Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing

Yoo, Youngjin

doi:10.2307/20721425

Cited by 549 publications

(459 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

438

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alexandrian thinking (Baldwin 2008, Langlois 2006, Murmann and Frenken 2006, Schilling 2000, Ulrich and Eppinger 2003, von Hippel 1990, the increasing digitization of products (Kallinikos et al 2013;Lee and Berente 2012, Lindgren et al 2008, Yoo 2010) calls for consideration of their differences. To substantiate this claim, it is necessary to turn the attention to Alexander's thinking on design patterns (Alexander 1979, 1999, Alexander et al 1977, something that is rarely done within technology and innovation management research.…”

Section: Patterns and Technological Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames

Henfridsson

Mathiassen

Svahn

2014

Journal of Information Technology

216

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Inspired by Herbert Simon's notion of nearly decomposable systems, researchers have examined modularity as a powerful approach to manage technological change in product innovation. We articulate this approach as the hierarchy-of-parts architecture and explain how it emphasizes decomposition of a design into loosely coupled parts and subsequent aggregation of these into an industrial product. To realize the scale benefits of modularity, firms successively freeze design specifications before production and therefore only allow limited windows of functionality design and redesign. This makes it difficult to take advantage of the increased speed by which digitized products can be developed and modified.To address this problem, we draw on Christopher Alexander's notion of design patterns to introduce a complementary approach to manage technological change that is resilient to digital technology. We articulate this approach as the network-of-patterns architecture and explain how it emphasizes generalization of ideas into patterns and subsequent specialization of patterns for different design purposes. In response to the increased digitization of industrial products, we demonstrate the value of complementing hierarchy-of-parts thinking with network-of-patterns thinking through a case study of infotainment architecture at an automaker.As a result, we contribute to the literature on managing products in the digital age: we highlight the properties of digital technology that increase the speed by which digitized products can be redesigned; we offer the notion of architectural frames and propose hierarchy-of-parts and networkof-patterns as frames to support innovation of digitized products; and, we outline an agenda for future research that reconsiders the work of Simon and Alexander as well as their followers to address key challenges in innovating digitized products.

show abstract

Section: Patterns and Technological Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames

Henfridsson

Mathiassen

Svahn

2014

Journal of Information Technology

216

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, given the nascent nature of this technology, it is not yet clear how the patterns of its use and the legal frameworks that will regulate the production and utilization of data by wearable devices will come to crystallize. It is also important to be clear on the differences introduced by wearable devices: whereas social media platforms stylize and standardize the preferences, expressive acts and habits of online liv--ing, wearable devices extend beyond sociality into the realm of physical and bio--logical life of individuals (see also Yoo, 2010). In a sense, these developments re--inforce the difference between sensor data and social data that we pointed out earlier in this rejoinder.…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Data Generationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Big Data Revisited: A Rejoinder

Kallinikos

Constantiou

2015

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We elaborate on key issues of our paper New games, new rules: big data and the changing context of strategy as a means of addressing some of the concerns raised by the paper's commentators. We initially deal with the issue of social data and the role it plays in the current data revolution. The massive involve--ment of lay publics as instrumented by social media breaks with the strong ex--pert cultures that have underlain the production and use of data in modern or--ganizations. It also sets apart the interactive and communicative processes by which social data is produced from sensor data and the technological recording of facts. We further discuss the significance of the very mechanisms by which big data is produced as distinct from the very attributes of big data, often discussed in the literature. In the final section of the paper, we qualify the alleged import--ance of algorithms and claim that the structures of data capture and the architec--tures in which data generation is embedded are fundamental to the phenomenon of big data. Management strategy, organizations and societyBig data raises issues extending far beyond management strategy that forms the key subject of our original paper, published above. In different ways, Lynne Mar--kus and Youngjin Yoo put this view forward in their respective commentaries.We cannot but fully agree on this point. In fact, our own article concludes with a whole section (that is, Postscript on big data, human behaviour and management) in which we sought to outline some of the wider organizational and institutional

show abstract

“…While these qualities of artefacts will continue to be important, the evaluation of digitalized everyday artefacts will also require another important criterion, desirability and some other criteria as related to the theory of designing socio-technical systems. Here desirability requires us to consider humanistic values, such as, aesthetics and ergonomics, among other factors as we evaluate digitalized artefacts [22].…”

Section: Prototype Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%