Implementing Tele Presence Robots in Distance Work: Experiences and Effects on Work

  • Christine IpsenEmail author
  • Giulia Nardelli
  • Signe Poulsen
  • Marco Ronzoni
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)


As companies move toward globalization, companies use distance work to accomplish work more effectively and efficiently. A telepresence robot (TPR) is a mobile remote presence device that allows a two-way communication and interaction between a distance manager and the employees. The objective of the study was to improve the understanding of how distance workers and managers experience the use of TPR in the daily management and in which tasks the TPR is suitable to ensure employee well-being and thus performance. The data collection included three phases – before, during and after the implementation of the TPR, where we conducted 25 semi-structured individual and group interviews, on-site observations of the TPR in use and research notes. The distance manager (user) controlled the TPR from a distant site when using it in the home office. The managers were able to create a sense of proximity and via the camera feature, enable eye-contact, which the managers considered essential and beneficial for assessing the employee’s feelings and well-being. The majority of the users had a positive experience regarding the TPR basic functionalities´ utilization. In all three cases the participants, both managers and employees, agreed that the TPR is most useful in planned project meetings. On the other hand, the lack of trust, problems with the technology, privacy issues and intrusive emotions affected the use of the TPR in a negative way in some cases. The TPR was not suitable for meetings where people needed to share physical documents or important meetings, i.e. private talks or decisions meetings.


Telepresence robots Implementation Distance management 


  1. 1.
    Fisher Kimball, Fisher Mareen D (2001) The distance manager. A hands-on guide to managing off-site employees and virtual teams. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cropper S, Huxham C, Ebers M, Smith Ring, P (2008) The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. 1st edn. Oxford University Press.
  3. 3.
    Verburg Robert M, Bosch-Sijtsema Petra, Vartiainen Matti (2013) Getting it done: CRITICAL success factors for project managers in virtual work settings. Int J Project Manage. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poulsen S, Ipsen C (2017) In times of change: How distance managers can ensure employees’ wellbeing and organizational performance. Saf Sci 100.
  5. 5.
    Hinds P, Kiesler S (2002) Distributed work, vol 47.
  6. 6.
    Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2002) A typology of virtual teams: implications for effective leadership. Group Org Manage 27:14–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ipsena C, Poulsena S, Nielsena L (2015) Management across distances – how to ensure performance and employee well- being. In: Proceedings of the 19th triennial congress of the international ergonomics association. International Ergonomics Association, Melbourne. Publication date: 2015 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link backGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnold J, Randall R (2016) Work psychology. Understanding human behaviour in the work place. 5th edn. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H, Swan J (2002) Managing knowledge work. Palgrave, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newell S, Scarbrough H, Swan J (2001) From global knowledge management to internal electronic fences: Contradictory outcomes of intranet development. Brit J Manage 12:97–111. ISI: 000169785900001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hislop Donald (2009) Knowledge management in organizations, vol 2. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Docherty P, Forslin J, Shani AB, Mari K (2002). Creating sustainable work systems. In: Emerging perspectives and practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2017) Case report: implication of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. Int J Social Robot. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheridan TB (2016) Human-robot interaction: status and challenges. Hum Factors 58:525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crabtree B, Miller W (1999) Doing qualitative research, vol 2. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis an expanded sourcebook, vol 2. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD, Smith RH, Walton SM (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci 46(2):162–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions subject areas: Design Characteristics, Interventions, Management Support, Organizational Support, Peer Support, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Technology Adoption, Training, User A. Decis Sci 39:273–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Qual Data Anal. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bryman A (2004) Social research methods, vol. 2. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    King N (1998) Template analysis. In: Casell C (ed) Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research. A practical guide, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, London, p 118–134Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Ipsen
    • 1
  • Giulia Nardelli
    • 1
  • Signe Poulsen
    • 1
  • Marco Ronzoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Management ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations