DESIGN OF ORGANISATIONAL UBIQUITOUS INFORMATION

SYSTEMS: DIGITAL NATIVE AND DIGITAL IMMIGRANT

PERSPECTIVES

Khushbu Tilvawala, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management,

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, k.tilvawala@auckland.ac.nz

David Sundaram, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management,

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, d.sundaram@auckland.ac.nz

Michael Myers, Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, University

of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, m.myers@auckland.ac.nz

Abstract

Digital natives are those who have grown up in a digital world where the use of information and

communications technologies is pervasive and ubiquitous. Digital immigrants are those who learnt to

use computers at some stage during their adult life. This paper discusses the design of Organisational

Ubiquitous Information Systems for digital natives and digital immigrants. Organisational Ubiquitous

Information Systems (oUIS) refer to information systems available through many devices such as

smart phones that are used by employees of an organisation anytime and anywhere to achieve specific

work related goal(s). Based on interviews with digital natives and digital immigrants in one of the

leading software companies in the world, our findings suggest that digital natives and immigrants

have different perspectives and priorities when it comes to the design of oUIS. This paper discusses

these differences and the implications for the design of oUIS.

Keywords: Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems, Ubiquitous Information Systems, Digital

Natives, Digital Immigrants

1 INTRODUCTION

Digital natives are those who have grown up in a digital world where the use of information and

communications technologies is pervasive and ubiquitous. Digital immigrants are those who learnt to

use computers at some stage during their adult life (Vodanovich, Sundaram, & Myers, 2010). This

paper discusses the design of Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems for digital natives (DNs)

and digital immigrants (DIs). Organisational Ubiquitous Information Systems (oUIS) refer to

information systems available through many devices such as smart phones that are used by employees

of an organisation anytime and anywhere to achieve specific work related goal(s).

Most of the research in the field of information systems has focused on Traditional Information

Systems (TIS) in organisations used by DIs. However, as DNs begin to enter the workforce, they bring

with them various UIS that they have been using in their personal lives. Researchers note that

organisations may be ill prepared to adapt to the influx of DNs and UIS. This is because firstly,

organisations are already struggling with the adoption of UIS and related challenges (Marin, 2004);

and secondly, there is a lack of research and empirical evidence on the differences between DNs and

DIs in the context of organisations (Tilvawala, Myers, & Sundaram, 2011). Specifically, there is a lack

of research on the differences between DN and DI interaction with oUIS. This paper discusses the

oUIS design requirements for DNs and DIs. Based on interviews with DNs and DIs in one of the

leading software companies in the world, our findings suggest that DNs and DIs have different

perspectives and priorities when it comes to the design of oUIS. This paper discusses the different

perspectives and their implications for the design of oUIS.

2 UBIQUITOUS INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN ORGANISATIONS

The advent of ubiquitous information systems goes back to more than 20 years (Weiser, 1991). In the

past decade, several researchers studied UIS and its implications on organisations (Funabashi et al.,

2005; Lyytinen et al., 2004; Poslad, 2009; Sørensen, 2010). UIS enable enterprise mobility and offer

rich tools with computing and communication capabilities (Kleinrock, 2001). However, practitioners

and researchers have found that UIS comes with a set of challenges and limitations when used within

an organisation; and its adoption is inhibited by both internal and external factors (Lyytinen et al.,

2004; Scheepers & Scheepers, 2003). Key problems include size and processing limitations of

ubiquitous devices, heterogeneity, integration, support, and new security and privacy risks (Elgar

Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006; Sørensen, Group, & Yoo, 2005). The increasing use of UIS therefore raises

the need to re-visit organisations’ IT activities and business practices (Sambamurthy & Zmud, 2000).

This paper focuses on the design of a particular type of ubiquitous information system used in

organisations - systems used by employees of an organisation to achieve specific work related goal(s).

Based on past research on UIS in organisations, their implications can be summarised in five themes

as shown in Table 1.

Implications of adopting UIS in

organisations

References

Changes to workplace interaction and

communication

(Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Norman & Allen, 2005),

(BlackBerry, 2010), (Elgar Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006),

(E. Fleisch & Thiesse, 2007), (Marmaridis & Unhelkar,

2005), (Janet & Shafer, 2011)

Changes in work practices (Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Norman & Allen, 2005), (Elgar

Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006), (E. Fleisch & Thiesse,

2007)

Changes in work governance/management

capability

(Lyytinen et al., 2004), (Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005),

(Janet & Shafer, 2011), (E. Fleisch & Thiesse, 2007)

Changes in organisational capabilities (Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005), (Norman & Allen,

2005), (Janet & Shafer, 2011), (BlackBerry, 2010),

(Elgar Fleisch & Tellkamp, 2006), (E. Fleisch &

Thiesse, 2007)

Changes in IT infrastructures and resources (Norman & Allen, 2005), (Lyytinen et al., 2004),

(Marmaridis & Unhelkar, 2005), (BlackBerry, 2010)

Table 1. The implications of UIS in organisations

3 DIGITAL NATIVES IN ORGANISATIONS

The concept of digital natives was first discussed by Prensky (2001a). Most of the research about DNs

has since been conducted in education, learning and psychology (Marilee & Sprenger, 2010;

McMahon & Pospisil, 2005; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; M Prensky, 2005; Tapscott, 2008). As DNs enter

the workforce with technologies such as Facebook and Twitter (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), there is a

need for research on DNs in organisations. Researchers find that DNs expect to use the same kind of

UIS that they have been using in their personal lives in organisations (Boulton, 2007; Fister, 2010). In

addition, they and bring with them a new work style and dynamics to the organisation. Many

organisations are therefore struggling to adapt to the wave of DNs entering organisations (Basso, 2008;

Manafy & Gautschi, 2011). Monica Basso, a Gartner research vice president, states that “by 2018,

their impact on the workplace will drive significant change in our approach to technology, business

processes and organizational structure” (Basso, 2008). And it is believed that this trend will only

increase as 75% of the workforce will be DNs by 2025 (Moore, 2012).

4 DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS IN ORGANISATIONS

This section looks at digital immigrants in organisations. Most of the research in information systems

have been based on data obtained from digital immigrants (Vodanovich et al., 2010).

Overall, DIs are said to have a better understanding of business structures. DIs view systems and

business processes holistically; they are able to understand better the advantages and disadvantages of

using technology for certain tasks as they tend to compare new technology with the non-technology

world. DIs tends to prefer some technologies over others e.g. they prefer email rather than sending a

text via a mobile phone.

Based on literature review, Table 2 summarises the characteristics and implications of DNs and DIs in

four themes. The table also includes potential pros and cons as a result of the differences between DN

and DI characteristics in the organisational context.

Theme DN Characteristics

DI Characteristics

Connectivity

and

Collaboration

dynamics

DNs like constant connectivity and prefer to bring their

own ubiquitous technologies (Boulton, 2007).

DNs like immediacy and real-time feedback facilitated

by highly interactive systems (Nortel, 2008; Weil,

2010).

DNs tend to multi-task (Tulgan, 2009).

DIs tend to resist new technologies. In fact, with every new

technology introduced, organisations have to spend a lot of

resources on user training and user acceptance. Much of past IS

research focuses on such problems (Davis, 1989).

DIs are better with non-interactive systems like large-scale data

manipulation or transaction processing, or systems which

require great reliability or scalability (Harwell, 2009).

DIs are generally focused on one task at a time, done properly.

They are known to have longer attention spans.

Pros:

Organisations can keep DNs on track by tapping into the various lines of communication and connectivity they prefer.

DNs are said to excel in technological innovations if provided the right support and tools (Hopkins, 2010; Tulgan, 2009).

The increased connectivity improves collaboration abilities (Fister, 2010; Hopkins, 2010).

Improved productivity with multi-tasking abilities.

Cons:

Organisation information security is at stake. It is a major issue for the IT department in terms of tracking all devices that hold sensitive

organisational information (Haahr, 2010).

Increased costs of supporting connectivity tools.

Reduced productivity if time is spent on irrelevant work.

Communication and

Business

relationships

DNs tend to be weaker in face-to-face communication

(Mullen, 2011; Small & Vorgan, 2008), and prefer

text-based systems for communication (Nie &

Hillygus, 2002; Marc Prensky, 2001a):

Are said to be very good with non-verbal cues (Mullen, 2011).

DIs tend to use formal, organisation approved communication

channels such as the phone, detailed emails, or face-to-face

meetings.

Pros:

If provided the tools they are comfortable with, they may make some ground breaking or surprising relationships that organisations may have

not considered (Boulton, 2007).

Cons:

Poor trust based relationships with partner organisations due to changes in communication (Mullen, 2011).

Entertainment and

Gamification

DNs surround themselves with entertainment

technologies and gamification tools .(Beck & Wade,

2004; Marc Prensky, 2001b).

Entertainment and gamification are not important to DIs.

Pros:

Organisations can introduce entertainment and gamification elements in the systems that DNs interact with for improved productivity (Manafy &

Gautschi, 2011; Mathiak & Weber, 2006)/employee morale.

A key feature of these tools is rewards. Organisations can bring in a similar culture of rewarding DN employees for both big and small

accomplishments. This may improve employee confidence and overall morale at work (Rainie, 2006).

It is important to acknowledge and show DNs how their work matters, making them more committed to the organisation.

Cons:

DNs may not be understood with their different thought patterns and game-based metaphors.

Independent and

Self-managing

business structures

DNs want to be entrepreneurs, and don’t like

hierarchies (Filloux, 2010). They prefer to manage

themselves.

DNs like the flexibility of working anytime, anywhere

(Haahr, 2010).

DIs are used to vertical, top-down organisational hierarchies

Seniority and experience are respected. DIs therefore aim to

work up the ladder in the organisation.

DIs tend to be reliant on IT departments and management for

support and guidance with work.

Work-life boundaries are clearly distinguished.

Pros:

A hands-free approach by management may imply lower spending on resources, and enabling more creativity in the work environment.

The ability to gradually change the organisational culture to purely results-oriented work environments where each employee takes responsibility.

This change can be leveraged with the improved connectivity and collaboration abilities to keep all employees in focus of the ultimate organisational

vision and strategy.

Do not micro manage, but constantly remind employees of where the organisation is heading, and how they fit in the bigger picture.

Cons:

Difficult to manage/govern in a self-managing work culture.

Table 2. Characteristics of DNs and DIs in the organisational context

5 RESEARCH METHOD

In order to explore the different perspectives and priorities of DNs and DIs with respect to the design

of oUIS, we conducted a qualitative research study in one of the leading software companies in the

world. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in one of the local subsidiaries of this company in

Auckland, New Zealand (Hermanns, 2004).

A mix of potential DN and DI participants were sought. Twelve participants were selected on the basis

of “years spent in the workforce” as recent research suggests that DNs are now entering organisations

(Palfrey & Gasser, 2008). Specifically, potential DI participants were those that had been in the

workforce for more than 4 years; and potential DN participants were those that had just entered the

workforce i.e. a full time proper job for not more than 2 years. Face to face interviews lasting

approximately one hour were conducted with each interviewee. The interviews were three phased,

where the third phase was focused on understanding the oUIS design requirements of DNs and DIs.

All interviews were audio recorded to conduct a further analysis of the responses.

The artefact used in the interview was adapted from a revised set of UIS design dimensions for DNs

and DIs proposed by Tilvawala et al. (2011). The dimensions were simplified for the interview by

collating various related elements. Table 3 shows the final artefact used in the interview.

Table 3. Interview artefact: oUIS Design dimensions

Participants were asked to rate the importance of each design dimension in an oUIS. The rating was

based on a scale of 1-10, where 1 = not important, and 10 = very important. Participant answers to

ratings were explored further with questions about their reasons for their ratings. All answers were

based on the participants’ perceptions and experience with the various oUIS they had been using so far.

Therefore, the purpose of this artefact was twofold: to gather participants’ experiences and perception

on the importance of the oUIS design dimensions; and to compare the importance of the various

design dimensions to the participant’s digital nativity (as determined from the first phase of the

interview). The idea was to determine if there were any differences between DNs and DIs with respect

to the design dimensions and requirements for oUIS.

6 FINDINGS

Table 4 provides a summary of the organisational UIS used by the participants in our study and the

corresponding business processes or activities supported by them. In terms of the overall use of UIS

for work purposes, none of the participants had dedicated oUIS provided by the organisation. Instead,

there was a combination of UIS being used to support various activities that the participants were

engaged in. Some participants note that they use “tons of them…there’s probably about 30 or 40 plus

tools that I used on a weekly basis”.

Table 4. Summary of oUIS used by the participants

UIS used for work Business process(es) supported

Microsoft Office productivity suite

Primarily sales related activities: sales excellence

processes, quota attainment, delivering proposals,

quotes, general information to customers, raising

purchase orders.

Approving work flows like expenses, hours worked,

and parts of the process emailed to accept client docs

via email.

Taking notes in meetings and brainstorming ideas; for

tracking tasks and projects.

Making conference calls or meetings.

MSN messenger

Email

Microsoft Lync

One Note

Calendar

Photos

Maps (Tom Tom)

Internet browser

Adobe reader

Evernote

Tweet deck

Remember the Milk

CRM online

Dropbox

BI and reporting tools

Portals

Sharepoint

Skype

Webex

Figure 1 summarises the overall average ratings for each oUIS related design dimension for both DNs

and DIs. It addresses the purpose of gathering participants’ perception on the importance of the oUIS

design dimensions.

Figure 1. Overall average importance of oUIS design dimensions

With respect to the differences between DNs and DIs and the design dimensions and requirements for

oUIS, our findings suggest that there are some differences between the two groups.

Figure 2. DN and DI average ratings of oUIS design dimensions

0123456789

10

Aver

age

rati

ng (

0=

not

imp

ort

ant,

10

= v

ery

imp

ort

ant)

Figure 2 compares the average ratings of digital natives and digital immigrants with regards to the

importance they place on various design dimensions for oUIS. As can be seen, there are differences

and similarities in DN and DI ratings of the dimensions. Overall, the ratings alone do not represent

significant differences. However, questions on the reasons for the various participant ratings revealed

differences in participant perceptions of the design dimensions. We discuss these in detail below.

The Functionality dimension was rated most important by both DN and DI participants. For DNs,

good design involved focusing on core functionality, keeping it simple; and working on advanced

features later through constant improvement and upgrades. Especially in the context of an

organisation, functionality involved balancing all business and system related elements i.e. useful,

measurable, feedback, adaptive, scalable. Both DNs and DIs suggested that ensuring functionality

meant higher user satisfaction by meeting user expectations. For DIs, functionality meant being of

good quality, and intuitive.

Usability was rated equally important for both DNs and DIs. The perception of “Usability” however

varied between the two. For DNs, Usability was described as “very, very, very important”. It included

aesthetics, fewer clicks, being intuitive, easy to use, understandable, good graphics, functionality, and

user ability. For DIs, good usability was if it was relevant, understandable, and met expectations based

on the device or operating system.

Reliability was rated equally important for both DNs and DIs. For DNs, reliability is extremely

important in oUIS, where quick decision making and immediacy is required. Some DNs mentioned

that reliability is more important than usability for an oUIS.

DNs rated Performance as more important than DIs. However, upon analysing participant comments,

neither DNs nor DIs rated it as the most important of dimensions. Both user groups had comments

pointing towards the general “impatient” nature of humans. But also, there was a certain level of

tolerance when it came to performance, as long as it functions well: “You create an app that functions

100%, well if it's a bit slow it's alright”. For DNs, speed and efficiency in terms of memory usage was

rated very important. Overall, for most participants, performance was not described as a major issue

with any UIS because they did not use them for very high, complex processing. However, there is a

limit to this tolerance.

Supportability was more important to DNs. They noted that supportability is important depending on

the purpose of the oUIS.

Reach was rated as more important by DIs than DNs. For DNs, Reach is dependent on the type of

oUIS, but on the whole not very relevant considering most smart devices are always connected

everywhere.

The Range of Tasks the UIS is able to support is more important for DNs in general than it is for DIs.

DNs expected to perform only simple activities i.e. doing complex things (but “in a simple way -

could be multiple simple things”). Range, functionality and usability may therefore be trade-offs in

oUIS design. For DIs, there was a bit of blurring in opinions regarding range, functionality, and

usefulness. They all went hand in hand.

Overall, both DNs and DIs rated Integration equally. DIs had little or no feedback on the dimension

as such, but DNs mentioned that it is “extremely important to have integration (inter-operability)

between various oUIS and UIS”.

Human Computer Interaction was rated as being more important to DNs than DIs. DIs had little or

no feedback on the design dimension. For DNs, attractiveness and desirability were important, and

customisability is nice to have, but not excessively.

In the context of an oUIS, the Entertainment dimension was not important to any of the participants.

While some DNs rated it slightly higher than the unanimous score of zero given by all DI participants,

overall it was the least desired design dimension by both DNs and DIs.

Transactional ability was rated as being equally important by both DNs and DIs. For both, it depends

on the purpose of the oUIS, but basic transactional ability is essential especially for an oUIS

facilitating smaller activities within a business process.

Decision support was also rated equally important for both DNs and DIs, but less important than

transactional ability. DNs felt that productivity and task supporting decisions are essential from an

oUIS, but not full blown Business Intelligence activities. DN participants acknowledged that Decision

support features are inhibited by limited screen size. For DIs, this was extremely important, especially

timeliness of information, immediacy.

DIs surprisingly rated Social aspect as more important than DNs. But DNs expressed a greater need

for it in their explanations in the interviews. DNs noted that collaboration elements are seen as being

complementary to several business activities, which eventually support bigger business processes.

Both DNs and DIs mentioned that it is becoming extremely important that an oUIS facilitates team

work and knowledge sharing.

Overall, Push capability was more important to DNs than DIs. For DNs it was important, but

depending on the purpose of the oUIS. For DIs, it was described as not very important.

Pull capability was also found to be more important to DNs than DIs, and overall more important than

Push capability. For DNs, this is a must have design dimension in any UIS.

Security and Privacy, although separate in the interview questionnaire, were inseparable in terms of

participant answers. Overall, these were the second most important design dimensions, after

Functionality; more so for DIs than DNs. They were described as extremely important in the context

of an oUIS due to the amount of sensitive data involved; “security and privacy are almost a core

functionality” for most oUIS.

Overall, most comments on the design dimensions were from DNs that seemed to have a deeper

understanding of the inter-relationships between various dimensions. Further, the findings verify the

extremely sensitive nature of designing and implementing oUIS. The interviews supported the claim

that designing a UIS is a constant balancing act (Weevers, 2011), and involves establishing the most

appropriate design trade-offs depending on the purpose of the oUIS. Some key trade-offs emerging

from the findings involve performance and functionality; functionality and reliability; and

performance and usability. No new design dimensions were established, and the data and participant

responses suggest that the list of dimensions used for the interview were comprehensive.

7 CONCLUSION

In recent years two major trends relevant to the field of information systems have emerged in

organisations and the society at large - the growth of UIS and the rise of the DNs (Vodanovich et al.,

2010). This paper has explored the different perspectives and priorities that DNs and DIs have when it

comes to the design of organisational UIS. This was fulfilled as part of a bigger research project

involving a multi-methodological approach.

Our findings show that, while there are only minor differences in the overall importance of design

dimensions between DNs and DIs, their perception of each design dimension varies notably.

One limitation of our study is that our data were obtained from one company only and hence this

limits the generalisability of our findings. However, this opens up a number of future research options

for researchers. The methodology and findings from this research can be used as a basis for

conducting similar studies in other organisations.

Another limitation is that some of the design dimensions may have been too highly aggregated in the

aim to simplify. Participants design preferences and requirements are best understood through

observation of their actual interaction with an oUIS. This calls for the use of tools such as user diaries

for a more insightful understanding of the topic.

Thirdly, since this company used for the study is one of the leading software companies in the world,

one might expect the DIs in this company to be more tech savvy than DIs elsewhere. One would

expect the differences between the DNs and DIs in this company to be less than in most other

companies. However, this last limitation is in fact one of the strong points of our study. Although the

differences between DNs and DIs are not huge, our findings show that there are at least some

differences between the two. The fact that we studied a leading software company suggests that the

differences between DNs and DIs would be much greater in almost any other company.

Overall, the research objective got affirmation for its relevance and need both in academia and

practice. This was through the feedback received from peers, the participants (employees of a software

company), as well as their managers. The findings of this research are particularly beneficial for

various practitioners. First, it helps organisations better understand the new workforce and their

technological requirements. For operating system vendors and system designers, the design

dimensions can be studied further to identify design trade-offs for UIS, and UIS development

platforms. IDC and similar studies on the growth of ubiquitous devices indicates that the “post-PC”

world is here (Eric, 2012), with mobile users exceeding desktop users. The contributions from this

research are therefore believed to be valuable for researchers and practitioners in a variety of contexts.

References

Basso, M. (2008, 28 July 2008). 2018: Digital Natives Grow Up and Rule the World. Retrieved 24

March, 2012, from http://www.gartner.com/id=733333

Beck, J., & Wade, M. (2004). Got Game: How the Gamer Generation Is Reshaping Business Forever:

{Harvard Business School Press}.

BlackBerry. (2010). Employee-owned Smartphones: Seize the Opportunity. Whitepaper, 4. Retrieved

from http://research.pcworld.com/whitepaper9488

Boulton, C. (2007). Digital Natives Will Drive Web 2.0 into Your Business. Messaging and Online

Collaboration News. Retrieved from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-

Collaboration/Digital-Natives-Will-Drive-Web-20-into-Your-Business/

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of

Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Eric. (2012). Worldwide smart connected device shipments, 2010-2016 (Unit Millions). Retrieved 12

July, 2012, from

http://accounts.icharts.net/portal/app?page=TeamChartDetail&sp=SM3rbyy9F&service=external

Filloux, F. (2010, 7 September). Understanding the Digital Natives. Retrieved from

http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/07/25/understanding-the-digital-natives/

Fister, J. (2010). The Digital Natives and You. Leadership. Retrieved April 2011, 2012, from

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/11/collaboration-teamwork-jim-fister-leadership-managing-

mitsloan.html

Fleisch, E., & Tellkamp, C. (2006). The Business Value of Ubiquitous Computing Technologies

Ubiquitous and Pervasive Commerce. In G. Roussos (Ed.), (pp. 93-113): Springer London.

Fleisch, E., & Thiesse, F. (2007). On the Management Implications of Ubiquitous Computing: An IS

Perspective, St. Gallen.

Funabashi, M., Homma, K., Sasaki, T., Sato, Y., Kido, K., Fukumoto, T., & Yano, K. (2005, 10-12

Oct. 2005). Socio-technical issues for ubiquitous information society in 2010. Paper presented at

the Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on.

Haahr, E. (2010). Business : Digital natives entering the job market - What will happen? Blog

Retrieved from http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=150396

Harwell. (2009, 10 December). Who’s Better at IT? Younger Digital Natives or Older Digital

Immigrants? Retrieved from http://blog.makingitclear.com/2009/10/14/betteratit/

Hermanns. (2004). Interviewing as an activity. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A

companion to qualitative research (pp. 209-213). London: Sage Publications.

Hopkins, M. (2010, 1 April 2010). The Digital Natives, and You. MIT Sloan Management

Review(Spring).

Janet, N. J., & Shafer, J. (Producer). (2011, 18 March). Nomadic computing. [Slide share presentation]

Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jeremyjshafer/nomadic-computing

Kleinrock, L. (2001). Breaking loose. Communications of the ACM, 44(9), 41-46. doi: citeulike-

article-id:3153184

Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., Varshney, U., Ackerman, M., Davis, G., Avital, M., . . . Sorensen, C. (2004).

Surfing the Next Wave: Design and Implementation Challenges of Ubiquitous Computing.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1/40).

Manafy, M., & Gautschi, H. (2011). http://dancingwithdigitalnatives.com/. Retrieved 11 May, 2012

Marilee, S., & Sprenger, M. (2010). Br@in-based teaching :) in the digital age: Alexandria, Va. :

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2010.

Marin, I. O. (2004). Information Systems Technology and its Applications (Vol. 48). Salt Lake City,

Utah, USA: GI.

Marmaridis, I., & Unhelkar, B. (2005, 11-13 July 2005). Challenges in mobile transformations: a

requirements modeling perspective for small and medium enterprises. Paper presented at the

Mobile Business, 2005. ICMB 2005. International Conference on.

Mathiak, K., & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural behavior: fMRI during violent

video games. Human Brain Mapping, 27(12), 948-956. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20234

McMahon, M., & Pospisil, R. (2005). Laptops for a digital lifestyle: millennial students and wireless

mobile technologies. Paper presented at the Ascilite conference, Brisbane.

Moore, B. (2012, 13 March). 6 Steps to Engaging Young Professionals. Retrieved 24 March, 2012,

from http://getworksimple.com/blog/2012/03/13/6-steps-to-engaging-young-professionals

Mullen, J. K. (2011). The Impact of Computer Use on Employee Performance in High-Trust

Professions: Re-Examining Selection Criteria in the Internet Age. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 41(8), 2009-2043. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00790.x

Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The Impact of Internet Use of Sociability: Time-Diary Findings.

IT & SOCIETY, 1(1), 1-20.

Norman, A., & Allen, D. (2005). Deployment and Use of Mobile Information Systems

Mobile Information Systems II. In J. Krogstie, K. Kautz & D. Allen (Eds.), (Vol. 191, pp. 203-228):

Springer Boston.

Nortel. (2008). The Hyperconnected: Here they come! Retrieved 18 July, 2011, from

http://www2.nortel.com/go/news_detail.jsp?cat_id=-9742&oid=100240224&locale=en-US

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.

New York: Basic Books.

Poslad, S. (2009). Ubiquitous computing: smart devices, environments and interactions: John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1.

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?

On the Horizon, 9(6). doi: citeulike-article-id:6057588

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13. Retrieved from

Rainie, L. (2006). New Workers, New Workplaces: Digital 'Natives' Invade the Workplace. Retrieved

from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2006/New-Workers-New-Workplaces.aspx

Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2000). Research Commentary: The Organizing Logic for an

Enterprise's IT Activities in the Digital Era--A Prognosis of Practice and a Call for Research. Info.

Sys. Research, 11(2), 105-114. doi: 10.1287/isre.11.2.105.11780

Scheepers, R., & Scheepers, H. (2003). Contexts of relevance in explanatory case studies in

information systems : ubiquitous information technology implementation in organizations. Paper

presented at the ICIS 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington.

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30036297

Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain : surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind:

Collins Living.

Sørensen, C. (2010). Cultivating Interaction Ubiquity at Work. The Information Society, 26(4), 276-

287. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2010.489856

Sørensen, C., Group, I. W., & Yoo, Y. (2005). Designing ubiquitous information environments:

sociotechnical issues and challenges : IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 international working conference, August

1-3, 2005, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World HC:

McGraw-Hill.

Tilvawala, K., Myers, M., & Sundaram, D. (2011). Design Of Ubiquitous Information Systems For

Digital Natives. Paper presented at the PACIS.

Tulgan, B. (2009). Not Everyone Gets A Trophy: How to Manage Generation Y. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Vodanovich, S., Sundaram, D., & Myers, M. (2010). Research Commentary---Digital Natives and

Ubiquitous Information Systems. Info. Sys. Research, 21(4), 711-723. doi: 10.1287/isre.1100.0324

Weevers, I. (2011, 18 July). Seven Guidelines For Designing High-Performance Mobile User

Experiences. Smashing magazine.

Weil, N. (2010). What the Influx of 'digital Natives' Will Mean for IT. Retrieved 3 March, 2012, from

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212237/what_the_influx_of_digital_natives_will_

mean_for_it.html

Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94-104.

doi: citeulike-article-id:771482