Designing mobile consumer service information infrastructures
Petter Nielsen ()
1. Introduction
This essay concerns systems development and complexity, embodied in the rather cumbersome concept of designing mobile consumer service information infrastructures. This concept can be broken down to several distinct concepts, but not without the loss of the true picture of complexity. When I in the further discern the concept, it is only for the purpose of clarification. Throughout the essay it will also become apparent that the different concepts are close related.
In my discussions, design and information infrastructure will be at the core. Starting of with the general notion of design as a point of reference, I discuss design in general, software design, consumption, services and convergence, ending up framing design in a theoretical framework of information infrastructures.
This essay is explorative and encompassing more than restrictive and focused. The working concepts presented are both a result of literature studies, current discussions in media, as well as participation in some initial project meetings at Telenor[1] R&D and Telenor Mobil[2]. This is not a rich collection of empirical data, but still sufficient to bring interesting examples into the discussions. The brief discussion of the methodological approach to study this phenomenon is far from complete, and will be very much contingent upon future projects as well as my access to these. The more philosophical assumptions underlying my methodological choices are on the other hand more or less given in the nature of my perspective on the phenomenon.
The essay is structured as follows: In the rest of chapter 1 the philosophical and methodological approach is briefly discussed. Chapter 2 introduces the theory of information infrastructures related to my discussions. Chapter 3 discusses design as a concept in general while chapter 4 further introduces the concept of design in relation to systems development. Chapter 5 introduces a range of perspectives on design and discusses these in relation to chapter 3 and 4 as well as design of mobile services in particular. Finally, chapter 6 provides a summary of the discussion as well as highlighting the main issues of the working concept.
Design and complexity: The arena of consumption
This essay is about IS and complexity. The issues of complexity discussed here will maybe make up too much complexity – in the end there may be a call for some sort of reduction or being more focused on some parts of the picture painted. But as I try to show, this totality of complexity is basically unavoidable in practice and also at the heart of my interest. This question should never the less be addressed further, and in chapter 6 I briefly describe three distinct themes concerning design.
One current research approach to complexity and IS is the nature of how organizations relates to information systems. This research have focused on studies of complexities associated with documents and work practice and how they are influenced when information technology are introduced and used (e.g. Braa and Sandal 1998; Iacucci et al. 2002). Other researches have focused on complexities introduced by development, implementation and use of software by global dispersed teams (e.g. Sahay 1998), as other have focused on the introduction of information systems in global and heterogeneous organisations (e.g. Ciborra and associates 2000). These different efforts have looked at different complexities, but still having one context in common: The organization. It is the organization[3] that meets challenges, and within the organization complexity must be solved, reduced or at least handled.
The perspective on complexity presented here is somewhat different and broader: Complexities are not steaming from one, affecting one or the challenge of one single organization. I focus on complexity created by open accessible mobile services in a commercial context, provided to and used by individual consumers by their consumption of such services. This complexity can not be reduced as control is lost. Still, the complexity can be handled, but only handled on the basis of power distributed among a range of different and heterogeneous actors.
Design and converging technologies
Rather imprecisely, the technology providing mobile services is coined “mobile Internett”. By its inaccurateness, it overly emphasizes the paradigmatic nature of Internett as a flexible, open sourced, loosely standardized innovation. Slightly more accurate, some see “mobile Internett” rather as a convergence of two technologies: Internett and mobile telecommunication. Still, this process of convergence is usually seen as rather unproblematic: The result is a combination of the best from both the technologies, creating nothing but synergies.
Mobile services are indeed a result of the convergence. But convergence should not only be discussed as a technical matter, and as an extension of the Internett. Technologies may basically not be compatible at a technological level – a challenge to a great extent overcome in the current process of convergence. On the other hand, technology may be incompatible at a more socio-technical level. For example the different willingness to pay for services on the Internett compared to mobile telecommunication services – they can not both be the paradigm after a convergence. Another example is the different roles and power of the actors and how these changes as the technology merge: Traditional telecommunication operators becomes banks, as well as TV-stations and media-houses not only are content providers but also virtual telecommunication operators.
By emphasising socio-technical issues of mobile service design, I draw the attention to convergence beyond the technical. With a focus on the roles of consumers, service providers, content providers, telecommunication operators and regulatory authorities, there are major socio-technical challenges involved. My focus on design of mobile service is thus not concerning mobile technology as such, but rather the socio-technical design challenges resulting from convergence.
Methodological approach
It is not straight forward to do research on a topic described in this essay. In particular, decisions concerning narrowing the focus are challenging. What kind of actors should be in focus, what kind of design activities should be in focus, and should my focus be on ongoing design activities, or rather retrospective accounts?
I will focus on ongoing design efforts by professional designers[4] of II as well as design-in-consumption[5]. Design is here a process ranging from the idea of the design is born until the service is deployed, as well as further changes happened and the service is designed in-consumption. Thus, the process can not be framed within time and within the responsibility and power of professional designers only. And the design is further contingent upon other services, consumers as well as II – the processes can not either be framed within the single scope of a service or project. In addition my focus is not primarily on the technical matters of service design: Still, constraints and technical possibilities play an important role, but just one among others.
The unit of analysis will partly be limited focusing on professional design projects, and partly services designed-in-consumption. Only focusing on II at large will give little understanding of professional design challenges and the power of their decisions, as well as only focusing on limited design projects will be in conflict with my view of services as being designed-in-consumption and necessarily being a part of an II. This duality of unit of analysis will hopefully result in the necessary understanding to provide strategic design guidelines for professional designers.
Framed in the description of Meyers and Avison (Meyers and Avison 2002), my research approach will mainly be based on qualitative research methods, with underlying interpretative assumptions. The underlying interpretative assumptions are reflected in the nature of II as being social-technical and designed-in-consumption. These assumptions is also rooted in a perspective emphasizing the blurring borders between who the designers are, when design happens, who is deciding the design trajectory as well what actually constitutes an II. Such inquiries will be contingent upon the researcher’s perspective, and not objectively given. On the other hand, quantitative data will probably be used, but only as means of supporting the interpretative approach, and not as being more objective and independent of perspective.
I further focus on trajectories of design and actors having different powers and different means of dominating such trajectories, clearly influenced by a critical philosophy. Still, my main aim is not to help eliminating such conflicts, but rather to describe their nature and significance for professional designers. I will also further argue that such conflicts have a character of being unavoidable and unsolvable, and rather the nature of II.
The research methods I will apply, based on these philosophical considerations, will mainly be case-studies, maybe supported by ethnographic research (of the quick and dirty kind). The approach will never the less be selected and suited to the cases I get access to.
Contributions to knowledge
My PhD project aims at developing strategic guidelines for professional designers of mobile services. General guidelines, due to the complexity of the research matters, can be difficult to define and make applicable. On the other hand, guidelines could also be on a higher level, providing designers with a framework to understand the nature as well as the possibilities provided by an II.
The guidelines will never the less be close related the theory of II. Through my discussions I will bring forth what I see as weaknesses with the theory, as well as applying it in a new context. This will bring new perspectives to the theory of II itself.
My discussions of design can also be interesting for any professional designer. Still, my discussion is relatively far from the usually narrow perspectives of designers, and probably suffering from lack of relevance in general. Still, designers should also be interested in this kind of approaches.
2. Designing information infrastructures
This essay is based on the theory of information infrastructures (II). The choice of theory is founded on experiences with the theory as well as ongoing research by fellow researches. The theory is also initially found appropriate for this discussion.
By using the theory of II, I try to reveal the nature of designing mobile consumer service II. In relation to complexity, I focus on II by its very nature of being open, shared, heterogeneous and socio-technical, built on an installed base and a result of constantly ongoing negotiations, consumption and development. My focus is therefore on II under construction or designed-in-consumption.
II have been defined by a range of authors, emphasizing different properties of its nature (e.g. Forster and King 1995; Hanseth 2002; Jansen and Nielsen 2002; Star and Ruhleder 1996). I will not discuss these definitions in detail, but only emphasize the aspects of II that I find appropriate to address here.
A definition of II can be based on a description of dimensions, as done by for example Star and Ruhleder as well as Hanseth and Monteiro (Hanseth and Monteiro 1997; Star and Ruhleder 1996). These different theoretical descriptions include different dimensions, as well as they put different emphasis on the dimensions. At the same time, these descriptions are vague when it comes to whether the dimensions are the effects of an emerging II, or the conditions for such processes, as well as whether the dimensions describes the context of an II, or the II itself. In addition, it is not obvious which and to what degree the dimensions must be present for an II to exist as well as come into being.
The theoretical description of II dimensions emphasized in this is essay is installed base, open, heterogeneous and socio-technical, in addition to the economies of networks related to the dimension of shared. The theoretical descriptions of these dimensions are as mentioned limited, in particular in the sense of not being easy applied because their lack of specificity. The theoretical descriptions are also based on metaphorical examples of large physical infrastructures sunken down and only being visible on breakdowns, as well as being much focused on corporate infrastructures, and not public. I focus on design of public II, not rooted in organisations, and providing services in a consumer market. These II are thus more open and in general more in lack of central control that corporate II.
Focusing on infrastructures as sewer systems and electricity, the mentioned theoretical description of II can make sense. Indeed, infrastructures are underlying, and they are indeed visible upon breakdowns. At the same time, visibility and the users[6] interpretation of breakdowns is complicated when systems becomes more complex than water pipes. If a mobile service is out of function, this may be a result of congestions in the network, problems with the handset, problem with the service or the content provider. More mundane breakdowns like this can occur in many instances, as well as it source and responsibility not being transparent. It is also up to the user to figure out, and take proper measures to restore the service (at least report the problems).
This essay is not built on the metaphorical discussion of infrastructures as electricity, roads and sewers as being sunken and invisible. The focus is here on II under design, being flexible in consumption as well as out of control of one single actor.
The dimension of II discussed here is defined to be the very nature of mobile consumer service II. Such dimensions must not necessarily be present from the moment II is conceived. But in its absence, these shortcomings must be identifiable as well as being obstacles to achieve success. If not, we do not discuss a mobile consumer service II, but rather an II or an IS. The typical shortcoming of mobile consumer service II is the lack of installed base, appearing as lack of consumers. The typical shortcomings indicating a IS in preference of an II, are lack of openness and lack of heterogeneity of the involved actors.
Dimensions of information infrastructures
The basic nature of II is the difference between II and discrete information systems (IS). IS is in design usually seen as discrete, both when it comes to design after project termination (termed maintenance) as well as being less connected to other systems. On the other hand, II are defined to basically be open, in the sense that the system is open to a range of different designers, its openness prevails as use unfolds and there is no single and defined user group. At the same time, there are no exact border between IS and II, as IS may have strong infrastructural characteristics.