An Interactive Assessment Instrument to Improve the Process for Mobile Service Application Innovation

  • Karen CareyEmail author
  • Markus Helfert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)


In recent years, the adoption and use of new mobile service applications have not proliferated, consequently many applications fail to generate a profit [1, 2]. One reason for this is poor decision making in the process of mobile service innovation [1, 3, 4]. This paper details the construction of an interactive assessment instrument to improve decision making in this innovation process. To design the interactive assessment instrument, we follow a Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) - a methodology which is new to HCI [5]. Adhering to the DSRM, the paper details the iterative design and evaluation cycles required to build and evaluate the instrument. The paper concludes that the designed assessment instrument improves the innovation process, by providing transparency, while also facilitating communication and understanding amongst team members. Additionally, the paper demonstrates that the DSRM can be of great use to design and evaluate interactive IT artifacts within the HCI field.


Mobile service applications Innovation process Interactive assessment instrument Design science research methodology Design science in HCI 



This research is funded by the Irish Research Council (IRC). The authors would like to acknowledge their support. Additionally, the authors would like to extend their appreciation to the participating organization for their commitment to this research.


  1. 1.
    Nikou, S., Mezei, J.: Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Telecommun. Policy 37(10), 915–929 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constantiou, I.D., Damsgaard, J., Knutsen, L.: Exploring perceptions and use of mobile services: user differences in an advancing market. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 4(3), 231–247 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitzsimmons, J., Fitzsimmons, M.J.: New Service Development: Creating Memorable Experiences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menor, L.J., Tatikonda, M.V., Sampson, S.E.: New service development: areas for exploitation and exploration. J. Oper. Manage. 20(2), 135–157 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prestopnik, N.: Design science in human-computer interaction: a model and three examples. (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlsson, C., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V. K, et al.: In: Introduction to Mobile Value Services, Mobile Business and Mobile Cloud Minitrack, pp. 1323–1323 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouwman, H., De Vos, H., Haaker, T.: Mobile Service Innovation and Business Models, vol. 2010. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simons, L.P., Bouwman, H.: Multi-channel service design process: challenges and solutions. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 3(1), 50–67 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabantous, L., Gond, J., Johnson-Cramer, M.: Decision theory as practice: crafting rationality in organizations. Organ. Stud. 31(11), 1531–1566 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghaoui, C.: Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. IGI Global, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B.: Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 10(2), 181–212 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User Centered System Design. CRC Press, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic books, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies For Effective Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice: 471–478 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., et al.: Providing clarity and a common language to the. Res. Technol. Manage. 44(2), 46–55 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gao, S., Krogstie, J., Siau, K.: Developing an instrument to measure the adoption of mobile services. Mob. Inf. Syst. 7(1), 45–67 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Callon, M., Muniesa, F.: Peripheral vision economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organ. Stud. 26(8), 1229–1250 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porter, T.M.: Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 22(4), 633–651 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwandt, T.A.: The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E.: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 5(1), 80–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: Promoting relevance in IS research: an informing system for design science research. Informing Sci. Int. J. Emerg. Transdiscipline 14(1), 125–138 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityGasnevin, Dublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations