HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS (HSE)
Department of Marketing and Management
DEVELOPING DESIRABLE TECHNOLOGY WITH USER INNOVATORS:
THE SOCIOTECHNICAL CHANGE OF THE NOKIA 770 INTERNET TABLET
Marketing
Master’s Thesis
Jussi H. Mäkinen k72221
Fall 2006
Approved by the head of the department of Marketing and Management
_____/_____ 2006, and awarded the grade _____________________
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS ABSTRACT
Marketing master’s thesis October 31st, 2006
Jussi H. Mäkinen
DEVELOPING DESIRABLE TECHNOLOGY WITH USER INNOVATORS – THE SOCIOTECHNICAL CHANGE OF THE NOKIA 770 INTERNET TABLET
Research objectives
The research objectives of this study was to understand the role of users and user made innovations in the product development process of a new consumer high-technology product, the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. The theoretical part of the study focused on user’s role in the innovation process and in technological development concentrating especially on a user innovator group calling themselves as “hackers”. The empirical part focused on describing how these user innovators following the hacker culture reinvented the functionalities of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet.
Research methodology
Research methodology in this thesis was adapted from the model of social construction of technology. This model emphasizes cultural and social factors in the product development process thus viewing the users as the agents for technological change. The author of this study worked at the Nokia Multimedia organization while doing this thesis and during that time 15 people were interviewed in order to create a social construction of Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. The people interviewed for this thesis were separated into three social groups: Nokia managers involved in the development of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet as the first group, hackers who had developed new functionalities for the product as the second group and a the non-users as the third group.
Research results
As a result of this study I propose a new concept, hacker-hobbyism, to define how innovations and insights from a group of users, hackers, affected the functionalities and usage possibilities for the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet after it was brought to the markets. Hacker-hobbyism is a user innovation activity that follows hacker culture and which is not restricted by legal or proprietary issues that sets guidelines for manufacturers’ development activities. The consequence of hacker-hobbyism is that hackers can develop and implement functionalities to the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet which would be impossible to do for Nokia’s official product development. In this way hackers could reinvent the product to function beyond its original use possibilities. Hacker-hobbyism can then be used to gain insights and innovations for Nokia’s internal product development.
Key words
HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU TIIVISTELMÄ
Markkinoinnin Pro Gradu –tutkielma 31.10.2006
DEVELOPING DESIRABLE TECHNOLOGY WITH USER INNOVATORS – THE SOCIOTECHNICAL CHANGE OF THE NOKIA 770 INTERNET TABLET
Tutkimukseni tavoitteena on ollut kuvata kuluttajamarkkinoille suunnatun uuden teknologiatuotteen kehitysprosessia ja käyttäjien sekä käyttäjälähtöisten innovaatioiden merkitystä ja roolia tässä prosessissa. Tutkimusongelmaani olen lähestynyt Nokian 770 Internet Tabletin kehityshistorian kautta. Vuonna 2005 markkinoille tullut Nokia 770 Internet Tablet on Nokian ensimmäinen avoimeen lähdekoodiin perustuva tuote, jonka kehitystyön oleellisena osatekijänä on käyttäjien osallistuminen tuotteen sovelluskehitykseen. Erityisen mielenkiinnon kohteeksi tutkimuksessani nousivat ns. ”hakkerit”, jotka edustavat historiallisesti merkittävää, mutta usein innovaatio- ja teknologiatutkimuksessa pienelle huomiolle jäänyttä teknologiaan liittyvää käyttäjäinnovaatio-alakulttuuria.
Tutkimusmenetelmänä olen käyttänyt teknologian sosiaalisen konstruktion mallia joka korostaa kulttuurisia ja sosiaalisia tekijöitä tuotteen kehitysprosessissa sekä käyttäjiä teknologisen kehityksen muutosagentteina. Empiirisen tapaustutkimuksen olen tehnyt Nokia yhtymän multimediayksikön tuotekehitysyksikössä Helsingin Ruoholahdessa 1.5 - 31.09.2006 välisenä aikana, jolloin osallistuin tuotteen kehittämiseen sekä haastattelin tuotekehityksessä ja markkinoinnissa mukana olleita henkilöitä Nokian sisältä sekä käyttäjiä, jotka olivat kehittäneet omiin tarpeisiinsa innovaatioita niin Nokian 770 laitteelle kuin muillekin kaupallisesti menestyneille mobiileille teknologiatuotteille.
Tutkimukseni tuloksena on uusi käsite, hakkeri-hobbismi. Hakkeri-hobbismi syntyy, kun teknologiatuote koetaan haluttavaksi kohteeksi käyttäjäinnovaattoreiden hakkerikulttuuria seuraavalle kehitystyölle ja sen seurauksena syntyy innovaatioita, jotka eivät aina lähtökohtaisesti palvele kaupallisten toimijoiden liiketoimintamalleja mutta jotka silti voivat lisätä teknologiatuotteen toiminnallisuuksia ja haluttavuutta syntyessään ja levitessään hakkeriyhteisöissä ja niiden ulkopuolella. Hakkeri-hobbismin kautta on mahdollisuus myös saada uusia näkökulmia tai jopa konkreettisia innovaatioita yrityksen sisäiseen tuotekehitystyöhön. Avoimen lähdekoodin käyttäminen teknologiatuotteessa kuten Nokian 770 Internet Tabletissa edistää hakkeri-hobbismia, mutta ei kuitenkaan ole välttämättä edellytyksenä ilmiölle.
Hakkeri-hobbismi -käsitteen kautta olen halunnut tuoda esiin myös käyttäjälähtöistä luovan tuhon prosessia, joka osaltaan erottaa käsitteen muista käyttäjälähtöisistä innovaatiokäsitteistä. Vaikka hakkeri-hobbismista sekä käyttäjälähtöisestä luovan tuhon prosessista löytyy esimerkkejä muidenkin teknologiatuotteiden kuin Nokian 770 Internet Tabletin osalta, pitäisi hakkeri-hobbismi ilmiötä tutkia kuitenkin enemmän ennen kuin tutkimuksessani esittämäni tulokset olisivat laajemmin yleistettävissä.
Avainsanat:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...5
1.1 ”If it’s not hackable, it’s useless…” ... 5
1.2 Goals of the study... 7
1.3 Research design ... 8
1.4 Terminology ... 10
2. REPRESENTATION OF THE HACKER...11
2.1 Hackers and the history of computer technology ... 11
2.2 Hacker culture ...14
2.3 Categorizing hackers ...16
3 SOCIAL SHAPING OF INNOVATION ... 19
3.1 User’s roles in the innovation process...19
3.1.1 The imagined user...20
3.1.2 The emerging user ... 21
3.1.3 The creative user...22
3.2 Social construction of technology ... 25
3.2.1 Relevant social groups...26
3.2.2 Interpretative flexibility ...28
3.2.3 Closure and stabilization ...29
3.2.4 Technological Frame...29
4 THEORETICAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK...30
5 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH PLAN ... 33
5.1 Research methods ... 33
5.2 Conducting the research... 35
6 THE SOCIOTECHNICAL CHANGE OF THE NOKIA 770 INTERNET TABLET ...40
6.1 Nokia and the challenges of open source Internet Tablet... 40
6.1.1 The software challenge ...42
6.1.2 The operator challenge... 45
6.1.3 The market challenge ...46
6.2 The birth of the product ... 48
6.3 Non-users’ problems towards the product ... 52
6.4 Hacking the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet ... 55
6.5 Developing the concept of hacker-hobbyism... 64
7 CONCLUSIONS ...68
7.1 Limitations and further research suggestions... 70
7.2 Managerial implications ... 72
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ”If it’s not hackable, it’s useless…”
Diffusion and domestication of personal computers and digital tools has democratized creativity. Users of products and services - both firms and individual consumers - are increasingly able to innovate for themselves (von Hippel 2005). Enthusiast hobbyists are constantly customizing, exploring and altering technological products. The internet is now full of communities of user innovators sharing the methods and the results of their creativity freely with everyone.
Studies (von Hippel 1986, 1998, 2005, Jeppesen 2005, Jeppesen & Molin 2005, Jeppesen & Fredrikson 2005) show that companies are taking a growing interest in harnessing and engaging creative consumers in order to produce commercially attractive innovations. In many cases companies have substantially profited from the inventions and solutions created by hobbyists. According to the same academic literature, it might seem that this form of innovation is the dream of every manufacturing organization in the fast changing world of high technology and short product life cycles - an innovative and outsourced R&D organization of hundreds or even thousands of volunteers improving products and constantly creating new innovations.
The problem is that not all user innovators want to maintain or facilitate the business models that companies have devised to profit from. Revenue models and intellectual property rights are usually ignored when a particular user innovator group, hackers, began to re-invent products to function beyond their original specifications. Popular consumer technologies, or more specifically, technologies that have become popular have been desirable targets for hackers in the early stages of their lifecycle. Apple’s iPod was a popular hacking platform when it was first introduced to the market, and it was hackers who first implemented disruptive functionalities, such as Microsoft Windows compatibility, when the product officially supported only Apple’s own operating system (Kahney 2005, 73). Sony’s Playstation Portable (PSP) gaming device was hacked to function as a web-browser and an emulator for old console games long before Sony officially released the updates to enable web surfing and game emulation on the device. These disruptive ”homebrew” functionalities that
were first implemented by hackers have since become standard features on their respective technologies and are now part of the revenue model for the iPod and the PSP. Whether by accident or intention, the official product development of these highly successful products followed the path that was first taken by hackers who refused to accept the limited functionality given by the manufacturer. Moreover, ’’hackability’’ or the ability to reinvent products has become a major dimension of the desirability of technology. Examples of this can be seen as technology enthusiasts speculate on upcoming products on the internet. As one anonymous user stated in a online discussion forum analyzing his interest towards an upcoming product ”…if it’s not hackable, it’s useless.” Companies have now started to listen to the voices of the underground: the director of design strategy at Nokia, Marko Ahtisaari, turns this phenomenon into a design challenge in his public weblog by asking “How do we design for everyday hackability?” (Blogging over Las Vegas 2005)
Manufacturers of technology have chosen very different strategies towards the user driven hacking phenomenon. For instance, after one hacker developed and distributed free software that allowed the robot dog Aibo to perform break-dance moves, manufacturer Sony Corporation responded with the threat of legal action (Mollick 2005). On the other hand, the use of open source software has recently created a new wave of user innovation activity. Mobile communications house Nokia has recently launched their first open source based product, the 770 Internet Tablet, which means that anyone who is willing and able to develop further product functionalities can do so thanks to its open software architecture. Since the product is now shaped by a collaboration of users and the manufacturer, the interaction between these user innovators and the manufacturer continuously shapes the product creating new challenges and possibilities for Nokia, while at the same time this opens up an interesting research subject in the field that combines new product development with technology and innovation studies.
With all the actions manufacturers are now taking to facilitate, stop, or adapt the work of hackers, the culture of consumption as well as the methods of development of consumer technology is changing. The dialogue between hackers and manufacturers is shaping technology and the way that desirable new consumer
products are being developed and consumed. My thesis is a study of this contemporary sociotechnical change.
1.2 Objectives of the study
This thesis is about new product development. Within the field of new product development, the main interest lies in users and user driven innovations.
The main objective of this thesis is:
To examine the role of particular user innovators – hackers - in the development process of a new consumer product, the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet
The sub-goals of the main research problem are:
To understand hackers and hacking as a consumer subculture
To examine how hackers’ knowledge, insights, and innovations shape a product after its market launch; and
To understand how a technological artefact evolves in alternation, variation, and selection between different social groups
In the theoretical part of this thesis, I will attempt to make sense of the role of user innovators and the specific representation of hackers, in the development of new products. Upon completion of the theoretical section of this paper, I will construct a theoretical frame to be used in the empirical part.
It was a commonly held view among the product developers and managers who were working for Nokia that open source software will possibly be used in all the products that Nokia makes in the future. The open source software movement has close linkages to hacker culture so the aim of this study is to bring in the cultural perspective of product development. This is done by studying the connections between economics and culture and how these connections and meanings are tied to technology and its social construction as in a form of a material artefact brought to the marketplace.
As a result of my study, a new concept “hacker-hobbyism” is proposed to describe how knowledge, insights and innovations from users following hacker culture affected the functionalities of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, and how due to its “hackability” the product was seen as desirable and “working”. I will also attempt to generalize my findings beyond the particular artefact studied in this thesis and propose how hacker-hobbyism can create a “user driven creative destruction”. This activity can then be used as a resource to give new insights and innovations for product development and possibly even create new revenue models for companies that are resourceful enough to pay attention to hackers and their underground innovation activity.
1.3 Structure of the study
This thesis begins at the same point as successful product development; product developers draft the products of the future for imaginary consumers and as a result their way of representing the end-user is the key to their success (Kotro & Pantzar 2002). The second chapter starts to construct a representation of a hacker, the main actor followed in this study. This representation is formulated through the story of the birth of personal computers and by reviewing the culture and work ethics that hackers follow. At the end of the chapter hackers are categorized further by their ability to innovate in two different dimensions of technology; applications and platforms.
The third chapter places the user in an active role in the innovation process and further places this interaction into a larger sociotechnical framework. The users who are at the leading edge of change are the source of the majority of all commercial innovations, especially in the field of high-technology (Hippel 1986, 2005). The way that this “hobbyist knowledge” from the users enters the product development stage and finally into a new product is a complex social and cultural learning process (Kotro 2005). The process of innovation does not however end when the new product is launched and brought to the marketplace (Akrich 1995). It’s often the innovative consumers who determine and define the uses for the technology, assuring that successful diffusion and domestication are made possible (Pantzar
1996). This approach to explaining the success of artifacts, as in new products or technologies, follows the theory of sociotechnical change of technology:
(…) for the theory of technology, “working” of a machine should be the
explanandum, not the explanans. The “working” of a machine is not an
intrinsic property of the artifact, explaining its success; rather it should figure as a result of the machine’s success. (Bijker 1995, 14)
In the fourth chapter the theoretical framework of this thesis is presented using the framework adapted from the theory of social construction of technology developed by Pinch and Bijker (1984).
The fifth chapter presents the empirical research plan used in this thesis. The author worked as a graduate trainee in open source product management inside Nokia Multimedia organization between 17.5.2006 – 28.09.2006, while at the same time preparing a rich case study of the research subject, the 770 Internet Tablet. Before joining the product development team for the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, three interviews were made with the director of open source platform, a senior R&D manager and product program manager, all of whom were part of the team developing the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. While working at Nokia on the product management team more interviews were made with managers inside Nokia and users outside Nokia. Also, on-line communities, weblogs and discussion boards where users and non-users “spoke up” about the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet were followed during the period of time when this thesis was developed.
The sixth chapter begins the empirical part of this thesis, which is a case study of the development process of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. The distinctive feature of this product is that after its market launch, its development is continued through collaboration between users and the manufacturer, which will be the first time that Nokia has used this kind of “open source” development model on any of its released products. At the end of the sixth chapter, I will present a model of the social construction of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet based on the findings from the interviews and observations made while working for Nokia.
Finally, the seventh chapter brings together the theory and the empirical part of this thesis to form a conclusion on how technological, cultural and social dimensions met in this thesis. In the seventh chapter also limitations and further research suggestions and presented along with the managerial implications.
1.4 Terminology
This section reviews the central terminology used in this thesis.
Domestication of technology: How an artifact takes different shapes during its lifecycle (Pantzar 1996, 53).
Innovation: In general, an idea, process or tool which has some level of newness to one who adapts it (Rogers 1983). Innovation can also be divided to technological-, economical- and organizational innovation as Schumpeter (1934). Innovation can be also characterized by its impact on existing markets or businesses. Disruptive innovation significantly changes a market or a product category while sustaining innovation allows organization to continue to approach the markets in a same way (Christensen 1997)
Re-invention: Degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of its adoption or implementation. (Rogers and Rice 1980, 500-501)
Hacker: 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around.
Hence “password hacker”, “network hacker”, the correct term for this sense is cracker. (The Jargon File 2003)
Homebrew: Software that is done without official approvement of the system that it has been made for. (Homebrew
Open source software: Software that is made freely available to all and can be further developed by anyone. Well know examples of open source software is the GNU (Gnu Not Unix)/Linux operating system (Hippel and Krogh, 2003, 209)
2. REPRESENTATION OF THE HACKER
The creation of successful artifacts depends on the ability of innovators to generate user representations and integrate them into their designs (Akrich 1995, 169). The aim of this chapter is to introduce and understand better the innovative users followed in this study, known as hackers, and demonstrate how their innovations and insights are represented in personal technology. In order to demonstrate this, the history and culture of hackers and personal computers are examined and finally a model to categorize hacker’s innovativeness with technology is presented.
2.1 Hackers and the history of computer technology
Hacker is a term for a person that is usually associated with computer criminality in the popular media. However, in the counter-culture context, the term hacker refers to a pioneer or to an underground hero that explores alternative uses for technology. (Levy 1984)
The creation of the modern microcomputer can be seen either as a routine process of linear technological innovation or as a product of social vision of democratic technology. Linear history suggests that the invention of the microprocessor at the Intel Corporation in 1971 was the key invention for the development of microcomputer technology but the other one is based on a socially determined
representation of innovators – the hackers – led by their ideology (Bardini et all 1995, 41).
The term “computer hacker” along with the idea of personal computers that could be used and configured by users originated in the 1960’s in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A group of young researchers who were interested in computer technology and wanted direct access to operate computers, that at that time consisted of room sized computer mainframes that were operated by special group of people called operators. The actual users or programmers were not even allowed to touch the computers. (Himanen 2001, 159)
This resistance to the mainframe approach and group of computer “operators” was the start of the personal use of computers. In the late 1970’s the corporations that manufactured mainframe computers saw the personal use of computers merely as a meaningless detour in computer technology. Ken Olsen, the chairman of the Digital Equipment corporation said in 1977 “No one wants a computer at their house” (Gatlin 1999, 39). The personal computer appeared as a revolutionary rupture in computer technology history, made possible by the new actor, the hacker, who used technology as a means to personal expression and social autonomy (Bardini et all 1995).
The first commercial personal computer that was usable to non-engineers, the Apple 1, was built in 1976 by Steven Wozniack, a 25 year old computer hobbyist and a self-reclaimed hacker and member of the ”homebrew computer club” in San Fransisco. Unlike other hobbyist computers of its day, which were sold as kits, the Apple I was a fully-assembled circuit board. Followed by the success of Apple 1, the Apple 2 was a complete personal computer set, the first computer that was ready to be used out-of-the-box (Himanen 2001, 160). After the success of the Apple 2 in 1977 other personal computers began to appear on the market. The US based electronics chain Radio Shack introduced the TRS-80 model in 1977. Lindsay (2003, 35) stated that the envisioned users of the TRS-80 were also members of the early hacking culture – people who had not only an interest in technology, but also skills and knowledge to construct their own machines.
Unlike today, in the early days of computers, an operating system and other commercial “packaged” software applications were a rarity. Much of the software development in the 1960’s and 1970’s was carried out in academic and corporate laboratories by scientists and engineers. These individuals found it a normal part of their research culture to freely give and exchange software they had written, to modify and build upon each other’s software both individually and collaboratively, and to freely give out their modifications in turn. (Hippel and Krogh, 2003, 209) As researchers that were coding software started to also work for commercial purposes the culture of freely revealing the source codes of computer programs started to quickly vanish. Opposing this development, a young researcher named Richard Stallman developed the free software licenses and the GNU operating system which later on gave birth to the open source software movement and Linux operating system. (Williams 2002)
The best know open source software project today, the Linux operating system, was originally created by a university student and a coder hobbyist, Linus Torvalds. Torvalds uploaded the first early and incomplete version of his Unix based operating system Linux to an electronic bulletin board in 1991 and asked for help from other hobbyists to improve it’s functionalities. Since then Linux has grown into a huge worldwide success and to a flagship of hacker culture, opposing commercial software and promoting hackers innovative culture. (Hippel and Krogh, 2003)
Raymond (1999) emphasizes that the most important feature of the success of Linux was not technical but sociological. Until the development of Linux, everyone believed that any software as complex as an operating system had to be developed in a carefully coordinated way by a relatively small, tightly-knit group of people. After the success of Linux these attitudes changed, creating a new boom of open source software development projects all over the internet to oppose proprietary software and to promote the culture of hackers. Today, "the hacker community" and "open-source developers" are two descriptions for what is essentially the same culture and population (Raymond 2001). The majority of open source developers state that the hacker community is a primary source of their identity and this aspect of their
community is big part of their motivation in participating in open source projects (Lakhani 2005, 12).
2.2 Hacker Culture
While the history of computer technology provides a good foundation from which to understand hackers, they cannot be understood solely in terms of technology which they are intervened (Thomas 2002). In this section of this thesis the culture of the hackers is studied further.
The whole culture of hackers is based on a special “hacker ethic” which is a set of concepts, beliefs, and morals that came out of a symbiotic relationship between the hackers and their machines
.
According to Levy (1984) the principles of the “hackerethic” are:
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. All information should be free.
Mistrust authority—promote decentralization. Hackers should be judged only by their hacking skills You can create art and beauty on a computer.
Computers can change your life for the better.
Thomas (2002) argues in his study of hacker culture that hackers and hacking are also much more about a set of social and cultural relations, and also the ways in which the image of the hacker has been crafted, redefined and used as a symbol in popular culture to understand technology and give a face or image to the fears and hopes, uncertainties and beliefs that accompany technological change.
Linus Torvalds, the programmer of the original Linux operating system and a respected hacker himself defined the culture of hacking further when saying that a hacker is not someone who uses computers and computer related skills only to survive or to earn money, instead computer hackers are driven by two higher motives, social and entertaining (Himanen 2002, 15).
First, a hacker uses a computer as a social tool where communication through discussion groups and chat rooms create communities where ideas, solutions and best practices circle from one peer to another. The social status and order of a hacker in the community is determined by his/her ability to create code and new programs that work well to serve its purpose (Mayer 1989). Highly skilled and innovative programmer hackers are sometimes referred as “Elite”. Some hackers have created toolkits, scripts or patches for others to easily perform hacks and modifications to readymade software like computer games (Schleiner 2002). In hacking slang, the users who don’t have the ability to create novel computer code but use ready made tools or action scripts to perform “hacks” are known as “script-kiddies” (Mollick 2005).
Secondly, technology itself, as in the form of a computer, represents entertainment for hackers. Existing games and other forms of digital entertainment are merely extensions of that fun. In the very heart of hacking is one’s ability to create something new and unique and to share it with others. (Himanen 2002, 15) Reflecting this view on hacking, entertainment and technology, it does not come as a surprise that Spacewar, the first computer game ever was originally a “hack” as in a clever program developed by a hacker, Steve “Slug” Russell at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1961 (Haddon 2002, 58).
The first “hacks” were in fact simple computer games made by students to entertain
themselves and their peers. One important fact of this entertainment was also the chance to show off with one’s coding skills. In the hacking spirit, early computers were treated as entertaining toys, rather than scientific tools (Haddon 2002, 58). Thomas (2002) argues in his study of hacker culture that by the late 1980s, hacking had undergone a critical cultural transformation. As computers and information technology became increasingly ubiquitous, centralized, and seemingly beyond society’s ability to understand or control, the hacker assumed symbolic significance: mysterious, dangerous, the embodiment of contemporary anxieties about technology. In this new vision, hackers were no longer seen as guardians or innovators but as criminals. This notion of cultural transformation serves as a good introduction to the
next chapter where hackers are categorized further on their ability to innovate and their motives to do so.
2.3 Categorizing hackers
Hackers can be categorized in many different ways, including motivation, the communities they work in, and what is most relevant to this thesis, by their ability to innovate. This section reviews the way hackers have been categorized and then a matrix is formulated in order to better understand their innovativeness.
According to the Jargon File (2003) , which is a file used to store the language and culture of hackers, the often loaded term "hacking" refers to Grey Hat hacking, which is generally understood to be any sort of technological utilization or manipulation of technology which goes above and beyond the capabilities inherent to the design of a given application. This usage attempts to maintain neutrality, as opposed to the politically charged and often contentious terms White Hat hacking, which is designated as "hacking" motivated exclusively by good intentions (e.g. enhancing the performance of a device or exposing the vulnerabilities of a security system for the benefit of the system administrator), or Black Hat hacking, which is designated as "hacking" motivated exclusively by bad or selfish intentions (e.g. stealing useful information or exacting technological revenge through sabotage). The usual divide between illegal and legal hacking is made between “white hat hackers” and “black hat hackers” (2006: The hacker Quarterly). According to the Jargon File (2006) these terms derive from the dress code of formulaic Westerns, in which the bad guys wore black hats and the good guys white ones.
Hackers also differ depending on their hacking skills. In the figure 1 I have combined descriptions of hackers’ inventiveness from various sources.
Figure 1: Defining the dimensions of hackers inventiveness
First, hackers are seen to represent innovativeness with technology on two different dimensions, software and hardware. Software hackers are highly skilled programmers while hardware hackers are hardware modifiers. This divide incorporates two dimension into the matrix, inventiveness related to the platform / hardware and inventiveness related to the applications / software.
“Script Kiddies” and “Wannabe hackers” are at the lowest level of the hacker social order (Mayer 1989). While they are not skillful enough to innovate themselves, they use tools provided by other more skilled hackers. The term script kiddy has typically referred to a malicious hacker, or a wannabe cracker who forces their way into computer systems (Mollick 2002; Know Your Enemy 2000). Raymond (2001) adds
Higher
“Elite Hacker”
Ability to re-invent and expand a devices capability to perform outside of manufacturer’s technical or legal specifications
How: Re-writing and reverse engineering firmware, device drivers and circuit level code
“Programmer / Coder”
Ability to create new computer code and programs rapidly and expertly
How: Creating programs for personal and public use.
“Modder”
Ability to create technical and aesthetical modifications to products enabling added functionality and looks
How: adding memory, storage, LED’s, stickers, general accessorizing
“Script Kiddy / Wannabe”
Use of ready-made tools like toolkits and action scripts to modify programs or devices functionality
How: using toolkits and action scripts to create extensions or added functionality Higher Lower Inventiveness related to the applications / software Inventiveness related to the platform / hardware
that the highly derogatory term “Script kiddies” is often used to indicate those who either claim to have far more skill than they actually have, or who exclusively use programs developed by others to achieve a successful security exploit. Voiskounsky & Smyslova (2003 ,178) stated that when a inexperienced hacker increases his/hers own hacking challenge he becomes a wannabe hacker whose rewards are getting noticed by other more skilled hackers.
“Programmer / Coder” refers to a hacker that has expertise in writing computer code rapidly and expertly. According to the Jargon File (2003) , a hacker is a person who is good at programming quickly
.
Raymond (2001) writes in his essay “How ToBecome A Hacker” that learning to program is the fundamental hacking skill and further, in order to gain more status and reputation as a hacker, one has to specifically write open source software.
Another type of hacker is one who creates novel hardware modifications, “a modder”. At the most basic end of this spectrum are those who make frequent changes to the hardware in their computers using standard components, or make semi-cosmetic themed modifications to the appearance of the machine. This type of Hacker modifes his/her computer for performance needs and/or aesthetics. These changes often include adding memory, storage or LEDs and cold cathode tubes for light effects. (Hardware hacker 2006)
“Elite Hacker” is a term that refers to someone who has the ability to write circuit-level code, device drivers, firmware, and low-circuit-level networking, and uses these techniques to make devices do things outside of their specifications. Elite Hackers are typically in very high regard among hacker communities. This is primarily due to the enormous difficulty, complexity and specialized domain knowledge required for this type of work, as well as the electrical engineering expertise that plays a large role. Such hackers are rare, and almost always considered to be “wizards” or “gurus” of a very high degree. (Hacker 2006)
It has to be noted that the matrix presented here is a simplification. As a simplified model it helps to understand different dimensions of hackers’ innovativeness towards technology but the model also has its limitations. The definitions presented
in the matrix are flexible and overlapping. The important thing to realize is that the term “hacker” can be used to represent a wide array of users and innovations.
3 SOCIAL SHAPING OF INNOVATION
This chapter places users in an active role in the innovation process and new product development. The interaction between users and producers is then placed into a larger sociotechnical framework within the theory of the social construction of technology. The aim of this chapter is to help understand what roles users have in the innovation process and how technology is socially and culturally constructed.
3.1 User’s roles in the innovation process
In the 1980’s and 1990’s the old view of users as passive consumers was largely replaced in some areas of technology studies, along with the linear model of technological innovation and diffusion (Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003, 3). In the linear diffusion models the users role was to passively adopt new technologies while innovation was restricted to research and development and stopped when the product left the laboratory (Williams et all. 2005, 53). Later on, this way of downplaying the role of users led to technological determinism which has been largely criticized in science and technology studies (Merrit & Marx 1994).
By bringing in social and cultural factors to the innovation process in product development one can acquire a richer view of the roles of the user. This why the classical linear product development processes (e.g. Ulrich and Eppinger 1995) are not discussed here further. Moisander (2005) describes the cultural approach to product development as a view that emphasizes the users role in the innovation process, as it implies that the only way to understand consuming and producing is to see it as a dynamic process between consumers and producers where ideas and culturally shared representations materialize in to cultural artifacts.
The innovation process in which the user’s role is defined in this chapter consists of three phases. The first phase is where product developers create new products, the
second is bringing the new product to the marketplace and the third is creating something new based on the experiences and knowledge acquired from users in the marketplace. In each of these stages users have a different and important role. With the help of these three different phases I have also divided the roles of the users into three: the imagined user at the development stage prior to the market introduction, the emerging user after the market introduction and the creative user in the stage where new knowledge is created by the users that is then used as input for new innovations.
The following sub-chapters will go through the relevant theories about the user’s role in each of these stages.
3.1.1 The imagined user
Before new innovations as in new products, services or technologies can enter into existence, an imagined user is created by the innovator and incorporated in to the design of the innovation (Akrich 1995).
According to Akrich (1995) there are two ways, explicit and implicit, that innovators create imagined user representations. Explicit techniques are often “legitimized” in a corporate environment and rely on market surveys, consumer testing and feedback on experience. However, all of these methods they have weaknesses when put in use. Market surveys may be used to identify potential buyers or add sales arguments but they have very little to do with design and development of the actual product and they can be used merely to convince company management about a need to build up a project. Trott (2001) follows this view and states that market research should be used as a method that helps the decision process, not as a tool that provides managerial solutions. Akrich (1995, 172) argues that consumer testing is used to minimize the number of dissatisfied users while assuming the existence of an average standard of taste and the feedback on experience is usually filtered twice, first by the users themselves who pass only remarks that they think are relevant with the system itself or with its agents; and then by the latter for similar reasons.
Akrich (1995) continues that the less “legitimized” but in fact dominating implicit techniques actually address real users but rely on spokespersons of three general
types: self-experience, expert consultants and other products. Other products can be used as a reference of benchmarking while the outside “experts” can be used as consultants to bring in the experience of users. Self-experience is when a designer takes the role of the user by replacing his professional self with a layman; this typically occurs when there is no other available mean of bringing in the end user. Akrich calls this method the “I”.
Kotro (2005) built up from the concept of the “I” and proposed “hobbyism” and “hobbyist knowledge” to describe how insights, values and ideals from hobbyist communities were transferred to actual products through product development in the Suunto corporation. While Akrich (1995, 173) noted that the “I” was coined when the product developer or designer took the “hat” of a layman, hobbyist knowledge was created when product developers and marketers were participating and learning extreme sports “in situ” and took the knowledge and insights with them back to inside the organizational frame of the manufacturer.
3.1.2 The emerging user
As real users encounter the new products brought to the market and apply them in practice, they also transform their own lives accordingly, in the direction pointed by the products (Pantzar 2000, 3).
New consuming practices emerge from new products and these practices and their consequences are not always predictable by the innovator. The bicycle for example, became a source for women’s emancipation, as the skirt was impracticable to ride a bike with (Bijker 1995). Thomas Edison, who invented the early phonograph never imagined ordinary people as its users because the machine was to be used as a business dictating machine (Carlsson 1999, 182). As seen above, the consuming practices that are born along with products may or may not be in line with manufacturers views of correct consumption.
When the personal computer started to domesticate in the 1970’s it created a set of “appropriate” and “inappropriate” uses connected to the ideals mainly around gender and family (Reed 2000). It was acceptable for boys to be interested in
computer technology while storing cooking recipes was almost the only appropriate use of computers for housewifes. As home computers and computer networks further domesticated into homes, they created entire consumer counter-cultures around services like Napster as it introduced a new technology to get music from other people through the Internet (Desmond et al. 2000, 266). As Williams et al. (2005, 57) sum up, domestication refers to ways in which an artefacts technical capabilities are explored, meanings attributed and practices developed as artefacts are integrated into local social settings.
When products domesticate in the marketplace after their market introduction the users’ role also goes through a transformation. Pantzar (1996, 2000, 2003) studied the histories of several emerging product technologies and concluded that a product has never been “ready” when it is brought to the marketplace in either its technical or social aspects. As novel products domesticate after they are brought to the markets the users and their motives for product choice, along with the function of the product, are transformed in the course of this domestication lifecycle. According to the studies of Pantzar (1996) the changing relationship of the consumer to a new commodity can be seen as a three stage process in what he calls consumption as “play”, then as “work” and finally “art”, where in the final “art” phase consumption becomes critical and creative. In the next section, this creativity related to consumers is studied further.
3.1.3 The creative user
While imagined users are represented in the product designs and new users emerge as new products domesticate in the marketplace, users can also provide creative and resourceful inputs for new product innovations. According to von Hippel (2005, 19) the idea that manufacturers, not users, develop novel product innovations is ingrained in both traditional expectations and scholarship. In many cases however, the user becomes a manufacturer to fulfill one’s own needs for customized products. Von Hippel (2005, 22) argues that the major finding of empirical research into innovation by users is that the most commercially attractive user-developed products and product modifications are developed by users with “lead user” characteristics.
According to von Hippel (1986), lead users are defined as members of a user population having two distinguishing characteristics: 1. they anticipate relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution for their needs and 2. they are at the leading edge of an important market trend(s), and so are currently experiencing needs that will later be experienced by many users in that market.
The idea that a group of users is ahead of market trends and is experiencing needs that will later be experienced by many in the marketplace is well known in the course of linear innovation diffusion studies. Rogers (1962) divided users in different adopter categories according to their ability and willingness to adopt new products or ideas. Potential users could be categorized as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards based on their ability to adopt innovations. Innovators were the first to adapt new inventions and in some cases they also had the ability to innovate themselves. Rogers and Rice (1980, 500-501) further defined re-inventions as a degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of it’s adoption or implementation, but did not specify further the role of re-inventions in the diffusion process of innovations. Flecks’s (1988) concept of innofusion - as in innovation in diffusion - contested the linear views of diffusion and argued that the process of innovation continued as artefacts were brought to the marketplace, but his studies were limited to industrial products while ignoring users as in individual consumers.
Du Gay (1997) stated that consumer practices also create input for producers and manufacturers. This is done in an ongoing cycle of commodification – where producers make new products or new versions of old products as a result of consumers’ activities – and appropriation – where consumers make those products meaningful. Sometimes this creates a new ”register” of meaning for artefact that affect production in some way. In this sense, the meanings that products have are constructed in this process of dialogue between production and consumption. (du Gay 1997, 103). Each new consumer technology, in other words, both sustains culture and produces or reproduces cultures creating what du Gay (1997, 23) calls a circuit of culture illustrated in the figure 2.
Shove and Pantzar (2005, 60) argued that the concept of re-invention can also be cultural and it is highly useful when studying successive emerging practices. Practices require continual reproduction since the companies can make consumer artifacts such as Nordic walking sticks, but in contrast they can’t make the practice of consuming happen.
Akrich (1992) named consuming practices as “scripts”. She emphasized that as designers and product developers “inscribe” their visions of the future users in the technical content of the new object create a “script” for consumption but it’s often the innovative consumer who determines or defines the transcripts for new commodities, which then become established. Pantzar (2003) further stated that scripts can be divided into “open” and “closed” according to their tolerance to be challenged by users. The washing machine for example was characterized from the start by a closed script which restricted any consumer interventions in the product where advisory organizations together with manufacturers, advertisers and the press established “almost a national guideline for the usage, placement and appearance of washing machines” (Pantzar 1996, 91).
As seen throughout this chapter, users, whether as in imagined representations, emerging through domestication processes or as part of the creation of new
identity regulation
representation
consumption production
Figure 2: The circle of culture Source: du Gay 1997, 23
innovations, play an important part in the innovation process. The next chapter proves that users are also powerful actors in technological change. Each new technology has a particular set of practices associated with it – a way of using them, a set of knowledge, or know-how, that is sometimes called a social technology (du Gay 1997, 23). In the next chapter the importance of this social aspect of technology is studied further.
3.2 Social construction of technology
One of the first approaches to draw deep understanding to users and also non-users in technological change was the model of social construction of technology (Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003, 3).
Social construction of technology (SCOT) is an approach to technology studies by Pinch and Bijker (1984) which was created to describe the dynamic development process of technological artefacts where users are the agents for technological change. The main emphasis in this model is the social aspect of the development process so that technological artefacts are constructed and ultimately assembled between different social groups. According to Pinch and Bijker (1995) the advantage of SCOT over the other models of technological development is that it combines the technological and non-technological aspects of the artefacts development process. According to the SCOT methodology, different social groups can construct radically different meanings of technology. Bijker (1995, 50) for example illustrated the development of the current design of “modern” bicycles “through the eyes” of the members of relevant social groups of users and non-users of different bicycle designs in history. One design that had a big front wheel, called the Ordinary bicycle, was “non-working” for elderly people but for young athletic men it was “working”. Different social groups constructed radically different meanings for the Ordinary as each social group had different problems with the artifact. With this, Bijker (1995, 52) wanted to emphasize that artifacts have a fluid and ever changing character. Each problem and each solution, as soon as they are perceived by a relevant social group, changes the artifacts meaning, whether a solution to those problems is implemented or not.
The changing meaning of an artifact came to be known as technology’s interpretative flexibility. Bijker (1995, 75) deconstructed the Ordinary bicycle into different artifacts and argued that it was a “macho bicycle” or an “unsafe bicycle” depending on the social group evaluating the artifact. The “working” and “unworking” of an artifact was then a socially and culturally constructed assessment, rather than being based on intrinsic properties of the artifact. One artifact comprises different socially constructed artifacts, some of which may be “working” while others are “non-working”.
Pinch and Bijker (1995) stated further that the technologies that fail have to be taken into account when analyzing the development of an artefact so that the level of analysis would be symmetrical. When only winning products and artefacts are taken into account in the history of technology, the level of analysis is asymmetrical and can lead to implicit adoption of a linear technological development also known as technological determinism.
Pinch and Kline (1996, 774–775) elaborated on the original SCOT model by pointing out that the way a product is interpreted is not restricted to the design stage of a technology, but can also continue during the product’s use. They illustrated this point with the case of the automobile and how manufacturers adopted some of the rural users’ innovations, generally after a lag. For example, a car that could also serve as a small truck was first re-engineered by some farmers and eventually offered as a commercial product by manufacturers.
In the next sub-chapters, the components of the SCOT-model will be reviewed along with some examples. These elements are then used to build up my theoretical research framework in chapter 4.
3.2.1 Relevant social groups
To understand the development of technology as a social process, it is crucial to take the artifacts as they are viewed by the relevant social groups (Bijker 1995, 49). Relevant social groups consist of heterogeneous groups of people that have similar
Social group Social group Social group Artefact Problem Problem Problem Problem Social group
Figure 4: Artifacts are described by focusing on the problems perceived by the relevant social groups
Source: Bijker (1995, 51)
views of the technology that they have feelings towards. The way that relevant social groups can be identified and described is by “rolling the snowball” and then by “following the actor” (Ibid. 46).
By “rolling a snowball”, Bijker (1995, 46) identified social groups that were relevant with respect to the specific artefact, the bicycle, by noting all social groups mentioned in relation to that artifact in historical documents. By using the snowball technique the first list of relevant social groups could then be made. When after some time the researcher does not find reference to new groups, it is clear that all relevant social groups have been identified. Using this as a starting point, the researcher can then “follow the actor” to learn more details about the identified social groups and delineate them from other relevant social groups.
Figure 3: Related to an artifact, the relevant social groups are identified. Source: Bijker (1995, 47)
Problem
Solution
Solution Solution
Solution
After identifying relevant social groups, the focus turns to the problems and solutions related to the artifact. Bijker (1995, 50-51) argues that there are two reasons why this has to be done. First, it helps to avoid implicit linearity in technological development where, for example, one artefact can be said to represent the “first modern bicycle” where the problems and solutions and the impact of other bicycle designs are ignored as they are retrospectively seen to have failed. Secondly, the variation and selection on the levels of problems and solutions can help to cast an evolutionary model. When the relevant social groups see a variety of problems, a new variety of solutions are then generated and some of these solutions are selected to yield new artifacts (Bijker 1995, 51).
3.2.2 Interpretative flexibility
According to the social-constructivist view technological artefacts are culturally constructed and interpreted: in other words, the interpretative flexibility of a technological artifact must be shown in order to build a social construction. This can be done by showing how, for different social groups, the artifact presents itself as essentially different artifacts. (Bijker 1995, 76)
Bijker (1995, 75) demonstrated how the early bicycle was seen as different artifact based on different social groups evaluating it and its uses. The young athletic users saw the big-wheeled bicycle differently as elderly men and other users. This way the big front-wheeled bicycle was deconstructed to two different artifacts. It was an
Figure 5: The solutions are described that are seen as available to each of the perceived problems
Unsafe Bicycle for elderly men and to non-users and a Macho Bicycle for athletic young men. This difference in how these social groups saw one artefact allowed for an explanation that for the “working” and “non-working” of technology there was no universal culture-independent criterion.
3.2.3 Closure and stabilization
Closure, in the analysis of technology, means that the interpretative flexibility of an artifact diminishes. Consensus among the different relevant social groups about the dominant meaning of an artifact emerges (Bijker 1995, 86).
History offers many examples of the closure and the stabilization of technology. The way that the QWERTY-keyboard layout for computers stabilized is an illustrative example. The QWERTY-layout was first used when commercial typewriters emerged and was specifically made to keep the typing speed low to keep the most used alphabets as far away from each other as possible (Perdue 1994). As this type of keyboard layout became widespread by typewriter manufacturers the users had to adapt to it. This kind of closure did lead to a decrease of interpretative flexibility – one design, the QWERTY keyboard lay-out, became dominant and others for the most part ceased to exist.
Bijker (1995, 84) describes in his study of the development of the bicycle how for example the air tire and “safety ordinary” reached closure as one group of users saw the earlier designs too dangerous and hard to use. As part of the same movement, the dominant artifact developed as an increasing stabilization among the relevant social groups other than “young men of means and nerve” who were physically fit enough to ride the bicycle with a big front wheel.
3.2.4 Technological Frame
According to Bijker (1995, 123) the concept of ”technological frame” can help to capture the diversity of interactions among individual actors inside a relevant social group and also the interactions between the relevant social groups.
The theoretical concept of technological frame of a social group is employed to explain the interactions within and between social groups that shape the artifacts: these technological frames shape and are shaped by these interactions (Bijker 1987). A technological frame is built when interaction ”around” an artifact begins. If the interactions move actors of the social group in the same direction, a technological frame will build up; if not, there will be no frame, no relevant social group and no future interaction. (Bijker 1995, 123). To describe a technological frame, Bijker (1995, 125) presented a tentative list of its elements:
- Goals
- Key problems
- Problem solving strategies
- Requirements to be met by problem solutions - Current Theories
- Tacit Knowledge - Testing procedures
- Design method and criteria - User’s practice
- Perceived substition function - Exemplary artifacts
According to Bijker (1995, 125) the list of technological frame elements can only be tentative. In each new case, in each new relevant social group, additional elements may need to be incorporated or taken out from the list to give an adequate interpretation of the interactions.
4 THEORETICAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
This chapter will present the theoretical research framework that is used to guide the empirical research in this thesis.
As a result of the literature review in this thesis, it was proved that the users, whether real or imagined, have much impact on how new products and technologies are
consumed and taken into everyday use. Manufacturers have their own ways of bringing in the end user into a product development process, but the users ultimately make products successful and meaningful.
The aim of this thesis is now to approach users’ interaction with technology from cultural and social viewpoints. As a result of my literature review, my understanding is that the social construction of technology provides the best and most complete theoretical tools for preparing a thorough view of the development process of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. This is because the social construction of technology (SCOT) -model emphasizes the role of the users who in turn play an important role in the development of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet due to its “hackability” and open source development approach.
Figure 6: Theoretical research framework
Figure 6 visualizes my theoretical research framework used in this study. The empirical part of this study attempts to understand how different social groups interact around the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet and what are the problems and solutions that encourage actors into this interaction. The social construction of
Define technological frames = interactions around the artifact Social group 770 Internet tablet Problem Problem Problem Social group Solution Solution Solution Solution Problem Problem Problem Solution Solution Demonstrate interpretative flexibility = different views of the artifact
Look for closure & stabilization =
Interpretative flexibility diminishes
Users’ roles in the different phases in the
development of the product
technology serves as a starting point for understanding these interactions. In order to build a social construction, the first task is to identify the relevant social groups related to the artifact. Then by focusing on the problems and solutions of these social groups, build a technological frame on the interactions around the artefact and demonstrate if there is interpretative flexibility in how the artifact is seen by the actors of relevant social groups. Closure and stabilization happens then if interpretative flexibility towards the product diminishes and different social groups see the product in a similar manner.
The criticism towards the SCOT-model has to also be taken into account when conducting this study. Klein & Kleinman (2002, 34) wanted to further emphasize the influence that actors and social groups have in the social construction. What they believed missing in all of the case studies was the discussion of groups’ capacity or power or what enables one group’s interpretation to be embodied in the artifact. Following this view, Williams and Edge (1996) state that the final consumer may have little opportunity to engage upon the development of a product other than the “veto power” to adopt a product or not.
The criticism towards the SCOT-model has been taken into account in the empirical part of this thesis by concentrating on the most powerful group of users, hackers, whose engagement upon the product and its usage is not limited only to the veto power to purchase a product or not.
5 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH PLAN
This section focuses on the methods of the empirical part of this study. It will explain why the particular qualitative approach was used in this study and how the research was conducted in order to reach the conclusions presented.
5.1 Research methods
The theoretical framework used in this study is adapted from the constructivist approach to science and technology studies. The social construction of technology
model (Pinch and Bijker 1984) served as a framework for presenting rich case studies of technological artifacts.
Stake (1995, 42) emphasizes that the constructivist approach used in case studies encourages providing readers with ”thick description” for their own generalizing about the subject or phenomenon. Thick description is not complexities objectively described but rather particular subjective perceptions of the relevant actors. While total objectivity towards the research subject might be impossible to achieve, subjectivity is used as a tool to stimulate further reflection, optimizing reader’s opportunity to learn. The researchers role is to organize the study to maximize the opportunity for ”naturalistic generalization” through experiential learning. (Stake 1995)
Generally, qualitative research studies rely on three basic data gathering techniques: participant observation, interviews, and social artifact content analysis (Wolcott 1995; 1999). A qualitative approach for this thesis was chosen because it presses for understanding of the complex interrelationship among all that exists while quantitative research presses for an explanation trough scale and measures (Stake 1995, 37). This also seemed feasible to the theoretical framework of this study, as the goal is to gain more understanding of the involvement of innovative users, hackers, in the different stages of product development through the social construction of one particular technology, the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. This artifact was chosen because it is a fairly new product, as it was launched in 2005, and it is the first product of it’s kind for Nokia; a communication device using open source software but at the same time it is not a GSM phone. Furthermore, it represents a new approach to consumer technology as it has become a medium for hacker culture and its innovations. By studying the artifact’s ”story” one can possibly learn a great deal about the ways that a new kind of product development process works between the product manufacturer and the innovating users and what was the role of ”hacking” in the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet’s product development and in making sense of its users.
The material and the insight to provide ”thick description” and ”experiential understanding” as Stake (1995) calls it into this case study was brought by working as
a graduate trainee at Nokia’s open source product management division in Helsinki 15.5 – 29.09.2006. Working inside the product management division opened up the possibility for participatory observation, which allows for observing while taking an active role in the group being studied (Stake 1995).
5.2 Conducting the research
Following the methodology of SCOT and my theoretical framework, the first task in the process of creating a social construction of the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet was to identify the relevant social groups that were then to be studied. I identified three relevant social groups: the people involved with the development of the 770 Internet Tablet inside Nokia, the users who were participating in the development of the product and the non-users.
Next, I will briefly go over why these social groups are relevant for my analysis and the method of how the data was collected from these groups.
Inside Nokia
It was self-evident that the individuals who took part in the product development team of the 770 inside Nokia made up my first relevant social group. A total of 7 semi-structured interviews were made with the people who were involved in the product’s development and marketing. The “snowball” method was used to get to these contacts after I first approached the vice president of the Nokia’s convergence products business group, the group that was in charge of the development of the 770 Internet Tablet. The snowball method basically means identifying important interviewees by asking interviewees to name others with whom the researcher should talk to (Bijker 1995, 46).
The “snowballing” started as the vice president of the business group who was in charge of the 770 platform replied to my email and gave me the first contact, a director of open source platforms in Tampere who then gave the contacts of a senior R&D manager in Helsinki. From him I went on to a program manager in Oulu. Based
