Advertisement

Mapping an Ambient Assisted Living Service as a Seamful Cross-Channel Ecosystem

  • Bertil LindenfalkEmail author
  • Andrea Resmini
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we detail a spatial method to map cross-channel ecosystems based on systems thinking and the framing of cross-channel ecosystems as defined in information architecture. The spatial mapping tool is applied on a specific case in the ambient assisted living domain with the goal of exploring how such an approach might further the current understanding of service journeys and their connection to environmental, organizational, and actor-related aspects represented through information flows. Specifically, we discuss how organizations and care institutions could use such an approach to better understand the larger ecosystems in which they are to act in the future. Findings include the strategic role that seams present in the ecosystem map where a thorough design of seams allows to capture possible logical fallacies plaguing the ecosystem. Additionally, seams allow an organization to understand what part of the ecosystem they have influence over and when actors make the organization’s touchpoints an integral part of the activities they intend to perform. Specifically for the services mapped in this chapter, the ecosystem map shows the interplay between tablet and the oven and hob and to which users adhered to the most during service processes.

References

  1. Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 1–20.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J., Boffi, L., Burzagli, L., Ciampolini, P., De Munari, I., & Emiliani, P. L. (2013). FOOD: Discovering techno-social scenarios for networked kitchen systems. Assistive technology: From research to practice (pp. 1143–1148, Vol. 33), Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology.Google Scholar
  3. Armson, R. (2011). Growing wings on the way: Systems thinking for messy situations. Axmister: Triarchy.Google Scholar
  4. Arvola, M., & Holmlid, S. (2016, May). Service design ways to value-in-use. In Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes. 2016 Conference No. 125 (pp. 530–536). 24–26 May, 2016. Copenhagen: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, M. (2002). Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching. New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
  6. Baty, S. (2012). Approaching service design: Holistic, systems thinking. Meld Studios (Ed.), Accessed February 1, 2018, from http://www.meldstudios.com.au/2012/09/20/service-design-holistic-systemic/
  7. Benyon, D. (2014). Spaces of interaction, places for experience. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Information, 7(2), 1–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benyon, D., & Resmini, A. (2017). User experience in cross-channel ecosystems. In L. E. Hall, T. Flint, S. O’ Hara, & P. Turner (Eds.), HCI 2017 - Digital make-believe. Proceedings of the 31st International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, BCS HCI 2017, University of Sunderland, St Peter’s campus, Sunderland, UK, 3–6 July 2017. Workshops in Computing, BCS 2017.Google Scholar
  9. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackman, S., Matlo, C., Bobrovitskiy, C., Waldoch, A., Fang, M. L., Jackson, P., et al. (2016). Ambient assisted living technologies for aging well: A scoping review. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blomkvist, J., Clatworthy, S., & Holmlid, S. (2016). Ways of seeing the design material of service. In Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes. 2016 Conference No. 125 (pp. 530–536). 24–26 May, 2016. Copenhagen: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Blomkvist, J., Holmlid, S., & Segelström, F. (2010). Service design research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In M. S. Stickdorn, J. (Ed.), This is service design thinking: Basics – tools – cases (pp. 308–315). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Blomkvist, J., & Segelström, F. (2014). Benefits of external representations in service design: A distributed cognition perspective. The Design Journal, 17(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calvaresi, D., Cesarini, D., Sernani, P., Marinoni, M., Dragoni, A. F., & Sturm, A. (2017). Exploring the ambient assisted living domain: A systematic review. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 8(2), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Rosas, J., Oliveira, A. I., & Ferrada, F. (2015). Care services ecosystem for ambient assisted living. Enterprise Information Systems, 9(5–6), 607–633.Google Scholar
  16. Chalmers, M. (2003). Seamful design and ubicomp infrastructure. In Proceedings of Ubicomp 2003 workshop at the crossroads: The interaction of HCI and systems issues in Ubicomp. 12–15 October, 2003. Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  17. Chalmers, M., Bell, M., Brown, B., Hall, M., Sherwood, S., & Tennent, P. (2005). Gaming on the edge: Using seams in ubicomp games. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology (pp. 306–309). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, Ed.).Google Scholar
  18. Chalmers, M., Dieberger, A., Höök, K., & Rudström, Å. (2004). Social navigation and seamful design. Cognitive Studies, 11(3), 171–181.Google Scholar
  19. Dourish, P., & Chalmers, M. (1994). Running out of space: Models of information navigation. Short paper. HCI’94, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  20. Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity – A platform for designing business architecture (3rd ed.). Berlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  21. Greenfield, A. (2007). On the ground running: Lessons from experience design. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from https://speedbird.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/on-the-ground-running-lessons-from-experience-design/
  22. Hinton, A. (2014). Understanding context: Environment, language, and information architecture. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lindenfalk, B., & Resmini, A. (2016). Blended spaces, cross-channel ecosystems, and the myth that is service. In Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes. 2016 Conference (pp. 551–556). 24–26 May, 2016. No. 125. Copenhagen: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mettler, T., & Raptis, D. A. (2012). What constitutes the field of health information systems? Fostering a systematic framework and research agenda. Health Informatics Journal, 18(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meynhardt, T., Chandler, J. D., & Strathoff, P. (2016). Systemic principles of value co-creation: Synergetics of value and service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2981–2989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Resmini, A. (2012). Sketching intent paths. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://andrearesmini.com/blog/sketching-intent-paths/
  28. Resmini, A., & Lacerda, F. (2016). The architecture of cross-channel ecosystems: From convergence to experience. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems (pp. 17–21). 1–4 November, 2016. Biarritz: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, Ed.).Google Scholar
  29. Resmini, A., & Rosati, L. (2011). Pervasive information architecture: Designing cross-channel user experiences. Berlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  30. Sangiorgi, D., & Prendiville, A. (Eds.). (2017). Designing for service: Key issues and new directions. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  31. Silver, K. (2007). What puts the design in interaction design. UX matters. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2007/07/what-puts-the-design-in-interaction-design.php
  32. Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2010). This is service design thinking: Basics – tools – cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weiser, M. (1994). Creating the invisible interface. In ACM Conference on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST94), 2–4 November, 1994. Marina del Rey, CA: Szekeli.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jönköping International Business SchoolJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations