems, inProceedings of ACM Conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, Cambridge MA,1996: 248-257.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., K.R. Lang,YTakeda, and VK.Tuunainen (2003). Mobile Commerce atCrossroads, Communications of the ACM,46(12): 41-44.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., K.R. Lang, and VK.Tuunainen(2005). Friend or Foe? The Ambivalent

Relationship between MobileTechnology and itsUsers, in Designing Ubiquitous InformationEnvironments: Socio-technical Issues and

Challenges, Carsten Sorensen,Younjin Yoo, KalleLyytinen, and Janice I. DeGross (eds.), SpringerScience and Business Media, Boston, MA: 29-42.

Jones, Q., S.A. Grandhi, L.Terveen, and S. Whittaker(2004). People-to-People-to-GeographicalPlaces: The P3 Framework for Location-BasedCommunity Systems, Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, 13: 249-282.Kopomaa, T. (2000). City in Your Pocket. The Birth

of the Mfobile Information Society Helsinki:Gaudeamus.

Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus Groups. A PracticalGuide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.Lyytinen, K. and Y.Yoo (2002). Research

Commentary: The Next Wave of Nomadic

Computing, Information Systems Research,13(4): 377-389.

Mick, D.G. and S. Fournier (1998). Paradoxes ofTechnology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions,

and Coping Strategies,Journal of ConsumerResearch, 25:123-143.

Mulgan, G. (1998). Connexity: How to Live in a

Connected World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.Orlikowski, WJ. (1991). Integrated Information

Environment or Matrix of Control? TheContradictory Implications of InformationTechnology, Accounting, Management, and

Information Technology, 1: 9-42.

Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). CASE Tools asOrganizational Change: InvestigatingIncremental and Radical Changes in Systems

Development, MIS Quarterly, 17(3): 309-339.Pogue, D. (2005a). The Cellphone That Does

Everything Imaginable, at Least Sort Of, The NewYork Times, Section C, page 1, May 12, 2005.

Pogue, D. (2005b).A New Spin on a Palmtop (orInside It), The New York Times, Circuits, May19, 2005.

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The Next Social

Revolution, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge,MA.

WWW. ISM-JOURNAL.COM

FALL 200522

UBIOUITOUS COMPUTING

Robey, D. and M.C. Boudreau (1999). Accountingfor the Contradictory OrganizationalConsequences of Information Technology:Theoretical Directions and MethodologicalImplications, Information Systems Research,10(2): 167-185.

Schlosser, EK. (2002). So, How Do People ReallyUse Their Handheld Devices? An InteractiveStudy of Wireless Technology Use,Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23(4): 401-423.

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998). Basics ofQualitative Research, Techniques andProcedures for Developing Grounded Theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Urbaczewski, A., J.S. Valacich, and L.M. Jessup(2003). Mobile Commerce Opportunities andChallenges, Communications of the ACM,46(12): 31-32.


23

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Managing the Paradoxes of Mobile TechnologySOURCE: Inf Syst Manage 22 no4 Fall 2005

WN: 0528802780001

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.auerbach-publications.com/

Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Jarvenpaa, moblie

Documents

Transcript of Jarvenpaa, moblie