Co-creating Digital Services for Citizens: Activity Theory Analysis

Jari Jussila

1,2 a

, Joni Kukkamäki

2 b

and Nina Helander

3 c

HAMK Design Factory, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland

HAMK Smart Research Unit, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland

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

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-1211

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0962-2151

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

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 Häme 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 Hämeenlinna 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. 5–31, 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. 960–974, Jul. 2000.

Engeström, Y. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an

activity theoretical reconceptualization,” J. Educ.

Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 133–156, 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 Work–System

Theory,” in Information Systems Development, New

York, NY: Springer New York, 2011, pp. 111–121.

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