Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relation Artefacts Type III

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Work Interaction Design

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

  • 598 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter takes the thread with sketching HWID solutions from Chap. 4 further and presents socio-technical hypothesis prototyping as relation artefacts type III. Three sub-types move the design from the social to the technical: Organizational action hypotheses, prototyped worker experiences, and UX-at-work field evaluations and tests. Prototyping hypotheses on a HWID platform means that specific organizational work design hypotheses and interaction design hypotheses should be presented as prototypes, and that these should be UX tested, and field evaluated. The chapter draws on notions about ‘justificatory knowledge’ for prototypes, and ‘appropriating’ prototypes. The chapter ends with summary of relation artefacts Type III as expressions of workers actively prototyping specific hypotheses about interaction designs and social arrangements at work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    But see for example (Hertzum, 2010) for a variety of usability concepts, and (Clemmensen, 2009) for alternative cultural theories of usability.

References

  • Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Barricelli, B. R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., & Clemmensen, T. (2015). Human work interaction design: Work analysis and interaction design methods for pervasive and smart workplaces: 4th IFIP 13.6 Working Conference, HWID 2015, London, UK, June 25–26, 2015, Revised selected papers (Vol. 468).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, H., & La, H. M. (2020). Evaluating the Co-dependence and Co-existence between Religion and Robots: Past, Present and Insights on the Future. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers, M., & Still, B. (2010). Usability of complex information systems. In M. Albers & B. Still (Eds.), Usability of complex information systems: Evaluation of user interaction (1st ed., pp. 3–16). https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439828946.

  • Alvarado, O., & Waern, A. (2018). Towards algorithmic experience: Initial efforts for social media contexts. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., … Horvitz, E. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233.

  • Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011). Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: A critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2689–2698). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979336.

  • Berque, D., Chiba, H., Ohkura, M., Sripian, P., & Sugaya, M. (2020). Fostering cross-cultural research by cross-cultural student teams: A case study related to kawaii (Cute) robot design. In P.-L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-cultural design. User experience of products, services, and intelligent environments (pp. 553–563). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P., & Østerlund, C. (2014). Sociomaterial-design: Bounding technologies in practice. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., & Hedström, G. (2020). The effects of automation of a patient-centric service in primary care on the work engagement and exhaustion of nurses. Quality and User Experience, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-020-00038-x.

  • Calori, R. (1998). Essai: Philosophizing on strategic management models. Organization Studies, 19(2), 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemmensen, T. (2009). Towards a theory of cultural usability: A comparison of ADA and CM-U theory (awarded best paper of the conference) (M. Kurosu, Ed.). In First international conference on human-centered design, HCD 2009, Held as part of HCI international 2009 (pp. 416–425). San Diego, CA, USA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., & Abdelnour-Nocera, J. (2020). Ordinary user experiences at work: A study of greenhouse growers. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), June(Article no 16), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386089.

  • Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., & Hassenzahl, M. (2014). The ’Hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 305–314). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2598510.2598549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, M., & Kling, R. (1997). Organizational usability of digital libraries: Case study of legal research in civil and criminal courts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(11), 1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199711)48:11%3c1023::AID-ASI5%3e3.0.CO;2-Y.

  • Fallman, D. (2011). The new good: Exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1051–1060).

    Google Scholar 

  • Franssila, H. (2019). Work fragmentation, task management practices and productivity in individual knowledge work. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 29–38). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franssila, H., & Okkonen, J. (2012). Adjusting the design target of life-cycle aware HCI in knowledge work: Focus on computing practices. In IFIP working conference on human work interaction design (pp. 150–160). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franssila, H., Okkonen, J., & Savolainen, R. (2016). Developing measures for information ergonomics in knowledge work. Ergonomics, 59(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1073795.

  • Garbuio, M., Lovallo, D., Porac, J., & Dong, A. (2015). A design cognition perspective on strategic option generation. In Cognition and strategy. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, F., Htun, N. N., Schlenz, F., Kasimati, A., & Verbert, K. (2019). A review of visualisations in agricultural decision support systems: An HCI perspective. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 163, 104844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.05.053.

  • Harbich, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2017). User experience in the work domain: A longitudinal field study. Interacting with Computers, 29(3), 306–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(4), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2.

  • Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer qualität. In G. Szwillus & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Mensch & computer 2003: Interaktion in bewegung (pp. 187–196). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19.

  • Hassenzahl, M., Buzzo, D., & Neuhaus, R. (2016). Perfect days: A benevolent calendar to take back your time. In Celebration & contemplation, 10th international conference on design & emotion 27–30 September 2016, Amsterdam (pp. 52–58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products–facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002.

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Klapperich, H. (2014). Convenient, clean, and efficient?: The experiential costs of everyday automation. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (pp. 21–30). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., Wiklund-Engblom, A., Bengs, A., Hägglund, S., & Diefenbach, S. (2015). Experience-oriented and product-oriented evaluation: psychological need fulfillment, positive affect, and product perception. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(8), 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkilä, P., Honka, A., & Kaasinen, E. (2018). Quantified factory worker: Designing a worker feedback dashboard. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 515–523). https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240187.

  • Hertzum, M. (2010). Images of usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(6), 567–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447311003781300.

  • Hogan, T., & Hornecker, E. (2011). Human-data relations and the lifeworld. In Proceedings of IHCI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk, K., & Frøkjær, E. (2008). Making use of business goals in usability evaluation: An experiment with novice evaluators. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 903–912). https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357197.

  • Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth, Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J. (2020). A critical look at theories in design science research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(3), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inal, Y., Clemmensen, T., Rajanen, D., Iivari, N., Rizvanoglu, K., & Sivaji, A. (2020). Positive developments but challenges still ahead: A survey study on UX professionals’ work practices. Journal of Usability Studies, 15(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Martens, J.-B. (2009). User experience over time: An initial framework. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 729–738). https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880412331289917.

  • Kember, P., & Murray, H. (1988). Towards socio-technical prototyping of work systems. The International Journal of Production Research, 26(1), 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klapperich, H., & Hassenzahl, M. (2016). Hotzenplotz: Reconciling automation with experience. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 1–10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapperich, H., Laschke, M., & Hassenzahl, M. (2018). The positive practice canvas: Gathering inspiration for wellbeing-driven design. In NordiCHI (pp. 74–81). https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240209.

  • Kling, R., & Elliott, M. (1994). Digital library design for organizational usability. ACM SIGOIS Bulletin, 15(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1145/192611.192746.

  • Kolko, J. (2015). Design thinking comes of age. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kon, I. (1989). The psychology of social inertia. Soviet Sociology, 28(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.2753/SOR1061-015428017.

  • Kujala, S., Miron-Shatz, T., & Jokinen, J. J. (2019). The cross-sequential approach: a short-term method for studying long-term user experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 14(2), 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, E. L.-C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., & Kort, J. (2009). Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 719–728). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813.

  • Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organizational change in industry, structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (Vol. 264, pp. 1144–1170). Rand McNally & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgaard, G., & Chattratichart, J. (2007). Usability testing: What have we overlooked? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1415–1424).https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240839.

  • Liu, M., Huang, Y., & Zhang, D. (2018). Gamification’s impact on manufacturing: enhancing job motivation, satisfaction and operational performance with smartphone-based gamified job design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 28(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20723.

  • Liu, S.-Y. C., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2019). Symbiotic encounters: HCI and sustainable agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper no 317. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300547.

  • Lu, Y., & Roto, V. (2015). Evoking meaningful experiences at work–a positive design framework for work tools. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(4–6), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1041461.

  • Mandviwalla, M. (2015). Generating and justifying design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(5), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meneweger, T., Wurhofer, D., Fuchsberger, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2018). Factory workers’ ordinary user experiences: An overlooked perspective. Human Technology, 14(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201808103817.

  • Morales, K. L., Röbig, S., & Bruder, R. (2012). Learning from doing: Chances and constraints of studying medical devices through usability methods in field studies. Zeitschrift Für Arbeitswissenschaft, 66(2–3), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moshagen, M., & Thielsch, M. T. (2013). A short version of the visual aesthetics of websites inventory. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(12), 1305–1311. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.694910.

  • Nass, C., Adam, S., Doerr, J., & Trapp, M. (2012). Balancing user and business goals in software development to generate positive user experience. In Human-Computer Interaction: The Agency Perspective (pp. 29–53). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neeli, B. K. (2012). A method to engage employees using gamification in BPO industry. In 2012 third international conference on services in emerging markets (pp. 142–146). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEM.2012.27.

  • Neff, G., & Nagy, P. (2018). Agency in the digital age: Using symbiotic agency to explain human-technology interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, MA: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations, 69(6), 1287–1313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715610642.

  • Norros, L., & Savioja, P. (2008). User experience in the systems usability approach. In E. L.-C. Law, N. Bevan, G. Christou, M. Springett, & M. Larusdottir (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM) 2008 (pp. 45–48). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.177.7123&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Obrist, M., Reitberger, W., Wurhofer, D., Förster, F., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). User experience research in the semiconductor factory: A contradiction? In IFIP conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 144–151). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto, S., & Sano, S. (2017). Anthropomorphic AI agent mediated multimodal interactions in vehicles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct (pp. 110–114). https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131736.

  • Palviainen, J., & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2009). User experience in machinery automation: From concepts and context to design implications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5619, pp. 1042–1051). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_119.

  • Papachristos, E. (2018). Assessing the performance of short multi-item questionnaires in aesthetic evaluation of websites. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(5), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1539521.

  • Plaskoff, J. (2017). Employee experience: The new human resource management approach. Strategic HR Review, 16(3), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-12-2016-0108.

  • Qin, X., Tan, C.-W., & Clemmensen, T. (2019). Unraveling the influence of the interplay between mobile phones’ and users’ awareness on the user experience (UX) of using mobile phones. In IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 544). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3_5.

  • Rajanen, D., Clemmensen, T., Iivari, N., Inal, Y., Rızvanoğlu, K., Sivaji, A., & Roche, A. (2017). UX professionals’ definitions of usability and UX–A comparison between Turkey, Finland, Denmark, France and Malaysia. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_14.

  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places (Vol. 34). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.1997.576013.

  • Rohde, M., Brödner, P., Stevens, G., Betz, M., & Wulf, V. (2017). Grounded design-a praxeological is research perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 32, 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.5.

  • Roto, V., Clemmensen, T., Häätäjä, H., & Law, E. L.-C. (2018). Guest editors’ introduction: Designing interactive systems for work engagement. Human Technology, 14(2), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201808103814.

  • Roto, V., Kaasinen, E., Heimonen, T., Karvonen, H., Jokinen, J. P. P., Mannonen, P., … Koskinen, H. M. K. (2017). Utilizing experience goals in design of industrial systems. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’17) (pp. 6993–7004). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025620.

  • Rozendaal, M. C., Boon, B., & Kaptelinin, V. (2019). Objects with intent: Designing everyday things as collaborative partners. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 26(4), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savioja, P., Liinasuo, M., & Koskinen, H. (2014). User experience: Does it matter in complex systems? Cognition, Technology and Work, 16(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-013-0271-x.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., Bakker, A. B., & Senthilkumar, M. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. Retrieved from https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/178.pdf.

  • Schrepp, M., Held, T., & Laugwitz, B. (2006). The influence of hedonic quality on the attractiveness of user interfaces of business management software. Interacting with Computers, 18(5), 1055–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2006.01.002.

  • Scoppetta, A., Davern, E., & Geyer, L. (2019). Job Carving and Job Crafting-a review of practices (EU report). KE-01-19-557-EN-N.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., & Ziegler, F. V. (2018). The technology integration model (TIM). Predicting the continued use of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.001.

  • Shin, D., Zhong, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2020). Beyond user experience: What constitutes algorithmic experiences? International Journal of Information Management, 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2019.102061.

  • Sterling, B. (2009). COVER STORY Design fiction. Interactions, 16(3), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • The International Organization for Standardization, I. (2019). ISO/DIS 9241-11.2(en) Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-2:v1:en.

  • Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., & Sellen, A. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1243–1252). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, V. (2015). From participation to differentiation: A framework for re-designing a socio-technical system (University of Windsor). Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/5671.

  • Tuch, A. N., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2010). Symmetry and Aesthetics in Website Design: It’s a Man’s Business. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1831–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.016.

  • Väätäjä, H., Seppänen, M., & Paananen, A. (2014). Creating value through user experience: A case study in the metals and engineering industry. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 9(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtmkt.2014.060093.

  • Vegt, N., Visch, V., Vermeeren, A., & de Ridder, H. (2018). A case study on gamified interventions for team cohesion in factory work. Human Technology, 14(2), 176–208. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201808103816.

  • Wulf, V., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Rohde, M., Schmidt, K., & Stevens, G. (Eds.). (2018). Socio-informatics-a practice-based perspective on the design and use of IT artifacts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, C., & Blomberg, J. (2019). Evaluating the promise of human-algorithm collaborations in everyday work practices. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359245.

  • Wolf, C. T. (2020). AI models and their worlds: Investigating data-driven, AI/ML ecosystems through a work practices lens. In International conference on information (pp. 651–664). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurhofer, D., Fuchsberger, V., Meneweger, T., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2015a). Insights from user experience research in the factory: What to consider in interaction design. In J. A. Nocera, B. Barricelli, A. Lopes, P. Campos, & T. Clemmensen (Eds.), HWID2015-human work interaction design. Work analysis and interaction design methods for pervasive and smart workplaces. IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 468, pp. 39–56). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_3.

  • Wurhofer, D., Meneweger, T., Fuchsberger, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2015b). Deploying robots in a production environment: A study on temporal transitions of workers’ experiences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 9298, pp. 203–220). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_14.

  • Wurhofer, D., Meneweger, T., Fuchsberger, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2018). Reflections on operators’ and maintenance engineers’ experiences of smart factories. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork (pp. 284–296). https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3148349.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digitalization, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Prof. Torkil Clemmensen

Authors
  1. Prof. Torkil Clemmensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torkil Clemmensen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Clemmensen, T. (2021). Relation Artefacts Type III. In: Human Work Interaction Design. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71796-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71796-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71795-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71796-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation