Co-creating Digital Services for Citizens: Activity Theory Analysis
Jari Jussila
1,2 a
, Joni Kukkamäki
2 b
and Nina Helander
3 c
1
HAMK Design Factory, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland
2
HAMK Smart Research Unit, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland
3
Unit of Information and Knowledge Management, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
Keywords: Digital Service, Co-creation, Activity Theory, Empirical Study.
Abstract: Smart city development relies heavily on creation of digital services that are available for the citizens and for
the city authorities. At best, these services are co-created by the authorities, citizens and the digital solution
supplier companies. Digital service co-creation is, however, a complex process and includes several
contradictions due to presence of several stakeholders. In this paper, we present a case study of smart city
initiated digital service co-creation process through the analytical lenses of activity theory.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the development of smart cities there is a
movement from top-down focus on city-planning and
resource utilization towards opening of data and
increased opportunities for citizens to be drivers
and the target of urban innovation (Cook et al. 2015).
Moreover, citizens are even invited to act as the co-
creators of new kinds of services relying on digital
solutions. When citizens are involved in the digital
solution development, the amount of key stakeholders
in the process increases, including heterogeneous
group of citizens, varying amount of community
authorities and the software development
professionals from digital solution provider
companies.
In this paper, we present an explorative, empirical
case study of co-creation process of digital services in
the context of smart city. The aim of the study is to
explore the potential contradictions that may arise in
co-creation process between several stakeholders that
enter to the process with varying competences, needs
and views. To better grasp the contradictions, we use
activity theory as our analytical lenses.
This position paper presents early phases of an
ongoing research project that studies digital
governance and digital service creation in Finland.
Results of the study provide initial insights for better
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-1211
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0962-2151
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2201-6444
understanding of the complexity of co-creation of
digital services.
2 ACTIVITY THEORY AS
THEORETICAL LENSES
Activity theory distinguishes between temporary,
goal-directed actions, and durable, object-oriented
activity systems (Figure 1, based on Engeström
(2000). Activity’ has a broader meaning than
‘action’ or ‘operation’ (consider an ice hockey game
as an activity and hitting a puck as an action, for
example). In this case, the activity is the co-creation
of a new digital service for citizens. In activity theory
terminology, the concept of activity means linking
events to the contexts within where they occur
(Blackler, 1999). The process of creation, use, and
utilization of knowledge in networked organizations
is not a spontaneous phenomenon (Vartiainen et al.,
2011). Socio-cultural historical activity theory
implies that there must always be a triggering action,
such as the conflictual questioning of the existing
standard practice in the system, to generate expansive
learning (Engeström 2000). In this study, the co-
creation of a new digital service could be considered
as the triggering action. Expansive learning produces
culturally new patterns of activity, and the object of
Jussila, J., Kukkamäki, J. and Helander, N.
Co-creating Digital Services for Citizens: Activity Theory Analysis.
DOI: 10.5220/0008349002850290
In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineer ing and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 285-290
ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
285
the learning activity is the entire system (i.e., the new
digital service) in which the actors (i.e., the project
members and stakeholders) are working (Engeström
2001). Figure 1 below illustrates the systemic
structure and components of collective activity.
Figure 1: Systems of collective activity adapted from
Engeström (2000).
In Figure 1, activity is described as a set of six
interdependent elements, which are elaborated in
more detail in Table 1.
Table 1: Activity theory key concepts (Engeström 1987,
1999).
Instruments/tools
The artifacts or concepts
used by subjects to
accomplish the task.
Subject
A person or a group
engaged in the activities.
Object
The objective of the
activity system as a
whole.
Community
Social context and all the
people involved.
Division of labor
The balance of activities
among different people
and artifacts in the
system.
Rules
The guidelines and code
for activities and
behavior in the system
This study adopts the idea that the problem with
management decision making often lies in the
assumption that change from current circumstances
towards desired circumstances are only possible,
when the incentive to learn and to create new
knowledge are given from above (Engeström 2000).
Enabling and supporting knowledge sharing is
required to generate new knowledge in networked
organizations, but simultaneously there must be
willingness to make use of bottom-up generated
knowledge. Activity theory acknowledges that in
activity systems there exists a wider community of
stakeholders that bring their own perspectives, views
and culture on the system (Mervyn et al. 2014).
Therefore, it is important to understand not only the
service providers (city) and users (citizens)
perspective, but rather the perspectives of all subjects
that are engaged in the activities of the activity
system.
In case of a digital service for citizens, there is
either an external or an internal need for learning in
the entire activity system (e.g., a new digital service
development project). The external triggering action
may be a value conflict with stakeholders, for
example. Internal triggering action could be, for
instance, the product owner’s lack of experience, or
conflict within the project organization (e.g., personal
chemistry).
Engeström (2000) suggests that the motivation to
learn is embedded in the connection between the
outcome and the object of the activity. The object of
the collective activity (e.g., the project plan and sprint
plan) is transferred to the practical outcome (e.g., an
information system) (Figure 1). Achieving practical
results through this transformation creates the
motivation to change. It could be argued that there is
a need for modeling action patterns in order to ensure
knowledge diffusion in the activity system of the
project.
3 EMPIRICAL STUDY
3.1 Research Methodology
An empirical study was carried out in smart city
region called Hämeenlinna in South Finland with
qualitative research methods. Semistructured
individual interviewing was the most commonly used
method of data collection (King & Horrocks, 2010)
and this method was particularly useful for exploring
the complex case of co-creating digital service as it
offered rich views on the real-life occasions.
Altogether 16 interviews were carried out. These
consisted of interviews with the project management
office representing the community authorities, the
digital transformation company responsible for
service design and software development of OmaOlo,
software developers from HAMK University of
Applied Science that were responsible for
development of Hämeenlinna in pocket smartphone
application, and the service providers. Among the
service providers, two social and healthcare
professionals were interviewed representing
Hämeenlinna city. These respondents represented
different pilot sites for the implementation of the new
digital government service (OmaOlo).
Activity theory lenses were used in analysing the
empirical data.
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
286
3.2 Case Study
In 2017 the City of Hämeenlinna made a strategic
decision to provide all the municipal services for
citizens in digital form by 2020, requiring rapid
progress in practically all areas of smart city
development. As part of this strategic goal, the City
decided to design and create a smartphone application
that provides citizens with the most commonly used
digital services and a platform for digital
participation.
A development project was set up and named
“Hämeenlinna in pocket”, which was carried out
jointly by the City and me University of Applied
Sciences (HAMK) (Kunttu, 2019). Development of
the Hämeenlinna in pocket smartphone application
was initially based on the use of the Open City
Application platform, which provided a framework
for software development of the application. In the
first version of the application, launched in March
2019, the following features were included.
Table 2: Hämeenlinna in pocket application features
(Kunttu, 2019, Kukkamäki et al., 2019).
Application
feature
Description
Events
The application provides the user
with a list of general and public
events taking place in Hämeenlinna,
including all cultural, educational,
and sports related events. The
events can be viewed as a
chronological list or located on a
city map. The mobile application
retrieves the event information from
an open data based interface that
collects all the event information in
the Hämeenlinna area.
Topical
information and
news
The application includes a news
channel giving the news,
announcements, and information
provided by the City.
Users have an option to select the
information they prefer to receive.
The mobile platform can also
provide targeted information for
citizens based on their own
neighborhood. This, in turn, enables
collaborative activities and
participation at the individual level
on matters related to decision
making and planning in the citizens’
own neighborhood.
Public
transportation
information
The application contains a route
planning tool for public
transportation. The user submits the
target address and receives a
suggested easiest route to the
target with bus times.
The application also reports
possible delays or changes in the
public transportation system.
Digital library
card
The application enables the user to
take out a digital library card, which
replaces the traditional loan card
used in public libraries. The user
can install the digital card in the
application by logging into the
library system through an interface.
The user can then use the digital
card by showing the barcode from
the screen of the mobile phone to
the library’s user interface
My health
platform (Oma
olo)
Through the application interface,
the user has access to the digital
health portal provided by the City.
The portal provides a variety of
instructions for self diagnosis and
care, and also access to consultation
with a nurse.
Schedules for
free-time sports
activities
(Liikuntalukkari)
The application provides weekly
schedules of the free-time after-
school sports activities for school-
age children organized by the City.
Care-time
allocations for
nurseries
Through the application interface,
parents of small children can book
their weekly care-times in nurseries.
Feedback
channel
The user can send feedback,
questions, or comments to the City
authorities through the application.
The system classifies the feedback
and sends it to the appropriate City
authority for further analysis and
actions. The user can link the
feedback to location information.
This is particularly helpful when
users report, e.g., faults or problems
in their living environment.
Digital
participation tool
The application includes a digital
participation tool that allows users
to participate in decision making
and planning, as part of municipal
governance.’
During development of the application it was
realized that the Open City Skeleton developed in
6aika (2018) project had outdated components and,
for example, did not meet the user interface
requirements set for Hämeenlinna in pocket
smartphone application. Therefore, Hämeenlinna in
pocket was mostly developed from scratch.
Nevertheless, the Open City Skeleton served as a
useful model in building the application. The main
Co-creating Digital Services for Citizens: Activity Theory Analysis
287
menu of meenlinna in pocket application and the
Omaolo application menu is introduced in Figure 2.
3.3 Activity Theory Analysis of
OmaOlo Platform
We chose the OmaOlo feature development into
closer look through the activity theory lenses.
OmaOlo feature co-creation happened as part of a
larger, nationwide digital governance project called
ODA.
Figure 2: Hämeenlinna in pocket smartphone application
main menu and OmaOlo application.
Key stakeholders include a project office whose
role was to carefully test and validate by medical
professionals the developed application, the citizens
that are the application users, digital service provider
company responsible for the development of the
digital government service, a non-governmental
organization responsible for the development of the
knowledge base and algorithms for evidence-based
decision support service providing accurate
recommendations based on the information that the
citizen inputs into the system, and service providers
that provide the citizens with social welfare and
healthcare services. Thus, in terms of activity theory,
there were several subjects participating in the co-
creation activity system. In following figure 3 the
activity system and its identified elements in the case
is presented.
The biggest challenge in the co-creation activity
system was related to project scheduling. According
to the interviewees, the schedule for the development
tasks for the service provider should be available
about 6 to 8 weeks in advance. Development
activities were mostly done in addition to other duties
(e.g., consulting hours), which indicates that
development tasks had to be scheduled in the shift
plan. Schedule delays or missing schedules may
result in situations where there are no personnel
available to test versions of the digital service, or to
give the necessary feedback. In some pilots, dedicated
personnel were disappointed because the
development work did not proceed as scheduled, and
they could not participate later on. Consequently,
some pilot members had difficulties in recruiting
personnel to test versions of the digital service. Some
pilot members expected the testing schedule from the
project office, and reported disappointment when no
such a schedule was delivered. The interviewees
pointed out that the pilot members received quite
extensive tasks and requests to comment on different
aspects of the digital service at short notice, but the
professionals did not have the time or competence to
contribute (e.g., doctors were asked to give opinions
about technical aspects of the service). Some
interviewees considered the progress of the project to
be extremely slow.
Figure 3: Co-creation activity system.
Communication posed another identified set of
challenges in the co-creation process. According to
the interviewees, there was a lack of information
regarding the overall process of the project. Many
interviewees pointed out that although comments
were requested at short notice, no one knew how the
information was utilized and contributed to the
development work. In some pilots, healthcare
professionals could not test the service as planned,
because of delays and/or problems in technical
development that the service providers were not
informed of. In addition, communication challenges
between different professional groups were
identified; professionals in social and healthcare
services had difficulties understanding the technical
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
288
developers and vice versa. Communication occurred
mainly via digital channels, and some interviewees
would have preferred face-to-face communication to
avoid misunderstandings. The project utilizes various
digital communication channels (e.g., chat, Google
Sheet, Slack, Rocket), which increased the confusion
among pilot members.
The overall structure of the development project
caused another challenge. The project initially
included 38 different pilots altogether, which entailed
separate development work and creating a pilot
environment for each pilot. Moreover, many pilots
concerned similar services or service processes. This
was not seen as the most reasonable way of
developing the service. It would have been more
practical to do the development work in groups of
pilots focusing on similar services (e.g., symptom
assessment). During the investigation period, the
project office did in fact recognize this issue and re-
organized the pilots into six groups to facilitate
knowledge sharing and improve coordination
between the pilots. The interviewees from the service
provider also pointed out that the project office
coordinated the development work and acted as
intermediary between service providers and technical
developers in the digital transformation company.
However, the interviewees wished for more direct
face-to-face communication and co-operation with
the technical developers, for example in the form of
workshops so as to avoid misunderstandings and
delays in the project. Some interviewees were
concerned about the role of end-users/citizens in the
development work. According to them, citizens
should have been engaged more at the beginning of
the project in order to map out more carefully the
service needs and to assess whether digital services
would be able to fulfil those needs in the first place.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the empirical study, and
presented in activity system terminology, the main
contradictions in the co-creation activity system were
concentrated on division of labor, object, and
instruments/tools.
Division of Labor was perceived as a contradiction
by all parties. One central issue was that software was
developed in two-week sprints following scrum;
however, the service providers needed to know the
scheduling of development and testing tasks for its
staff 6-8 weeks in advance, which is clearly in
contradiction with scrum and agile software
development. Another central issue was the fact that
several similar pilots were carried out in different
cities with minimal coordination and knowledge
sharing in between. Grouping the 38 distinct pilots
into six groups of pilots (across city boundaries) was
one solution to this issue.
Object, especially concerning the project plan and
sprint plan, was perceived as contradictory by both
the service provider and the digital transformation
company. Sprints are time-boxed events, where the
work in the Sprint Backlog is not a commitment, but
rather a forecast, whereas, in traditional plan-driven
software development, the goal is to deliver exactly
what was planned within the time promised. When
there is a need for the service provider to know the
schedule 6-8 weeks in advance, there is an obvious
challenge in incorporating agile software
development principles.
Instruments were perceived as a contradiction by the
service providers, who were somewhat unused to the
digital channels and were confused by the role of each
tool. This contradiction was not shared by the digital
transformation company, or the project office.
The identification of contradictions by activity
theory analysis pinpoints issues in co-creation
processes that may not necessary be problematic from
the point of view of one stakeholder, but that may lead
to conflicts, delays, dissatisfaction, or sub-optimal
performance in the activity system. Therefore,
identification of contradictions and turning them into
expansive learning in the activity system is essential
in co-creation processes that involve multiple
interdependent stakeholders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Strategic
Research Council’s Project CORE (313013+
313016).
REFERENCES
Blackler, F., N. Crump, and S. McDonald, “Managing
Experts and Competing through Innovation: An
Activity Theoretical Analysis,” Organization, vol. 6,
no. 1, pp. 531, Feb. 1999.
Cook, J., Lander, R., & Flaxton, T. (2015). The zone of
possibility in citizen led ‘hybrid cities’.
Engestrm, Y. Learning by expanding : an activity-
theoretical approach to developmental research. 1987.
Engeström, Y. Activity theory and individual and social
transformation. 1999.
Co-creating Digital Services for Citizens: Activity Theory Analysis
289
Engestrom, Y. “Activity theory as a framework for
analyzing and redesigning work,” Ergonomics, vol. 43,
no. 7, pp. 960974, Jul. 2000.
Engeström, Y. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an
activity theoretical reconceptualization,” J. Educ.
Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 133156, Feb. 2001.
King, N., and Horrocks, C. “Interviews in Qualitative
Research”. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2010.
Kukkamäki, J., Jussila, J., & Mäntyneva, M. 2019. Open
data enabling networked e-government: Case Tavastia
Events. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-12).
The International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM).
Kunttu, I. 2019. Developing smart city services by mobile
application. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-
8). The International Society for Professional
Innovation Management (ISPIM).
Mervyn, K., Simon, A., & Allen, D. K. (2014). Digital
inclusion and social inclusion: a tale of two cities.
Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1086-
1104.
Vartiainen, T., H. Aramo-Immonen, J. Jussila, M. Pirhonen,
and K. Liikamaa, “Replacement of the Project Manager
Reflected Through Activity Theory and WorkSystem
Theory,” in Information Systems Development, New
York, NY: Springer New York, 2011, pp. 111121.
6aika. 2018. Open City Skeleton. Available from:
https://github.com/6aika/open-city-
skeleton/blob/master/README.md
KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
290