design of organisational ubiquitous information systems
Post on 27-Feb-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DESIGN OF ORGANISATIONAL UBIQUITOUS INFORMATION
SYSTEMS: DIGITAL NATIVE AND DIGITAL IMMIGRANT
PERSPECTIVES
Khushbu Tilvawala, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management,
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, k.tilvawala@auckland.ac.nz
David Sundaram, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management,
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, d.sundaram@auckland.ac.nz
Michael Myers, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, University
of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, m.myers@auckland.ac.nz
Abstract
Digital natives are those who have grown up in a digital world where the use of information and
communications technologies is pervasive and ubiquitous. Digital immigrants are those who learnt to
use computers at some stage during their adult life. This paper discusses the design of Organisational
Ubiquitous Information Systems for digital natives and digital immigrants. Organisational Ubiquitous
Information Systems (oUIS) refer to information systems available through many devices such as
smart phones that are used by employees of an organisation anytime and anywhere to achieve specific
work related goal(s). Based on interviews with digital natives and digital immigrants in one of the
leading software companies in the world, our findings suggest that digital natives and immigrants
have different perspectives and priorities when it comes to the design of oUIS. This paper discusses
these differences and the implications for the design of oUIS.
Keywords: Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems, Ubiquitous Information Systems, Digital
Natives, Digital Immigrants
1 INTRODUCTION
Digital natives are those who have grown up in a digital world where the use of information and
communications technologies is pervasive and ubiquitous. Digital immigrants are those who learnt to
use computers at some stage during their adult life (Vodanovich, Sundaram, & Myers, 2010). This
paper discusses the design of Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems for digital natives (DNs)
and digital immigrants (DIs). Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems (oUIS) refer to
information systems available through many devices such as smart phones that are used by employees
of an organisation anytime and anywhere to achieve specific work related goal(s).
Most of the research in the field of information systems has focused on Traditional Information
Systems (TIS) in organisations used by DIs. However, as DNs begin to enter the workforce, they bring
with them various UIS that they have been using in their personal lives. Researchers note that
organisations may be ill prepared to adapt to the influx of DNs and UIS. This is because firstly,
organisations are already struggling with the adoption of UIS and related challenges (Marin, 2004);
and secondly, there is a lack of research and empirical evidence on the differences between DNs and
DIs in the context of organisations (Tilvawala, Myers, & Sundaram, 2011). Specifically, there is a lack
of research on the differences between DN and DI interaction with oUIS. This paper discusses the
oUIS design requirements for DNs and DIs. Based on interviews with DNs and DIs in one of the
leading software companies in the world, our findings suggest that DNs and DIs have different
perspectives and priorities when it comes to the design of oUIS. This paper discusses the different
perspectives and their implications for the design of oUIS.
2 UBIQUITOUS INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN ORGANISATIONS
The advent of ubiquitous information systems goes back to more than 20 years (Weiser, 1991). In the
past decade, several researchers studied UIS and its implications on organisations (Funabashi et al.,
2005; Lyytinen et al., 2004; Poslad, 2009; Sørensen, 2010). UIS enable enterprise mobility and offer
rich tools with computing and communication capabilities (Kleinrock, 2001). However, practitioners
and researchers have found that UIS comes with a set of challenges and limitations when used within
an organisation; and its adoption is inhibited by both internal and external factors (Lyytinen et al.,
2004; Scheepers & Scheepers, 2003). Key problems include size and processing limitations of
ubiquitous devices, heterogeneity, integration, support, and new security and privacy risks (Elgar
Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006; Sørensen, Group, & Yoo, 2005). The increasing use of UIS therefore raises
the need to re-visit organisations’ IT activities and business practices (Sambamurthy & Zmud, 2000).
This paper focuses on the design of a particular type of ubiquitous information system used in
organisations - systems used by employees of an organisation to achieve specific work related goal(s).
Based on past research on UIS in organisations, their implications can be summarised in five themes
as shown in Table 1.
Implications of adopting UIS in
organisations
References
Changes to workplace interaction and
communication
(Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Norman & Allen, 2005),
(BlackBerry, 2010), (Elgar Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006),
(E. Fleisch & Thiesse, 2007), (Marmaridis & Unhelkar,
2005), (Janet & Shafer, 2011)
Changes in work practices (Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Norman & Allen, 2005), (Elgar
Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006), (E. Fleisch & Thiesse,
2007)
Changes in work governance/management
capability
(Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005),
(Janet & Shafer, 2011), (E. Fleisch & Thiesse, 2007)
Changes in organisational capabilities (Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005), (Norman & Allen,
2005), (Janet & Shafer, 2011), (BlackBerry, 2010),
(Elgar Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006), (E. Fleisch &
Thiesse, 2007)
Changes in IT infrastructures and resources (Norman & Allen, 2005), (Lyytinen et al., 2004),
(Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005), (BlackBerry, 2010)
Table 1. The implications of UIS in organisations
3 DIGITAL NATIVES IN ORGANISATIONS
The concept of digital natives was first discussed by Prensky (2001a). Most of the research about DNs
has since been conducted in education, learning and psychology (Marilee & Sprenger, 2010;
McMahon & Pospisil, 2005; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; M Prensky, 2005; Tapscott, 2008). As DNs enter
the workforce with technologies such as Facebook and Twitter (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), there is a
need for research on DNs in organisations. Researchers find that DNs expect to use the same kind of
UIS that they have been using in their personal lives in organisations (Boulton, 2007; Fister, 2010). In
addition, they and bring with them a new work style and dynamics to the organisation. Many
organisations are therefore struggling to adapt to the wave of DNs entering organisations (Basso, 2008;
Manafy & Gautschi, 2011). Monica Basso, a Gartner research vice president, states that “by 2018,
their impact on the workplace will drive significant change in our approach to technology, business
processes and organizational structure” (Basso, 2008). And it is believed that this trend will only
increase as 75% of the workforce will be DNs by 2025 (Moore, 2012).
4 DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS IN ORGANISATIONS
This section looks at digital immigrants in organisations. Most of the research in information systems
have been based on data obtained from digital immigrants (Vodanovich et al., 2010).
Overall, DIs are said to have a better understanding of business structures. DIs view systems and
business processes holistically; they are able to understand better the advantages and disadvantages of
using technology for certain tasks as they tend to compare new technology with the non-technology
world. DIs tends to prefer some technologies over others e.g. they prefer email rather than sending a
text via a mobile phone.
Based on literature review, Table 2 summarises the characteristics and implications of DNs and DIs in
four themes. The table also includes potential pros and cons as a result of the differences between DN
and DI characteristics in the organisational context.
Theme DN Characteristics
DI Characteristics
Connectivity
and
Collaboration
dynamics
DNs like constant connectivity and prefer to bring their
own ubiquitous technologies (Boulton, 2007).
DNs like immediacy and real-time feedback facilitated
by highly interactive systems (Nortel, 2008; Weil,
2010).
DNs tend to multi-task (Tulgan, 2009).
DIs tend to resist new technologies. In fact, with every new
technology introduced, organisations have to spend a lot of
resources on user training and user acceptance. Much of past IS
research focuses on such problems (Davis, 1989).
DIs are better with non-interactive systems like large-scale data
manipulation or transaction processing, or systems which
require great reliability or scalability (Harwell, 2009).
DIs are generally focused on one task at a time, done properly.
They are known to have longer attention spans.
Pros:
Organisations can keep DNs on track by tapping into the various lines of communication and connectivity they prefer.
DNs are said to excel in technological innovations if provided the right support and tools (Hopkins, 2010; Tulgan, 2009).
The increased connectivity improves collaboration abilities (Fister, 2010; Hopkins, 2010).
Improved productivity with multi-tasking abilities.
Cons:
Organisation information security is at stake. It is a major issue for the IT department in terms of tracking all devices that hold sensitive
organisational information (Haahr, 2010).
Increased costs of supporting connectivity tools.
Reduced productivity if time is spent on irrelevant work.
Communication and
Business
relationships
DNs tend to be weaker in face-to-face communication
(Mullen, 2011; Small & Vorgan, 2008), and prefer
text-based systems for communication (Nie &
Hillygus, 2002; Marc Prensky, 2001a):
Are said to be very good with non-verbal cues (Mullen, 2011).
DIs tend to use formal, organisation approved communication
channels such as the phone, detailed emails, or face-to-face
meetings.
Pros:
If provided the tools they are comfortable with, they may make some ground breaking or surprising relationships that organisations may have
not considered (Boulton, 2007).
Cons:
Poor trust based relationships with partner organisations due to changes in communication (Mullen, 2011).
Entertainment and
Gamification
DNs surround themselves with entertainment
technologies and gamification tools .(Beck & Wade,
2004; Marc Prensky, 2001b).
Entertainment and gamification are not important to DIs.
Pros:
Organisations can introduce entertainment and gamification elements in the systems that DNs interact with for improved productivity (Manafy &
Gautschi, 2011; Mathiak & Weber, 2006)/employee morale.
A key feature of these tools is rewards. Organisations can bring in a similar culture of rewarding DN employees for both big and small
accomplishments. This may improve employee confidence and overall morale at work (Rainie, 2006).
It is important to acknowledge and show DNs how their work matters, making them more committed to the organisation.
Cons:
DNs may not be understood with their different thought patterns and game-based metaphors.
Independent and
Self-managing
business structures
DNs want to be entrepreneurs, and don’t like
hierarchies (Filloux, 2010). They prefer to manage
themselves.
DNs like the flexibility of working anytime, anywhere
(Haahr, 2010).
DIs are used to vertical, top-down organisational hierarchies
Seniority and experience are respected. DIs therefore aim to
work up the ladder in the organisation.
DIs tend to be reliant on IT departments and management for
support and guidance with work.
Work-life boundaries are clearly distinguished.
Pros:
A hands-free approach by management may imply lower spending on resources, and enabling more creativity in the work environment.
The ability to gradually change the organisational culture to purely results-oriented work environments where each employee takes responsibility.
This change can be leveraged with the improved connectivity and collaboration abilities to keep all employees in focus of the ultimate organisational
vision and strategy.
Do not micro manage, but constantly remind employees of where the organisation is heading, and how they fit in the bigger picture.
Cons:
Difficult to manage/govern in a self-managing work culture.
Table 2. Characteristics of DNs and DIs in the organisational context
5 RESEARCH METHOD
In order to explore the different perspectives and priorities of DNs and DIs with respect to the design
of oUIS, we conducted a qualitative research study in one of the leading software companies in the
world. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in one of the local subsidiaries of this company in
Auckland, New Zealand (Hermanns, 2004).
A mix of potential DN and DI participants were sought. Twelve participants were selected on the basis
of “years spent in the workforce” as recent research suggests that DNs are now entering organisations
(Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Specifically, potential DI participants were those that had been in the
workforce for more than 4 years; and potential DN participants were those that had just entered the
workforce i.e. a full time proper job for not more than 2 years. Face to face interviews lasting
approximately one hour were conducted with each interviewee. The interviews were three phased,
where the third phase was focused on understanding the oUIS design requirements of DNs and DIs.
All interviews were audio recorded to conduct a further analysis of the responses.
The artefact used in the interview was adapted from a revised set of UIS design dimensions for DNs
and DIs proposed by Tilvawala et al. (2011). The dimensions were simplified for the interview by
collating various related elements. Table 3 shows the final artefact used in the interview.
Table 3. Interview artefact: oUIS Design dimensions
Participants were asked to rate the importance of each design dimension in an oUIS. The rating was
based on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = not important, and 10 = very important. Participant answers to
ratings were explored further with questions about their reasons for their ratings. All answers were
based on the participants’ perceptions and experience with the various oUIS they had been using so far.
Therefore, the purpose of this artefact was twofold: to gather participants’ experiences and perception
on the importance of the oUIS design dimensions; and to compare the importance of the various
design dimensions to the participant’s digital nativity (as determined from the first phase of the
interview). The idea was to determine if there were any differences between DNs and DIs with respect
to the design dimensions and requirements for oUIS.
6 FINDINGS
Table 4 provides a summary of the organisational UIS used by the participants in our study and the
corresponding business processes or activities supported by them. In terms of the overall use of UIS
for work purposes, none of the participants had dedicated oUIS provided by the organisation. Instead,
there was a combination of UIS being used to support various activities that the participants were
engaged in. Some participants note that they use “tons of them…there’s probably about 30 or 40 plus
tools that I used on a weekly basis”.
Table 4. Summary of oUIS used by the participants
UIS used for work Business process(es) supported
Microsoft Office productivity suite
Primarily sales related activities: sales excellence
processes, quota attainment, delivering proposals,
quotes, general information to customers, raising
purchase orders.
Approving work flows like expenses, hours worked,
and parts of the process emailed to accept client docs
via email.
Taking notes in meetings and brainstorming ideas; for
tracking tasks and projects.
Making conference calls or meetings.
MSN messenger
Microsoft Lync
One Note
Calendar
Photos
Maps (Tom Tom)
Internet browser
Adobe reader
Evernote
Tweet deck
Remember the Milk
CRM online
Dropbox
BI and reporting tools
Portals
Sharepoint
Skype
Webex
Figure 1 summarises the overall average ratings for each oUIS related design dimension for both DNs
and DIs. It addresses the purpose of gathering participants’ perception on the importance of the oUIS
design dimensions.
Figure 1. Overall average importance of oUIS design dimensions
With respect to the differences between DNs and DIs and the design dimensions and requirements for
oUIS, our findings suggest that there are some differences between the two groups.
Figure 2. DN and DI average ratings of oUIS design dimensions
0123456789
10
Aver
age
rati
ng (
0=
not
imp
ort
ant,
10
= v
ery
imp
ort
ant)
Figure 2 compares the average ratings of digital natives and digital immigrants with regards to the
importance they place on various design dimensions for oUIS. As can be seen, there are differences
and similarities in DN and DI ratings of the dimensions. Overall, the ratings alone do not represent
significant differences. However, questions on the reasons for the various participant ratings revealed
differences in participant perceptions of the design dimensions. We discuss these in detail below.
The Functionality dimension was rated most important by both DN and DI participants. For DNs,
good design involved focusing on core functionality, keeping it simple; and working on advanced
features later through constant improvement and upgrades. Especially in the context of an
organisation, functionality involved balancing all business and system related elements i.e. useful,
measurable, feedback, adaptive, scalable. Both DNs and DIs suggested that ensuring functionality
meant higher user satisfaction by meeting user expectations. For DIs, functionality meant being of
good quality, and intuitive.
Usability was rated equally important for both DNs and DIs. The perception of “Usability” however
varied between the two. For DNs, Usability was described as “very, very, very important”. It included
aesthetics, fewer clicks, being intuitive, easy to use, understandable, good graphics, functionality, and
user ability. For DIs, good usability was if it was relevant, understandable, and met expectations based
on the device or operating system.
Reliability was rated equally important for both DNs and DIs. For DNs, reliability is extremely
important in oUIS, where quick decision making and immediacy is required. Some DNs mentioned
that reliability is more important than usability for an oUIS.
DNs rated Performance as more important than DIs. However, upon analysing participant comments,
neither DNs nor DIs rated it as the most important of dimensions. Both user groups had comments
pointing towards the general “impatient” nature of humans. But also, there was a certain level of
tolerance when it came to performance, as long as it functions well: “You create an app that functions
100%, well if it's a bit slow it's alright”. For DNs, speed and efficiency in terms of memory usage was
rated very important. Overall, for most participants, performance was not described as a major issue
with any UIS because they did not use them for very high, complex processing. However, there is a
limit to this tolerance.
Supportability was more important to DNs. They noted that supportability is important depending on
the purpose of the oUIS.
Reach was rated as more important by DIs than DNs. For DNs, Reach is dependent on the type of
oUIS, but on the whole not very relevant considering most smart devices are always connected
everywhere.
The Range of Tasks the UIS is able to support is more important for DNs in general than it is for DIs.
DNs expected to perform only simple activities i.e. doing complex things (but “in a simple way -
could be multiple simple things”). Range, functionality and usability may therefore be trade-offs in
oUIS design. For DIs, there was a bit of blurring in opinions regarding range, functionality, and
usefulness. They all went hand in hand.
Overall, both DNs and DIs rated Integration equally. DIs had little or no feedback on the dimension
as such, but DNs mentioned that it is “extremely important to have integration (inter-operability)
between various oUIS and UIS”.
Human Computer Interaction was rated as being more important to DNs than DIs. DIs had little or
no feedback on the design dimension. For DNs, attractiveness and desirability were important, and
customisability is nice to have, but not excessively.
In the context of an oUIS, the Entertainment dimension was not important to any of the participants.
While some DNs rated it slightly higher than the unanimous score of zero given by all DI participants,
overall it was the least desired design dimension by both DNs and DIs.
Transactional ability was rated as being equally important by both DNs and DIs. For both, it depends
on the purpose of the oUIS, but basic transactional ability is essential especially for an oUIS
facilitating smaller activities within a business process.
Decision support was also rated equally important for both DNs and DIs, but less important than
transactional ability. DNs felt that productivity and task supporting decisions are essential from an
oUIS, but not full blown Business Intelligence activities. DN participants acknowledged that Decision
support features are inhibited by limited screen size. For DIs, this was extremely important, especially
timeliness of information, immediacy.
DIs surprisingly rated Social aspect as more important than DNs. But DNs expressed a greater need
for it in their explanations in the interviews. DNs noted that collaboration elements are seen as being
complementary to several business activities, which eventually support bigger business processes.
Both DNs and DIs mentioned that it is becoming extremely important that an oUIS facilitates team
work and knowledge sharing.
Overall, Push capability was more important to DNs than DIs. For DNs it was important, but
depending on the purpose of the oUIS. For DIs, it was described as not very important.
Pull capability was also found to be more important to DNs than DIs, and overall more important than
Push capability. For DNs, this is a must have design dimension in any UIS.
Security and Privacy, although separate in the interview questionnaire, were inseparable in terms of
participant answers. Overall, these were the second most important design dimensions, after
Functionality; more so for DIs than DNs. They were described as extremely important in the context
of an oUIS due to the amount of sensitive data involved; “security and privacy are almost a core
functionality” for most oUIS.
Overall, most comments on the design dimensions were from DNs that seemed to have a deeper
understanding of the inter-relationships between various dimensions. Further, the findings verify the
extremely sensitive nature of designing and implementing oUIS. The interviews supported the claim
that designing a UIS is a constant balancing act (Weevers, 2011), and involves establishing the most
appropriate design trade-offs depending on the purpose of the oUIS. Some key trade-offs emerging
from the findings involve performance and functionality; functionality and reliability; and
performance and usability. No new design dimensions were established, and the data and participant
responses suggest that the list of dimensions used for the interview were comprehensive.
7 CONCLUSION
In recent years two major trends relevant to the field of information systems have emerged in
organisations and the society at large - the growth of UIS and the rise of the DNs (Vodanovich et al.,
2010). This paper has explored the different perspectives and priorities that DNs and DIs have when it
comes to the design of organisational UIS. This was fulfilled as part of a bigger research project
involving a multi-methodological approach.
Our findings show that, while there are only minor differences in the overall importance of design
dimensions between DNs and DIs, their perception of each design dimension varies notably.
One limitation of our study is that our data were obtained from one company only and hence this
limits the generalisability of our findings. However, this opens up a number of future research options
for researchers. The methodology and findings from this research can be used as a basis for
conducting similar studies in other organisations.
Another limitation is that some of the design dimensions may have been too highly aggregated in the
aim to simplify. Participants design preferences and requirements are best understood through
observation of their actual interaction with an oUIS. This calls for the use of tools such as user diaries
for a more insightful understanding of the topic.
Thirdly, since this company used for the study is one of the leading software companies in the world,
one might expect the DIs in this company to be more tech savvy than DIs elsewhere. One would
expect the differences between the DNs and DIs in this company to be less than in most other
companies. However, this last limitation is in fact one of the strong points of our study. Although the
differences between DNs and DIs are not huge, our findings show that there are at least some
differences between the two. The fact that we studied a leading software company suggests that the
differences between DNs and DIs would be much greater in almost any other company.
Overall, the research objective got affirmation for its relevance and need both in academia and
practice. This was through the feedback received from peers, the participants (employees of a software
company), as well as their managers. The findings of this research are particularly beneficial for
various practitioners. First, it helps organisations better understand the new workforce and their
technological requirements. For operating system vendors and system designers, the design
dimensions can be studied further to identify design trade-offs for UIS, and UIS development
platforms. IDC and similar studies on the growth of ubiquitous devices indicates that the “post-PC”
world is here (Eric, 2012), with mobile users exceeding desktop users. The contributions from this
research are therefore believed to be valuable for researchers and practitioners in a variety of contexts.
References
Basso, M. (2008, 28 July 2008). 2018: Digital Natives Grow Up and Rule the World. Retrieved 24
March, 2012, from http://www.gartner.com/id=733333
Beck, J., & Wade, M. (2004). Got Game: How the Gamer Generation Is Reshaping Business Forever:
{Harvard Business School Press}.
BlackBerry. (2010). Employee-owned Smartphones: Seize the Opportunity. Whitepaper, 4. Retrieved
from http://research.pcworld.com/whitepaper9488
Boulton, C. (2007). Digital Natives Will Drive Web 2.0 into Your Business. Messaging and Online
Collaboration News. Retrieved from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-
Collaboration/Digital-Natives-Will-Drive-Web-20-into-Your-Business/
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Eric. (2012). Worldwide smart connected device shipments, 2010-2016 (Unit Millions). Retrieved 12
July, 2012, from
http://accounts.icharts.net/portal/app?page=TeamChartDetail&sp=SM3rbyy9F&service=external
Filloux, F. (2010, 7 September). Understanding the Digital Natives. Retrieved from
http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/07/25/understanding-the-digital-natives/
Fister, J. (2010). The Digital Natives and You. Leadership. Retrieved April 2011, 2012, from
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/11/collaboration-teamwork-jim-fister-leadership-managing-
mitsloan.html
Fleisch, E., & Tellkamp, C. (2006). The Business Value of Ubiquitous Computing Technologies
Ubiquitous and Pervasive Commerce. In G. Roussos (Ed.), (pp. 93-113): Springer London.
Fleisch, E., & Thiesse, F. (2007). On the Management Implications of Ubiquitous Computing: An IS
Perspective, St. Gallen.
Funabashi, M., Homma, K., Sasaki, T., Sato, Y., Kido, K., Fukumoto, T., & Yano, K. (2005, 10-12
Oct. 2005). Socio-technical issues for ubiquitous information society in 2010. Paper presented at
the Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on.
Haahr, E. (2010). Business : Digital natives entering the job market - What will happen? Blog
Retrieved from http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=150396
Harwell. (2009, 10 December). Who’s Better at IT? Younger Digital Natives or Older Digital
Immigrants? Retrieved from http://blog.makingitclear.com/2009/10/14/betteratit/
Hermanns. (2004). Interviewing as an activity. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A
companion to qualitative research (pp. 209-213). London: Sage Publications.
Hopkins, M. (2010, 1 April 2010). The Digital Natives, and You. MIT Sloan Management
Review(Spring).
Janet, N. J., & Shafer, J. (Producer). (2011, 18 March). Nomadic computing. [Slide share presentation]
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jeremyjshafer/nomadic-computing
Kleinrock, L. (2001). Breaking loose. Communications of the ACM, 44(9), 41-46. doi: citeulike-
article-id:3153184
Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., Varshney, U., Ackerman, M., Davis, G., Avital, M., . . . Sorensen, C. (2004).
Surfing the Next Wave: Design and Implementation Challenges of Ubiquitous Computing.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1/40).
Manafy, M., & Gautschi, H. (2011). http://dancingwithdigitalnatives.com/. Retrieved 11 May, 2012
Marilee, S., & Sprenger, M. (2010). Br@in-based teaching :) in the digital age: Alexandria, Va. :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2010.
Marin, I. O. (2004). Information Systems Technology and its Applications (Vol. 48). Salt Lake City,
Utah, USA: GI.
Marmaridis, I., & Unhelkar, B. (2005, 11-13 July 2005). Challenges in mobile transformations: a
requirements modeling perspective for small and medium enterprises. Paper presented at the
Mobile Business, 2005. ICMB 2005. International Conference on.
Mathiak, K., & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural behavior: fMRI during violent
video games. Human Brain Mapping, 27(12), 948-956. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20234
McMahon, M., & Pospisil, R. (2005). Laptops for a digital lifestyle: millennial students and wireless
mobile technologies. Paper presented at the Ascilite conference, Brisbane.
Moore, B. (2012, 13 March). 6 Steps to Engaging Young Professionals. Retrieved 24 March, 2012,
from http://getworksimple.com/blog/2012/03/13/6-steps-to-engaging-young-professionals
Mullen, J. K. (2011). The Impact of Computer Use on Employee Performance in High-Trust
Professions: Re-Examining Selection Criteria in the Internet Age. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 41(8), 2009-2043. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00790.x
Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The Impact of Internet Use of Sociability: Time-Diary Findings.
IT & SOCIETY, 1(1), 1-20.
Norman, A., & Allen, D. (2005). Deployment and Use of Mobile Information Systems
Mobile Information Systems II. In J. Krogstie, K. Kautz & D. Allen (Eds.), (Vol. 191, pp. 203-228):
Springer Boston.
Nortel. (2008). The Hyperconnected: Here they come! Retrieved 18 July, 2011, from
http://www2.nortel.com/go/news_detail.jsp?cat_id=-9742&oid=100240224&locale=en-US
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.
New York: Basic Books.
Poslad, S. (2009). Ubiquitous computing: smart devices, environments and interactions: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?
On the Horizon, 9(6). doi: citeulike-article-id:6057588
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Retrieved from
Rainie, L. (2006). New Workers, New Workplaces: Digital 'Natives' Invade the Workplace. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2006/New-Workers-New-Workplaces.aspx
Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2000). Research Commentary: The Organizing Logic for an
Enterprise's IT Activities in the Digital Era--A Prognosis of Practice and a Call for Research. Info.
Sys. Research, 11(2), 105-114. doi: 10.1287/isre.11.2.105.11780
Scheepers, R., & Scheepers, H. (2003). Contexts of relevance in explanatory case studies in
information systems : ubiquitous information technology implementation in organizations. Paper
presented at the ICIS 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington.
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30036297
Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain : surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind:
Collins Living.
Sørensen, C. (2010). Cultivating Interaction Ubiquity at Work. The Information Society, 26(4), 276-
287. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2010.489856
Sørensen, C., Group, I. W., & Yoo, Y. (2005). Designing ubiquitous information environments:
sociotechnical issues and challenges : IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 international working conference, August
1-3, 2005, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World HC:
McGraw-Hill.
Tilvawala, K., Myers, M., & Sundaram, D. (2011). Design Of Ubiquitous Information Systems For
Digital Natives. Paper presented at the PACIS.
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not Everyone Gets A Trophy: How to Manage Generation Y. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vodanovich, S., Sundaram, D., & Myers, M. (2010). Research Commentary---Digital Natives and
Ubiquitous Information Systems. Info. Sys. Research, 21(4), 711-723. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0324
Weevers, I. (2011, 18 July). Seven Guidelines For Designing High-Performance Mobile User
Experiences. Smashing magazine.
Weil, N. (2010). What the Influx of 'digital Natives' Will Mean for IT. Retrieved 3 March, 2012, from
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212237/what_the_influx_of_digital_natives_will_
mean_for_it.html
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.
doi: citeulike-article-id:771482
top related