Partnering with AI: the case of digital productivity assistants

Cranefield, Jocelyn; Winikoff, Michael; Chiu, Yi-Te; Li, Yevgeniya; Doyle, Cathal; Richter, Alexander

doi:10.1080/03036758.2022.2114507

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study also extends the existing literature on regulating behaviours with technology (Cranefield et al, 2022;Davidson et al, 2023;Lee et al, 2016), which has tended to focus mainly on behavioural and process-oriented perspectives and has only briefly touched on human cognition, despite its relevancy to the concepts of self and coregulation (Bandura, 1991;Hadwin et al, 2017;Zimmerman, 1989). Through the frame interaction analysis, the study reveals the foundational causes of human behaviours in human-AI interaction in coregulation contexts by identifying the cognitive frames and the human and task/contextual factors that influence humans' cognitive meaning construction concerning AI-based applications.…”

Section: Contributionssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Three key issues arise concerning enterprise IPAs. First, technical design poses significant limitations, including a lack of flexibility and the risk of communication overload, which can diminish the utility and user experience of IPAs (Ahire et al, 2022;Cranefield et al, 2022;Toxtli et al, 2018).…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various commentators promote enterprise IPAs as having the potential to improve knowledge workers' productivity and wellbeing by helping them regulate and manage their work-life practices (Jorge et al, 2022;Kimani et al, 2019;Lomborg, 2022;Rewari, 2021b). Evidence shows that IPAs can be pivotal in regulating knowledge workers' worklife practices as coregulators (Cranefield et al, 2022). However, the regulation of work-life practices has been overlooked in IS research as an essential application of AI in work settings.…”

Section: Research Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported missing alerts and pop-ups either due to technical difficulties or because they left work before the end-of-day alerts were generated. Cranefield et al (2022) conducted a qualitative case study examining how IPAs as partners help improve personal productivity management. The study examined worker experiences and the potential benefits and challenges of using such productivity IPAs in the coregulation of work.…”

Section: Time and Task Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Human-Ai Interaction in Regulating Productivity and Wellbeing

Ekandjo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p><strong>Knowledge workers are essential for sustainable organisational performance. However, knowledge workers face many challenges due to the increased demands of a globalised economy and rapid technological advancements. Moreover, research suggests that knowledge workers lack self-discipline and often engage in unproductive work habits, consequently impacting their productivity and wellbeing. Enterprise intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) are being promoted as having the potential to boost knowledge workers' productivity and wellbeing by regulating work behaviours. However, research on the role of IPAs in managing personal productivity and wellbeing remains underexplored within information systems (IS) research. Current studies are primarily confined to human-computer interaction (HCI) literature and predominantly centred on the IPAs' design and usability evaluation, neglecting to investigate their real-world impact and lived experiences. This thesis addresses this shortcoming by focusing on the underexplored aspect of human-AI coregulation of daily work-life practices. The study is based on a single unique case study of knowledge workers interacting with Microsoft Viva Insights (MVI), an enterprise IPA for productivity and wellbeing. The data for this study include twenty-six semi-structured interviews, four self-reflection journals, over sixty screenshots of interactions with MVI, twenty-two product videos and twenty-three webpages and documents on MVI. Using the concepts of coregulation and framing theory, this study explores both the role of enterprise IPAs and the nature of human-AI interaction in regulating daily work-life practices. I explain how the IPA, as a coregulator, used rationalisation, moralisation and normalisation strategies to participate in the regulation of work-life practices. In addition, I present a frame interaction model of coregulatory human-AI interaction to show and explain that for human-AI coregulation of work to be successful, there is a need for frame alignment between humans' cognitive frames and the frames embedded in IPAs. The significance of this study is that it adopts a novel approach by combining two bodies of framing literature and extending the application of the framing theory to explain the nature of human-AI interaction in the context of agentic IS designed for behaviour regulation and modification in work settings. As far as I am aware, this study is the first to merge two bodies of framing literature to conceptualise human-AI interaction as a form of frame interaction within the IS field. The study offers valuable empirical insights for IS researchers, AI designers and organisations interested in effectively integrating AI technologies in the workplace.</strong></p>

show abstract

Section: Contributionssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Time and Task Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human-Ai Interaction in Regulating Productivity and Wellbeing

Ekandjo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, to make these evaluation processes fair and appropriate, recruiters need to pay a lot of attention to pre-defining their choices for the chatbots [ 124 ]. Looking at emerging human–artificial intelligence collaboration highlights, among others, the need for human decision-making authority and technical system transparency and reliability of technology [ 125 ]. Three further identified criteria refer on a superordinate level to the overall system of work specifically addressing aspects of social responsibility in work design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria and Guidelines for Human-Centered Work Design in a Digitally Transformed World of Work: Findings from a Formal Consensus Process

Tegtmeier

Weber²,

Sommer

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing digital transformation, work tasks are changing—in some cases, significantly. Our study addresses the question of whether the established criteria for work design are still sufficient or if they should get updated and additional criteria become necessary in the context of digitalization. In a multistage consensus process involving interdisciplinary groups of experts, we have identified specific criteria for the humane design of work in a world increasingly permeated by digitalized work tools. Starting with an expert workshop using a combined nominal group/focus group technique, followed by a real-time Delphi study, a content analysis and a five-stage peer comment process, we detected 13 criteria and 38 design guidelines for human-centered work in digital transformation. Mapping these with established criteria, it became apparent that some established criteria have experienced a new dynamic because of the digital transformation. For other criteria, a need for digitization-sensitive design is discernible. In addition, criteria have emerged whose necessity is rooted in the digital transformation. A diffusion and stronger interconnection of the various levels of the work system in connection with the digital transformation of work is apparent.

show abstract