A Tool for Assessing User Experience of Fit of a Virtual Workplace

  • Ursula HyrkkänenEmail author
  • Suvi Nenonen
  • Carolyn Axtell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)


The aim of this article is to formulate theoretical premises for a virtual workplace fit/misfit assessment tool as well as pilot the tool with a preliminary study. The theoretical basis lies in the environment-person fit theory applied in the field of worker-workspace relationship. The categories of Frequency, Atmosphere, Familiarity, Functionality, Narrative and Meaning of the place were developed and used for assessing the fit of a virtual workplace. The pilot research showed that the categories systematically sorted out the features of the virtual workplace in a way that might be useful for illustrating the differences of various virtual workplaces and thus assessing the fit of various virtual workplaces.


Virtual workplace Fit and misfit of virtual workplace Person–environment fit theory Worker – workspace relationship 


  1. 1.
    Eurofound: New forms of employment. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holtgrewe, U.: New new technologies: The future and the present of work information and communication technology. New Technol. Work Employ. 29(1), 9–24 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Popma, J.: The Janus face of the ‘New Ways of Work’: Rise, risks and regulation of nomadic work. Working Paper 2013.07. Brussels: ETUI (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gareis, K., Lilischkis, S., Mentrup, A.: Mapping the mobile eWorkforce in Europe. In: Andriessen, J.H.E., Vartiainen, M. (eds.) Mobile Virtual Work. A New Paradigm? pp. 45–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vartiainen, M., Hyrkkänen, U.: Changing requirements and mental workload factors in mobile multi-locational work. New Technol. Work Employ. 25(2), 117–135 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Commission: The increasing use of portable computing and communication devices and its impact on the health of EU workers. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bailey, D.E., Leonardi, P.M., Barley, S.R.: The lure of the virtual. Organ. Sci. 23(5), 1485–1504 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nenonen, S., Airo, K., Bosch, P., Fruchter, R., Koivisto, S., Gersberg, N., Rothe, P., Ruohomäki, V., Vartiainen, M.: Managing Workplace Resources for Knowledge Work, the final report of ProWork-project (2009).
  9. 9.
    Lin, C., Standing, C., Liu, Y.: A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 1031–1045 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferreira, P.G.S., de Limaa, P., de Costaa, S.E.G.: Perception of virtual team’s performance: A multinational exercise. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140(1), 416–430 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Curseu, P.L., Schalk, R., Wessel, I.: How do virtual teams process information? A literature review and implications for management. J. Manag. Psychol. 23(6), 628–652 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U.: Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 15, 69–95 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Guinea, A.O., Webster, J., Staples, D.S.: A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Inf. Manag. 49, 301–308 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., Johnson, E.C.: Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58, 281–342 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raghuram, S., Tuertscher, P., Garud, R.: Mapping the field of virtual work: A Co-citation analysis. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 983–999 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibson, C.B., Gibbs, J.L.: Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographical dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 51, 451–495 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vischer, J.C.: Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance. Routledge, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vischer, J.C.: The effects of physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress Health 23, 175–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vischer, J.C.: The concept of workplace performance and its value to managers. Calif. Manage. Rev. 49(2), 62–79 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vischer, J.C.: Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Sci. Rev. 51(2), 97–108 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hyrkkänen, U., Nenonen, S., Kojo, I.: The virtual reality of work - how to create a workplace that enhances well-being for a mobile employee. In: Lanyi, C.S. (ed.) Virtual Reality and Environments, in Tech, pp. 192–204 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyrkkänen, U., Nenonen, S.: The virtual workplace of a mobile employee – how does vischer’s model function in identifying physical, functional and psychosocial fit? In: Jacko, Julie A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction, Part III, HCII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6763, pp. 69–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diller, S., Shedroff, N., Rhea, D.: Making Meaning: How Successful Businesses Deliver Meaningful Customer Experiences. New Riders Press, Berkeley (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nenonen, S., Kojo, I.: Experience of Places – Six dimensional model for capturing the user experience. 12th EuroFM Research Symposium, 22 – 24 May 2013, Prague Congress Center, Czech Republic (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kojo, I., Nenonen, S.: Workplaces for social ecosystems; User experiences in coworking places. In: Proceedings of EFMC 2012, 23rd – 25th of May, 2012, Copenhagen Denmark (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kristof, A.L.: Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement and implications. Pers. Psychol. 49(1), 1–49 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dainoff, M., Mark, L., Ye, L., Petrovic, M.: Forget about aesthetics in chair design: ergonomics should provide the basis for comfort. In: Dainoff, M.J. (ed.) Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers. LNCS, vol. 4566, pp. 19–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehtiranta, L., Junnonen, J.-M., Kärnä, S., Pekuri, L.: The constructive research approach: problem solving for complex projects. In: Basian, B. (ed.) Designs, Methods and Practices for Research of Project Management. Gower (2016).
  29. 29.
    Battarbee, K.: Co-experience: Understanding User Experiences in Social Interaction, Ph.D. thesis, University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patton, M.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Method, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kerlinger, F.N., Lee, H.B.: Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th edn. Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ursula Hyrkkänen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suvi Nenonen
    • 2
  • Carolyn Axtell
    • 3
  1. 1.Turku UniversityTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Aalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Sheffield UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations