On the Capabilities of Digimaterial Artifacts
Structures, Symbols, Actions
Lars Bækgaard
Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University,
Birk Centerpark 15, DK-7400, Herning, Denmark
Keywords: Digital Artifacts, Digimaterial Artifacts, Digimaterial Capabilities.
Abstract: The purpose of the paper is to propose and discuss three types of capabilities of digimaterial artifacts like
laptop computers, cameras, cars, robots etc. Digimaterial artifacts are material artifacts that combine digital
and non-digital elements by bearing one or more digital artifacts. Digital artifacts are linguistic expressions
like, say, binary sequences of 0's and 1's. Software and databases are examples of digital artifacts. Paper
pieces with digital inscriptions and cars with data and software are examples of digimaterial artifacts.
Digimaterial artifacts can bear, and potentially manipulate, digital artifacts. We describe and discuss
digimaterial structures and the capabilities that are enabled by these structures. And we describe and discuss
the plastic nature of such structures and capabilities. We expect that our work can be used to understand
digimaterial capabilities and to analyse and design digimaterial structures that possess a relevant set of
capabilities.
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose if this paper is to define and discuss
three types of capabilities that can be used to
characterize the similarities and dissimilarities
between artifacts like cameras, laptop computers,
printers, smartphones, robots, and cars. Such
artifacts may have capabilities that are based on a
combination of digital and non-digital elements. A
smartphone has storage capabilities for digital data,
technology for processing of digital data, and a
material body. Similarly, a camera may be
constituted by digital storage and processing
technology and material components like glass.
Terms like IT artifacts (Orlikowski and Iacono
2001), digital artifacts (Kallinikos, Aaltonen et al.
2013), digitalized artifacts (Yoo 2010), and digital
technology (Yoo, Henfridsson et al. 2010) can be
used to denote different aspects of artifacts that
combine digital and material elements. The term IT
artifacts can be used to refer to a totality of
information and technology (Goldkuhl 2013). The
term digital artifact can be used to refer to digitally
represented data and software (Kallinikos, Aaltonen et
al. 2013). The term digital technology can be used to
refer to technological artifacts with digital storage and
processing capabilities (Yoo, Henfridsson et al. 2010).
In order to avoid term ambiguity, we distinguish
between digital artifacts and digimaterial artifacts.
We use the term digital artifact to denote
information artifacts like binary expressions and bar
codes. Digital artifacts can be viewed as non-
material artifacts that can be materialized by
material artifacts that bear them (Faulkner and
Runde 2011, Faulkner and Runde 2013). A piece of
software may be viewed as a digital artifact that is
constituted by a binary expression, i.e., a sequence
of zeroes and ones. This sequence is, in itself, a
conceptual, linguistic entity. It is non-material. A
hard disk or a USB drive may bear a representation
of the software. These artifacts are examples of
digimaterial artifacts. An e-book is a digital artifact
that is constituted by binary expressions. An e-book
reader that bears the e-book is a digimaterial artifact.
We use the term digimaterial artifact to denote
material artifacts that bear (and potentially
manipulates) one or more digital artifacts. We present
and discuss essential characteristics of digimaterial
artifacts.
Our conceptualization can be used to understand
the digital artifacts that are beared by and processed
by means of digimaterial artifacts. Also, it can be
used to understand how the potential capabilities of
digimaterial artifacts depend on a combination of
Bækgaard, L.
On the Capabilities of Digimaterial Artifacts.
DOI: 10.5220/0006808503930397
In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2018), pages 393-397
ISBN: 978-989-758-298-1
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
393
digital and non-digital elements.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2,
we define the notion of digital artifacts. In Section 3,
we discuss the notion of digimaterial artifacts. In
Section 4, we define and discuss three types of
capabilities that digimaterial artifacts may possess.
In Section 5, we discuss the plastic nature of
digimaterial artifacts. In Section 6, we discuss our
findings, conclude the paper and suggest directions
for future research.
2 DIGITAL ARTIFACTS
In this section, we discuss essential characteristics of
digital artifacts like databases, text files, software
etc. The purpose is to create an understanding of the
roles played by digital artifacts in artifacts like
laptop computers, cameras, robots, cars etc. In order
to distinguish between digital and material aspects of
such artifacts we distinguish between digital artifacts
and the digimaterial artifacts that bear digital
artifacts.
We view a digital artifact as a linguistic
expression that is based on set of discrete symbols.
In the present paper, we focus solely on binary
digital artifacts where information is represented by
means of sequences of bits (binary digits). Usually,
the symbols 0 and 1 are used to represent binary
digits in the binary numeral system in which sequen-
ces of bits are used to represent numbers that in turn
may represent software, images, text, music etc.
The syntax and semantics of the binary numeral
system can be represented by written expressions on,
say, a piece of paper and the same holds for binary
expressions. The piece of paper can be called a
bearer of the expressions (Faulkner and Runde 2011,
Faulkner and Runde 2013). Bearers and the
expressions they bear represent a material aspect of
language. Databases, software, configuration files,
digital music files, digital image files, digital text
files etc. are examples of digital artifacts.
Binary expressions can be viewed as non-
material artifacts (Faulkner and Runde 2011,
Faulkner and Runde 2013). However, digital
artifacts become material-like when material
artifacts bear them (Leonardi 2010).
Digital artifacts can be divided into connected
components (Parnas 1972, Bækgaard 1990,
Henfridsson, Mathiassen et al. 2009, Kallinikos and
Mariátegui 2011).
Data Components can be based on media files
(Kallinikos and Mariátegui 2011) or databases
(Codd 1970, Chen 1976). Media files like images,
videos, text etc. can be divided into data components
and distributed on a number of digimaterial artifacts.
Likewise, databases can be divided into data
compoments and districuted on a number of
digimaterial artifacts.
Software Components can be procedures based
on procedural programming languages. Also,
software components can be parameters that
represent software properties in a way that can be
used to change selected software properties without
changing the source code itself (Bækgaard 1990).
3 DIGIMATERIAL ARTIFACTS
In this section, we discuss essential characteristics of
digimaterial artifacts. We view a digimaterial
artifact as a material artifact that bears one or more
digital artifacts. Binary expressions constitute the
digital core of contemporary digimaterial artifacts.
No material artifacts are completely digital. There
will always be non-digital elements in material
artifacts. A digimaterial artifact may (but does not
have to) contain technology that can process digital
artifacts.
3.1 Components
A digimaterial artifact is constituted by a set of
material components. At least one of the connected
components must be a digimaterial artifact. Some
components may have no digital elements. For
example, the front glass plates on many smartphones
are purely non-digital. Digimaterial components
combine material and digital aspects.
3.2 Connectivity
Mechanical Connections. Material components may
be connected by means of mechanical connections.
For example, car components like doors and car
bodies may be connected be means of mechanical
connections between the components.
Electrical Connections. Digimaterial components
may be connected by means of a combination of
mechanical and electrical connections. For example,
car components like steering wheels and driving
wheels my be connected by means of a combination
of material and electrical connections between
components.
Digital Connections. Electrical connections can
be used to establish digital connections by
interpreting binary electrical signals as binary
information. This makes digimaterial artifacts
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
394
communicable (Yoo 2010) by facilitating sharing of
binary information across digimaterial artifacts.
Individual digimaterial artifacts or groups of
digimaterial artifacts can be selected as targets
because they are addressable (Yoo 2010).
Digital Associations. Digital components may be
associated by means of relationships between data
elements (Codd 1970, Chen 1976) or by means of
hyperlinks in, say, Web 2.0 structures. Digital
components may be related to and identified with
other entities (such as other artifacts, places, and
people) based on certain commonly shared
attributes. Digital associativity is enabled by tags,
keywords, or affiliation patterns (Yoo 2010).
Connectivity enables the distribution of
digimaterial components on a variety of locations
and distribution of digital artifacts across a variery
of digimaterial artifacts (Kallinikos, Aaltonen et al.
2013).
4 DIGIMATERIAL
CAPABILITIES
In this section, we create a vocabulary that captures
essential similarities and dissimilarities between
digimaterial artifacts. We propose three types of
digimaterial capabilities. We suggest that the
capabilities of digimaterial artifacts can be classified
as structural capabilities, symbolic capabilities, and
action capabilities.
4.1 Structural Capabilities
Digimaterial structures can be viewed as capabilities
in their own right. Digimaterial artifacts can possess
such structural capabilities. A car can keep driver
and passengers in fixed positions on seats while the
car is driving. A robot can grap an object and keep it
in a fixed position. An elevator system can keep a
car at a fixed position in a hoistway. The spatial
distribution of a digimaterial artifact distributes
access to the artifact.
4.2 Symbolic Capabilities
Digimaterial artifacts can possess symbolic
capabilities. Often, the symbolic capabilities of
digimaterial artifacts are based on the digital
artifacts they bear. Binary information stored on
hard disks can represent sound, text, images, movies
etc. The information can be presented on, say,
displays in ways that are relevant for human beings.
The symbolic capabilities of digital artifacts are
the basis of information systems that capture, store,
manipulate and present information (Checkland and
Holwell 1998, Avison and Fitzgerald 2006, Alter
2008). A digimaterial artifact can use action
capabilities like control, modify, sense, and move to
process digital artifacts with the intention of
manipulating their symbolic capabilities.
4.3 Action Capabilities
Digimaterial artifacts can possess action capabilities.
An action capability is a type of action that a
digimaterial artifact can perform. Below, we focus
on four types of such action capabilities: Control,
Modify, Sense, and Move (Bækgaard 2006,
Bækgaard 2011, Bækgaard 2016).
Control is an action capability that makes
it possible for a digimaterial artifact to request
that a target object executes a specified action
(Bækgaard 2016). Digimaterial artifacts can control
(digi)material artifacts. For example, a smartphone
with suitable apps can be used to control heating
devices and drones.
Modify is an action capability that makes it
possible for a digimaterial artifact to modify the
state of a target object (Bækgaard 2016). For
example, 3D printers can transform ink into 3-
dimensional objects. And programmers can modify
software. Many digimaterial artifacts can process
binary expressions. Binary expressions can be used
to control the manipulation and transformation of
binary expressions.
Sense is an action capability that makes it
possible for a digimaterial artifact to sense aspects of
the states of target objects (Yoo 2010, Bækgaard
2016). Digital cameras can sense light waves.
Digital watches can sense movement.
Move is an action capability that makes it
possible for a digimaterial artifact to change the
location of a material target object (Bækgaard 2016).
For example, robots can move material objects.
Digimaterial objects like drones and cars can move
themselves. Digital artifacts cannot be moved. They
can be copied and deleted. Apparent movement of
digital artifacts can be imitated by means of a
combination of sense and modify (delete).
5 PLASTICITY
Digimaterial artifacts are plastic in these sense that
they can be modified (Bækgaard 1990, Yoo,
Henfridsson et al. 2010, Kallinikos, Aaltonen et al.
On the Capabilities of Digimaterial Artifacts
395
2013). The plasticity of a digimaterial artifact is to a
large extent enabled by the flexibility and
modifiability of the digital artifacts it bears.
Digital artifacts like Internet pages (Kallinikos,
Aaltonen et al. 2013), image files (Kessler 2009),
and search engines (Orlikowski 2007) are modifi-
able. Digital artifacts are expandable (Kallinikos,
Aaltonen et al. 2013) within the limits of the storage
capabilities of the bearing digimaterial artifacts.
Programmed rules can be expressed as a
combination of software and parameters (Bækgaard
1990). If the software or the parameters are changed,
the programmed rules and thereby the logic of the
computer is changed and its behaviour is changed
correspondingly.
Traditional digimaterial artifacts like computers
can be viewed as implementations of Turing
machines. A Turing machine is a conceptual model
of a programmable machine (Turing 1936). A
specific instance of a Turing machine uses a set of
programmed rules to transform numbers to numbers.
Likewise, a computer uses programmed rules to
transform bit sequences to bit sequences.
Usually, the programmed rules are expressed by
means of a combination of software (expressed by
means of programming languages) and parameters
(Bækgaard 1990). If the software or the parameters
are changed, the programmed rules and thereby the
logic of the computer is changed and its behavior is
changed correspondingly.
The plasticity of digimaterial artifacts that is
rooted in the flexibility and modifiability of the
beared digital artifacts has a number of important
implications as illustrated by the following
examples.
Programmability. Digimaterial artifacts are
partially programmable (Yoo 2010). They can
accept new logic to modify their structures and the
enabled capabilities.
Late Binding. Digimaterial artifacts support late
binding of properties (Hylving, Henfridsson et al.
2012).
Weak Coupling. The structures of digimaterial
artifacts are plastic and the coupling between form
and function is weakened (Autio, Nambisan et al.
2018).
Flexible Use. Digimaterial artifacts possess use
plasticity in the sense that there are multiple ways of
activating functions and exploring information
(Kallinikos, Aaltonen et al. 2013). For example,
there are multiple ways to explore the content of
databases.
Flexible Re-configuration. Digimaterial artifacts
can be designed as flexible assemblages, i.e. "...
arrangements of different entities linked together to
form a new whole ..." (Müller 2015). Typically, the
digimaterial artifacts that constitute an assemblage
are autonomous and their connections are flexible.
6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION
AND FUTURE WORK
Our conceptualizations can be viewed as a
generalization and unification of existing
conceptualizations (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001,
Yoo 2010, Yoo, Henfridsson et al. 2010, Goldkuhl
2013, Kallinikos, Aaltonen et al. 2013, Matook and
Brown 2017).
We have defined a digital artifact as a linguistic
expression that is based on a discrete set of symbols
like, say, the binary numeral system. And we have
defined a digimaterial artifact as a material artifact
that bears one or more digital artifacts. Binary digital
artifacts (bit sequences) can be stored directly on
and by manipulated by contemporary technology
with digital capabilities. For example, a laptop
computer may be viewed as a digimaterial artifact
that bears binary digital artifacts like software and
databases. As another example, many cameras may
be viewed as digimaterial artifacts that bears binary
digital artifacts like image files and image
processing software.
We have characterized the plastic structures of
digimaterial artifacts in terms of connected and
layered components. We have characterized the
capabilities of digimaterial artifacts in terms of
action capabilities, symbolic capabilities, and
structural capabilities. Each capability type applies
to the digital as well as the material aspects of
digimaterial artifacts. Many digimaterial systems are
based on a combination of the three types of
capabilities.
The capability types can be used to unite two
important applications of digimaterial artifacts.
First, they can be used to characterize information
systems perspective where the symbolic capabilities
are at the core. In such systems, the material aspects
and the enabled action capabilities support the
symbolic capabilities. For example, an ERP system
may be based on symbolic capabilities (for example,
digitally represented information), action capabilities
(for example, capture and manipulation of
information), and structural capabilities (for
example, distribution of access to the system and its
information).
ICEIS 2018 - 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
396
Second, they can be used to support the material
perspective perspective where structural capabilities
and material action capabilities are at the core. In
such systems, the digital artifacts support the
material action capabilities. For example, a robot
may be based on symbolic capabilities (for example,
information that represents its actions), action
capabilities (for examole, movement of robot arms),
and structural capabilities (for example, the ability to
hold an object in a fixed position).
Future work includes experiments with the use
of our conceptualizations for analysis and design of
networks of digimaterial artifacts.
REFERENCES
Alter, S. (2008). Defining Information Systems as Work
Systems: Implications for the IS Field. European
Journal of Information Systems. 17: 448-469.
Autio, E., et al. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial
affordances, and the genesis of entreprenerurial
ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal.
Avison, D. E. and G. Fitzgerald (2006). Information
Systems Development. Methodologies, Techniques &
Tools. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Bækgaard, L. (1990). Designing Adaptable Software -
Parametrization of Volatile Properties. Conference on
Software Maintenance. San Diego, California, USA.
Bækgaard, L. (2006). Interaction in Information Systems -
Beyond Human Computer Interaction. Conference on
Action in Language, Action in Language,
Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS'06).
Borås, Sweden.
Bækgaard, L. (2011). A Socio-Technical Approach to
Interaction Modeling. Americas Conference on
Information Systems - AMCIS'2011. Detroit, USA.
Bækgaard, L. (2016). On the Capabilities of Digital
Artifacts. AIS SIGPRAG 2016. Pre-ICIS Workshop on
Practice-based Design and Innovation of Digital
Artifacts. Dublin, Ireland.
Checkland, P. and S. Holwell (1998). Information,
Systems, and Information Systems. Wiley.
Chen, P. P. (1976). The Entity-Relationship Model -
Towards a Unified View of Data. ACM Transactions
on Database Systems.
Codd, E. F. (1970). A Relational Model of Data for Large
Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM.
Faulkner, P. and J. Runde (2011). The Social, the
Material, and the Ontology of Non-Material
Technological Objects. 27th European Group for
Organizational Studies Colloquium. Sweden.
Faulkner, P. and J. Runde (2013). Technological objects,
social positions, and the transformational model of
social activity. MIS Quarterly. 373(3): 803-818.
Goldkuhl, G. (2013). The IT artefact: An ensemble of the
social and the technical? – A rejoinder. Systems, Signs
& Actions. 7(1): 90-99.
Henfridsson, O., et al. (2009). Reconfiguring Modularity:
Closing Capability Gaps in Digital Innovation.
Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems. 9:
1-30.
Hylving, L, et al., (2012). The Role of Dominant Design
in a Product Developing Firm´s Digital Innovation.
Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Application. 13(2).
Kallinikos, J. and J.-C. Mariátegui (2011). Video as
Digital Object: Production and Distribution of Video
Content in the Internet Media Ecosystem. The
Information Society. 27(5): 281-294.
Kallinikos, J., et al. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of
Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly. 37(2): 357-370.
Kessler, F. (2009). What you get is what you see. Digital
images and the claim on the real. In Van den Boomen,
M., et al. Digital Material. Tracing New Media in
Everyday Life and Technology
. Amsterdam University
Press.
Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts
without matter, matter. First Monday. 15(6).
Matook, S. and S. A. Brown (2017). Characteristics of IT
artifacts: a systems thinking-based framework for
delineating and theorizing IT artifacts. Information
System Journal. 27: 309-346.
Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor-networks:
Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space.
Geography Compass. 9(1): 27-41.
Orlikowski, W. J. and C. S. Iacono (2001). Research
Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT
Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact.
Information Systems Research. 12(2): 121-134.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices:
Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies.
28(9).
Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the Criteria to be Used in
Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications
of the ACM. 15(12): 1053-1058.
Turing, A. (1936). On computable numbers, with an
application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings
of the London Mathematical Society.
Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for
Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly
34(2): 213-231.
Yoo, Y., et al. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of
Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information
Systems Research. Information Systems Research
21(4): 724-735.
On the Capabilities of Digimaterial Artifacts
397