Advertisement

Design Principles for Digital Occupational Health Systems

  • Maedeh YassaeeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 288)

Abstract

Advancements in low-cost and unobtrusive wearable computing devices have prompted employers to begin providing their employees with wearable technology as a part of corporate wellness programs. While the adoption of wearable health-tracking systems might improve employees’ wellbeing, the introduction of such systems in organizational settings might also instigate certain tensions, in particular those between privacy and wellbeing, and work and private life. This study was based on an analysis of these tensions; following the design science research paradigm, design principles were derived to minimize such strain.

Keywords

Digital occupational health Personal health monitoring systems Design principles Design science research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the European Commission and Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation (SERI), under the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Joint Program.

References

  1. 1.
    Mittelstadt, B., Fairweather, B., Shaw, M., McBride, N.: The ethical implications of personal health monitoring. Int. J. Technoethics 5, 37–60 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tartarisco, G., Baldus, G., Corda, D., Raso, R., Arnao, A., Ferro, M., Gaggioli, A., Pioggia, G.: Personal health system architecture for stress monitoring and support to clinical decisions. Comput. Commun. 35, 1296–1305 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization: Global Strategy on Occupational Health for All: the Way to Health at Work, Recommendation of the Second Meeting of the WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health, 11–14 October 1994, Beijing, China (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giddens, L., Gonzalez, E., Leidner, D.: I track, therefore I am: exploring the impact of wearable fitness devices on employee identity and well-being. In: Twenty-Second Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Vyas, D., Fitz-Walter, Z., Mealy, E., Soro, A., Zhang, J., Brereton, M.: Exploring physical activities in an employer-sponsored health program. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1421–1426. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atallah, L., Lo, B., Ali, R., King, R., Yang, G.-Z.: Real-time activity classification using ambient and wearable sensors. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 13, 1031–1039 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., Chan, L., Rodgers, M.: A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 9, 1 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7, 101–134 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo, X., Zhang, X., Sun, Y.: The privacy–personalization paradox in mhealth services acceptance of different age groups. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 16, 55–65 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher, C.D., Gitelson, R.: A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. J. Appl. Psychol. 68, 320 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S.: A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 36, 16–78 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, p. 12. Association for Computing Machinery, Malvern (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24, 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winter, R., Albani, A.: Restructuring the design science research knowledge base - a one-cycle view of design science research and its consequences for understanding organizational design problems. In: Baskerville, R., de Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Designing Organizational Systems: An Interdisciplinary Discourse, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregor, S.: Design theory in information systems. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 10, 14–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Design theories in information systems - a need for multi-grounding. J. Inf. Tech. Theor Appl. 6, 59–72 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlsson, S.A., Henningsson, S., Hrastinski, S., Keller, C.: Socio-technical IS design science research: developing design theory for is integration management. IseB 9, 109–131 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mandviwalla, M.: Generating and justifying design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 314 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregory, R.W., Muntermann, J.: Heuristic theorizing: proactively generating design theories. Inf. Syst. Res. 25, 639–653 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sarker, S., Lee, A.S.: Using a positivist case research methodology to test three competing theories-in-use of business process redesign. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2, 7 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. syst. 13, 395 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Niehaves, B., Ortbach, K.: The inner and the outer model in explanatory design theory: the case of designing electronic feedback systems. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 303–316 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venable, J.R., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.L.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 77–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, Y.: Theories in online information privacy research: a critical review and an integrated framework. Decis. Support Syst. 54, 471–481 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R.: The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer, New York (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reis, H.T., Shaver, P.: Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handb. Pers. Relat. 24, 367–389 (1988)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B.: The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London (1976)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust: an empirical investigation. Organ. Sci. 10, 104–115 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guerin, B.: Mere presence effects in humans: a review. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22, 38–77 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gouldner, A.W.: The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25, 161–178 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ragu-Nathan, T., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B.S., Tu, Q.: The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf. Syst. Res. 19, 417–433 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., Lirtzman, S.I.: Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 15, 150–163 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clark, S.C.: Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Hum. Relat. 53, 747–770 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hall, D.T.: A model of coping with role conflict: the role behavior of college educated women. Adm. Sci. Q. 17, 471–486 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wipfli, R., Lovis, C.: Alerts in clinical information systems: building frameworks and prototypes. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 155, 163–169 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Milewski, A.E.: Interruption management and telephone call screening. Int. J. Hum. Comput Interact. 20, 19–33 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grandhi, S., Jones, Q.: Technology-mediated interruption management. Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 68, 288–306 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Houde, S., Hill, C.: What do prototypes prototype. Handb. Hum. Comput Interact. 2, 367–381 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carroll, J.M.: Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions. MIT Press, Cambdrige (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hackos, J.T., Redish, J.: User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Truong, K.N., Hayes, G.R., Abowd, G.D.: Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 12–21. ACM (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information ManagementUniversity of St. Gallen (HSG)St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations