Insights on Effectiveness

This study also broadens the temporal theory of human agency (Emirbayer and Mische 1998) by offering a novel perspective on the context of effectiveness in nomadic computing environments. Across all cases, users achieved effectiveness by engaging with the environment in diverse and contradictory ways. As their practices evolved, they achieved effectiveness by attempting to resolve the conflicts between the possible beneficial and undesirable effects of nomadic computing environments. Consistent with the temporal theory of human agency (Emirbayer and Mische 1998), stakeholders had varying evaluations regarding how, when and where a practice was an advantage or a disadvantage. The simultaneous presence of advantages and disadvantages results in the emergence of opposing tensions.

As illustrated in figure 7, nomadic computing environments promise the removal of temporal and spatial constraints for carrying out work (Davis 2002). Stakeholders exploited this advantage by facilitating unrestricted access to themselves, as in the case of Rookie who carried his devices around with him constantly, even on weekends. Consequently, the environment may also weaken the boundaries between work and personal life (Davis 2002). An attempt to reinstate these boundaries may occur by restricting access in certain situations, as in the case of Top Gun who made it known when he would and would not be reachable while away on vacation. Thus, tensions arise between facilitating access and restricting access.

141

Figure 7. Effectiveness in the Nomadic Computing Environment

ADVANTAGES REMOVAL OF TIME &

SPACE CONSTRAINTS ENHANCED COLLABORATION, COMMUNICATION & COORDINIATION MULTITASKING WHILE MOVING DISADVANTAGES BLURRED BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PERSONAL & WORK

LIFE UNNECESSARY & FREQUENT INTERRUPTIONS MULTIPLE & OVERWHELMING DEMANDS OPPOSING FORCES MERGING VS SEPARATING UNRESTRICTED VS RESTRICTED ACCESS CONTINUITY VS DISRUPTION SYNCHRONOUS VS ASYNCHRONOUS ACCEPTABLE VS UNACCEPTABLE PLANNED VS UNPLANNED

142

To reinforce the boundaries between work and personal life, nomadic workers may try to compartmentalize their lives into more distinct and clearly demarcated work and non-work segments and reserve certain places and devices for certain activities (Avery and Baker 2002). They may also try to capitalize on the freedom of working without temporal and spatial constraints by carrying out both work and personal activities side by side. For example, Superwoman separated business and personal email by creating specific mailbox folders, but tended to carry out work and personal activities in the same spatial and temporal spheres whether at work, at home or on the road. In attempting to maximize the advantages presented by the removal of the temporal and spatial constraints and to minimize the disadvantage of blurring boundaries between work and personal life, actors engage in a balancing act: both allowing and restricting access and both merging and separating business and personal contexts.

Nomadic computing environments also promise enhanced coordination, collaboration and communication (Davis 2002). To facilitate this, some may allow unrestricted access to themselves, as in the case of Rookie, who engaged in the synchronization of contact data across all devices so that he could more effectively manage the flow of personal and business communications. However the nomadic computing environment can also trigger frequent and unwelcome interruptions. This was evident in the case of Top Gun and Nonchalant who used their assistants as filters for incoming communication in order to restrict access to themselves. Thus, tensions existed between allowing unfettered access and restricting access. Other opposing forces identified include, carrying out planned versus unplanned activities, facilitating

143

continuity versus allowing disruption, and engaging in acceptable versus unacceptable behavior.

The nomadic computing environment also provides the ability to multitask while moving. The capability to multitask while moving is particularly important when nomadic workers face multiple demands simultaneously, which require their immediate attention. Allowing unrestricted access may result in these simultaneous and multiple demands occurring. This was evident in the case of Mr. Security Issues who handled the needs of multiple customers at the same time, through various communication mechanisms while traveling. Mr. Gadget also engaged in this activity by carrying out work using his laptop, cell phone and aircard while traveling by train. Top Gun also engaged in this activity by using his laptop and aircard to carry out work while traveling to his vacation destination. However the nomadic computing environment can result in the level of demands rising to a point where they become overwhelming, resulting in the frustration of the nomadic worker. This was most evident in the case of Mr. Security Issues, who became so inundated by the number of customer demands during a long trip that his safety was at risk. As such he stopped to work, lengthening the trip even further. In this case Mr. Security Issues chose not to engage in the balancing act by allowing unrestricted access to himself. Restricting access while traveling would have probably resulted in a shorter, safer, less frustrating trip but disconnection from customers. Thus tensions once more exist between allowing access and restricting access.

Concerns have been raised about the possible difficulties presented by the use of nomadic computing environments. Davis ( 2002) suggests that providing access anytime anyplace may enable unnecessary and unproductive interruptions to work and in fact may

144

change organizational expectations, making such interruptions the norm. Productivity may even decline in such a scenario. However, these cases show that interruptions did indeed become the norm, but the informants in this study perceived them as contributing to effectiveness. Another possible undesirable outcome is the intrusion of business into personal time and space that takes place. Our results show that users are acutely aware of these intrusions and considered them to be a necessary part of the job. In various ways, they implemented measures to control these intrusions such as using devices to facilitate or restrict their access at certain times and in certain spaces.

Users were also aware of the organization’s expectations of service to the customer, which users translated to mean that they should be accessible all the time and available and equipped to work, if necessary. In this particular case, no one was explicitly told that they had to make themselves available. These expectations were self-imposed, based on an understanding of the customers and the organizations that they served. The implications for organizations lie in how they can better assist their nomadic users to recognize and manage the multiple and sometimes conflicting expectations.