Wearable Technologies in Organizations Privacy, Efficiency and Autonomy in Work Aleksandra Przegalinska Wearable Technologies in Organizations “Przegalinska’s solid academic insight into the pros and cons of wearable technology allows us to understand not only the technological, but also social, implications of this incoming revolution This fascinating and readable book will become an essential text for both practitioners and scholars, to whom I highly recommend it.” —Dariusz Jemielniak, Professor of Management in Networked Societies (MINDS), Kozminski University, Poland Aleksandra Przegalinska Wearable Technologies in Organizations Privacy, Efficiency and Autonomy in Work Aleksandra Przegalinska Management in Networked and Digital Societies Kozminski University Warsaw, Poland ISBN 978-3-030-00906-9 ISBN 978-3-030-00907-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00907-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958596 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface This book was written out of curiosity The Internet of Things is an open field with plenty of emerging, exciting possibilities And even though there already appeared a substantial amount of literature about it, in many ways it remains an unknown territory with numerous traps My motivation to put this book together was to attempt a more holistic view of the complex landscape of wearable technologies, trackers, and sensors Emerging technologies always fascinated me I work as Assistant Professor at Kozminski University I did my Ph.D in the philosophy of artificial intelligence Currently, I am also a Research Fellow at the Center for Collective Intelligence at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston with tracking technologies at the core of my research interests My background includes diplomatic service at the Council of European Union in Brussels and as an international representative of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage in the matters related to media and technology regulations The broad sphere of high technologies has always been at the core of my private and professional interests Currently however, even those uninterested have to face the fact that it is going to matter more and more in their our daily lives Over the past few decades, we have observed how technology has emerged as a strong power and key factor in the effectiveness, collaboration, and disruption of organizations and individual lives We have all experienced the ambiguous impact of various aspects of high-technologies’ acceleration in our daily routines that span from the v vi Preface positive empowerment of collaborative efforts to its negative aspects envisaged in addictive behaviors, the disappearance of privacy, and surveillance Moreover, high technologies fiercely impacted workspaces and the workforce as recent developments range from security and management to wellness applications Software can manage group discussions that, often enough, result in shared understandings, new meanings, and collaborative learning Cloud technology, mobile technology, collaboration applications, and highly specialized artificial intelligence bear the promise of radical enhancement of the way we perceive the world, work, and human interactions Technology plays a fundamental role in this process because it allows the Internet users to optimize their time, enhance interactions, promote visibility, and drive continuous collaboration Furthermore, with the rise of the Internet of Things, smart data, and increasingly sophisticated machine learning techniques, we will all experience the growing impact of technology in the future Warsaw, Poland Aleksandra Przegalinska Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to Armin Beverungen who gave me a lot of constructive feedback on the early drafts of many of the chapters, giving us thoughtful advice, suggestions, and comments Lots of great ideas came from Leon Ciechanowski who contributed to the research and not only helped me with refining some arguments, but also directed us to some interesting angles Peter Gloor gave me a lot of useful feedback, and I am very thankful for his support and help I am grateful to Marcin Stolarz, Mikolaj Golubiewski, and Wojciech Pedzich for their language corrections and editing suggestions Writing this book was supported by Aleksandra Przegalinska’s Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s Grant Mobility Plus (DN/ MOB/102/IV/2015) vii Contents 1 Introduction Privacy, Safety, and Autonomy 15 Addiction and Distraction 25 4 Self-Enhancement 33 5 Collaboration 47 Context Awareness and Ambient Intelligence 57 Wearable Technology: Summary 67 Supplementary Material 83 Index 85 ix About the Author Aleksandra Przegalinska holds a Ph.D in philosophy of artificial intelligence She is an Assistant Professor at Kozminski University, currently a Research Fellow at the Center for Collective Intelligence at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston She was a recent visiting scholar at The New School for Social Research/Brown University in New York City (2014) In 2011 Aleksandra worked as the Chairman of Media Regulation Working Party at the Council of European Union in Brussels As a William J Fulbright Scholar Aleksandra also majored in Sociology at The New School for Social Research in New York (2012), where she participated in research on identity in virtual reality, with particular emphasis on Second Life Aleksandra’s current primary research interest include consequences of introducing artificial intelligence systems to people’s social and professional sphere as well as wearable technologies and human/bot interaction xi List of Figures Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6 Age groups in the study Participants’ nationality chart Quantification of mental and physical phenomena Participants could choose more than one category Aggregated answers to the question “What are you currently quantifying?” shows the proportion of physical to the mental quantification interests The chart presents the motivation for self-tracking expressed by the participants of our study The chart presents the frequency of self-tracking The “irregularly” category means that, for instance, a person engages in self-tracking only when she reads a book and wants to take a note of it, or when a person does not remember when precisely she uses apps or devices for quantifying 69 69 70 71 72 73 xiii 72 A PRZEGALINSKA Fig. 7.5 The chart presents the motivation for self-tracking expressed by the participants of our study When interviewees answered about the changes that monitoring of own activities made to their habits and their durability (Question 12; 88 answers), only 19% said they experience no change in behavior or daily habits However, the remaining group foregrounded changes in working out, eating habits, weight control, and diet to varying their habits in reading, sleeping, money spending, or time and stress management As far as dangers associated with self-tracking are concerned (Question 14; 84 answers), 31% of respondents declared that they not identify any dangers in self-tracking The others, however, raised several problems with privacy and security that related to gathering and storing individual quantified data (26%), especially in the light of insurance or health issues The others (31%) mentioned data-obsession, an addiction to meeting specific results or feeling guilty when not satisfying the exorbitant standards set by self-tracking applications or devices Considering the security and sharing of their data (Question 13; 71 answers), 41% of participants not share data with anybody, 13% with 7 WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY 73 Fig. 7.6 The chart presents the frequency of self-tracking The “irregularly” category means that, for instance, a person engages in self-tracking only when she reads a book and wants to take a note of it, or when a person does not remember when precisely she uses apps or devices for quantifying the closest ones (family, partners), 31% with friends (including nonpublic Facebook posts), and only 15% share them publicly (online, at work, or in academia) 60% of the respondents not have the sense of belonging to a group or community of self-trackers, while 40% (Question 15; 52 answers) At the same time, 44% of people did not use the quantified data in any discussion as an argument for or against some point (Question 16; 81 answers) On the other hand, 53% did use it and, out of this group, 65% of respondents used it in a private or casual conversation while 23% in a work-related situation The above data shows an interesting shift happening at several distinctive levels: a mixture between self-care and self-management, knowing and transforming oneself, the levels of this knowledge and transformation—types of tracked activities and selected devices—as well as an apparent overlap between the private and the professional For a long time now, the latter is not separated, but the use of consumer-technologies shifted it to the next level As our team followed and observed the meetups of the Quantified Self-communities in New York, Boston, 74 A PRZEGALINSKA and Amsterdam, we noticed the frequent mentioning of company-wide tracking competitions between employees as a typical activity Sometimes their purpose was to collect money for charity; in such case, the employer promised to donate a particular sum in exchange for the good work performance or punctuality of the employees In other cases, office employees with sitting jobs motivated each other to run or undertake another type of physical activity and internally compete with each other The results of our study show that users of self-tracking devices and applications still mainly track and support their physical rather than mental activities, but this may dramatically change in the future This happens for several reasons, starting with the obvious fact that it remains much easier to track and quantify physical activity reliably, both in terms of user competences and available technologies There are many devices designed to gather physiological data on the market, while there is a scarcity of tools and methods to gather and sensibly analyze psychophysical or mental data As the survey results already indicated, it is clear that a growing number of self-tracking individuals express vivid interest in tracking more refined aspects of their overall state than calories or steps A significant number of users express their interest in tracking mood, memory, and affects As a supplement to the survey, the authors contacted ten users to ask additional questions related to their tracking motivations It turned out that all ten had previously been tracking medical or health-related parameters but decided they need more data about their mental states and affects Thus, we may carefully assume that the need for quantification scales upward from the measurement of simple processes to more sophisticated mechanisms Moreover, technology seems to rapidly adapt to this change and accelerate it as well Quite obviously, we cannot predict that a radical shift to mind-trackers will happen, but we may say that this is highly probable in the face of the growing use of, among others, facial recognition systems and eye-trackers installed in recent versions of smartphones The reliability of devices and the accuracy of data about such refined activity as affective states becomes an important problem when we consider the level of trust we must allocate in them in the first place We typically attribute trust to relationships between people and can demonstrate that humans have a natural disposition to trust and judge trustworthiness, which we can trace to the neurobiological structure and activity of the human brain However, one of the key current challenges in the social sciences now is to rethink how the rapid progress of wearable 7 WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY 75 technologies impacts such constructs as trust This is generally true for all information technology that dramatically alters causation in social systems and specifically for wearables that enter strong and complex relationships with their users The attribution of trust is a matter of dispute However, we observe that users tend to trust the data and follow the instructions provided in apps attached to wearable gadgets, frequently treating them as experts in the field of wellness, while simultaneously fearing that their privacy will be breached through uncontrollable circulation of sensitive data The Transparent Mind What we already know is that the shift toward more precise, more accurate, and more context embedded tracking is most probably of crucial importance One of its most profound consequences has to with how such devices will reshape organizations as we know them With its tight relationship with the Internet of Things, many insiders have designated wearables for business as the next big thing But while the most talked-about new wearable technologies—such as the Apple iWatch and Google Glass—are either not yet widely available, or are only just beginning to make their way into customers’ hands, there are many other wearable products that have already established themselves in the market To many users, these new devices are often categorized as fun novelties and interesting gadgets, but others see them for what they really are: a game-changing influence with the potential to utterly disrupt the modern business world Companies in the field service industry have already seen the impact of wearable technology, with technicians donning wearable cameras while out in the field Wearable “smart glasses” allow many of today’s leading field companies to solve issues faster, thus saving millions Some of the most popular wearable devices, such as those used to analyze patients’ veins, are being implemented in other industries For instance, construction workers are using this wearable technology to easily see inside piping and walls The retail world could also benefit from wearable smart tech, specifically where productivity is concerned Wearable wrist displays, Wireless headsets, and tech lanyards all allow employees to access information in real time What this means in practical terms, is that store employees can obtain the information they need without visiting a stationary terminal or abandoning the customer 76 A PRZEGALINSKA The impact on the day-to-day may seem minor, in the long run, however, it will significantly impact retail productivity What is more, this impact will likely continue to grow as more wearable tech pieces are introduced to the market PayPal recently launched a new app for the Samsung Gear Smartwatch that will make it possible for consumers easily pay for products and services right from their wristwatch Retail employees will be able to accept PayPal payments with the press of a button Smart watches are also impacting retailers’ productivity with payment processing Obviously, the impact of wearable smart technology is not limited to these few examples; in fact, in a 2013 study, approximately a third of U.S and U.K adults surveyed stated that wearable technology has helped their career development To get a better idea of what the future holds for wearable smart tech, one can take a closer look at its predecessor: the smartphone Mobile smart devices, specifically smartphones, have had a greater impact on the business world than anyone could have ever predicted Important calls are now made on the go, teams separated by thousands of miles are able to have regular meetings, apps have made managing small business seamless, including sharing documents and sending emails in a more efficient manner And while wearable technology may have begun its existence as fun accessories to smartphones, it has grown to the point of no longer needing to be tethered to additional smart devices Just as wearable technology was once forced to “piggyback” on smartphones, so too has it used this relationship to embed itself slowly in the private and organizational realm and become a “natural” part of daily operations We can assume that the upcoming evolution of context-aware systems will bring about a profound change in our understanding of productivity: it will either empower or disempower the individual or the community; either redefine top-down solutions of modern corporations or solidify them New technologies of control may contribute to worker disempowerment or liberation Quite obviously, there is a vast body of literature on the subject, from Foucault on prisons and totalistic institutions—as a counterpoint or starting point for discussing low-technology monitoring and self-monitoring—through more recent work on surveillance and employee monitoring, to the vast body of work of Lyon and the social and management roles of technology We argue, however, that affective trackers in general and mind-trackers in particular constitute a specific kind of insight and create new levels of transparency, thus they necessitate special scholarly consideration (Foucault 2012; 7 WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY 77 Scarbrough and Burrell 1996; Lyon 2001; Latour and Woolgar 2013; Saldanha 2003) Technologies that aspire to foster human well-being and potential like to present themselves as “positive computing” devices Indeed, mind-trackers claim the ability to provide information such as one’s state of mind, sleep pattern, emotional spectrum, and the strength of emotions Furthermore, their producers declare the devices can assist in improving focus, reduce stress, and increase attention (Calvo and Peters 2014) Quite frequently, it is the inner motivation that drives self-tracking, but in many other cases, it is the need to follow others As I mentioned before, several contexts encourage, “nudge,” oblige, or even sometimes coerce people into using digital devices to produce personal data, which are then used by others In a perplexing manner, self-tracking practices resemble some form of Taylorism, briefly mentioned in the introductory chapter Even though Taylorism faced severe criticism regarding issues of unemployment, exploitation, or monotony—among others, by Locke, John Commons, or Hoxie—and seems an outdated managerial form, it saw several new openings in different parts of the world after its early form already appeared obsolete For instance, according to Hirschmeier and Yui (Yamamura 1976) the Taylor system was introduced along with a campaign to promote mental and spiritual attitudes at work by 1920 As Boje and Windsor underline in their article about Japanese reception of scientific management principles, after Japanese internalization of the labour market, the next step was to adapt “MUGA,” which was “a self-effacing contentment in serving others, becoming a tiny cog in the whole which was the heavenly entity (nation, family), receiving and passing on, and answering to the expectations and playing one’s role with a smile.” In their memorable article, Boje and Windsor call them “smiling robots” (Nyland 1996; Locke 1996; Hirschmeier and Yui 1975; Boje and Winsor 1993; Yamamura 1976) Furthermore, Boje and Windsor argue that an actual way out of the 1990s’ crisis of capitalism could be found in a “postmodern Taylorization:” “Without a more pertinent vision of what has signified and still now signifies Taylorism,” they write, “those who want to escape from it take the risk of reproducing it or raising its negative issues that they claim to reject.” That was something they called the neo-Taylorist way However, postmodern Taylorism may not necessarily apply in the midst of current turbulent shifting of paradigms between 78 A PRZEGALINSKA neo-capitalism, platform capitalism, and sharing economy, in times of dramatic changes in organizational structures of companies and institutions, when exponential technological growth influences all aspects of social life Nevertheless, posthumanist Taylorization is a concept worth considering: the “smiling robot” may be closer than ever The phase that we are now entering—as we said our goodbyes to postmodernism more than a decade ago—is posthumanism, which manifests itself in redesigning the human organism or radical enhancement with a combination of technologies like genetic engineering, psychopharmacology, neural interfaces, advanced information management tools, memory enhancing drugs, wearable devices, implanted computers, and the various cognitive technologies attached to them If we understand posthumans not only as synthetic artificial intelligences or a symbiosis of human and artificial intelligence but also a result of making many smaller but cumulatively profound technological augmentations to a biological human, then self-tracking mediated by wearable devices should be classified as a posthuman activity; or, at least, as an activity that strives to achieve the state of posthumanism (Srnicek and Williams 2015; Sundararajan 2016; Schor 2016; Katherine Hayles 2008; Vinge 1993) What seems crucial here is the vector of “posthumanist” tracking Self-management through tracking can take many different shapes As Deborah Lupton notices, there are at least few modes of self-tracking that have emerged recently: private, communal, pushed, imposed, and exploited On a more abstract level, one could try to distinguish what self-management means in the context of using wearable devices, both active and passive ones We may understand self-management in diverse ways On a private level, we may perceive it as self-care: individual control of health care However, we may also see it in a professional context: as a form of organizational management based on the self-directed work processes In the latter meaning and the context of wearable technologies, self-management indicates the emancipatory dimension of self-tracking as maximizing one’s potential and being in control of one’s achievement along with the autonomy in setting productivity goals However, self-management of this kind is not necessarily self-imposed, and this is the part in which many problems emerge One of the crucial questions that determine the vector of “posthumanist” tracking is: Who benefits from data? The user? The organization? Both? (Lupton 2016) In their acclaimed book, The Wellness Syndrome, Cederström and Spicer followed users who went to extremes to find the perfect diet, 7 WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY 79 corporate athletes who start the day with a dance party, and the self-trackers who monitor everything, including their own toilet habits The world depicted by the authors is a world, in which feeling good has become indistinguishable from being good This world reduced visions of social change to dreams of individual transformation, replaced political debate by insipid moralizing, and traded scientific evidence for newage delusions Here, wellness is an imposed corporate obligation that one assumes to keep up with efficiency requirements In the light of such reflections, I would propose that the future, advanced versions of mind-trackers will become highly personalized self-management devices and, consequently, producers of the Self; the kind of the Self that strives (or must strive) for a precisely measurable perfection, defined by quantitative bodily and mental data (Cederström and Spicer 2015) New wearables with tracking applications bring new, broad audiences that not necessarily consider themselves part of the QS movement anymore QS does not overlap with mind-trackers In the past, tracking focused on looking at exceptions and variations of parameters like detecting diseases Currently, tracking focuses more on improving achievements and higher level needs such as reaching work–life balance and emotional stability There is a clear demand for precise and context-aware data that responds to complex tracked processes Moreover, new reasons for tracking gain in significance Among the most prominent ones, we could enumerate the increasing productivity combined with better worklife balance and the urge for “posthumanist” self-enhancement, which significantly broadens current mental and physical capacities The collected data exposes significant trends tightly bound to redefining concepts of selfhood, self-optimization, and its influence on the way people work and think about work It seems that—with the advent of the Internet of Things and ubiquitous technologies—problems addressed by humanistic management only gain complexity The current state of technological development does not clarify what will be its next stage and what use will we make of those technologies that are either replace people or open a new, radically deeper level of machine–human interaction and interdependency At the same time, the critical and humanistic management approaches that strongly oppose any form of Taylorism claim that management as a practical science should offer people assistance in how to live better, and how to achieve social progress understood as increased welfare and general well-being However, to realize this mission, we must accrue diligent research to understand better what will be 80 A PRZEGALINSKA the role of wearable tracking technologies in this dynamically changing landscape (Alvesson and Willmott 1992, 2003) The very nature of our relation with tracking devices is also one of the crucial reasons of why the self-tracking industry is developing so rapidly From our research, and from other authors who addressed this problem (Nafus and Tracey 2002; Nafus and Sherman 2014; Lupton 2016) we know that on the individual level self-tracking (if not becoming addictive) frequently becomes either boring or frustrating over time When, however, it becomes elevated to a level of smaller or bigger group or community is when the collaborative aspect steps in Most probably, the future of tracking lies in collaborative endeavors, because the individual uses become easily boring Being part of something larger than themselves can, however, have an empowering and motivating effect The producers know it, too and this is why their efforts are to bring trackers into wellness programs of organizations and corporations and make them become transparent companions of everyone’s routines The Noninvasive, Holistic, and Assistive Device Soon, phones and tablets are going to become a thing of the past, and the smart devices will be closely tied with our bodies and sit innocuously on the users We will rely on unobtrusive smart jewelry or clothing They will serve us—the users, but even more importantly they will have significantly higher economic value to businesses and organizations Taking into account both this and all the previous discussions, one could attempt a more normative context and offer recommendations on how wearable technologies could best serve their users It seems like a major task for wearable technology designers and communities, as well as for their users (if we assume usercentered innovation approach) is to build technologies that consume less of their users energy and not add up to the distraction As frequently underlined in this book, we are most probably heading toward more robust, holistic wearable technologies with a variety of functionalities A lot of promises arise from the new trends in context awareness, but new threats related to users’ privacy, safety, and autonomy emerge, too Unlike “traditional” trackers whose functions were and are fairly explicit (e.g the frequently mentioned pedometers, heart rate monitors, etc., and sites that manage data derived from them), new types of trackers have a variety of possible applications that cannot be reduced to only to measure the efforts of sport or health status 7 WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY: SUMMARY 81 Already now they are presented to the users as having “insight” into their mental activity, which results in interesting and underestimated social process of externalizing professional knowledge on the machine: devices gain—in the user’s eyes—the status of experts This is perhaps something we, as a society, should try to avoid A lot depends on the design decisions made now Wearable technologies should be as reliable as possible and offer advice to those who use them, both in professional and individual life Their development should not, however, contribute to the deprofessionalization of many professions and diminished trust in human experts The foundation of our future with wearable technologies is built now References Alvesson, Mats, and Hugh Willmott 1992 “On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies.” In Academy of Management Review, 17 (3) (July 1) https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4281977 Alvesson, Mats, and Hugh Willmott 2003 Studying Management Critically Oxford: Sage Publications Boje, David M., and Robert D Winsor 1993 “The Resurrection of Taylorism: Total Quality Management’s Hidden Agenda.” Journal of Organizational Change Management (4): 57–70 Calvo, R A., and D Peters 2014 Positive Computing: Technology for Wellbeing and Human Potential Cambridge: MIT Press Cederström, Carl, and Andre Spicer 2015 The Wellness Syndrome Oxford: Wiley Foucault, Michel 2012 Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group Katherine Hayles, N 2008 How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar 2013 Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts Princeton: Princeton University Press Locke, Robert R 1996 The Collapse of the American Management Mystique Oxford: Oxford University Press Lupton, Deborah 2016 The Quantified Self London: Wiley Lyon, David 2001 Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education Nafus, Dawn, and Jamie Sherman 2014 “Big Data, Big Questions| This One Does Not Go Up to 11: The Quantified Self Movement as an Alternative Big Data Practice.” International Journal of Communication Systems (June): 11 82 A PRZEGALINSKA Nafus, Dawn, and Karina Tracey 2002 “Mobile Phone Consumption and Concepts of Personhood.” In Perpetual Contact, edited by James E Katz and Mark Aakhus, 206 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Nyland, C 1996 “Taylorism, John R Commons, and the Hoxie Report.” Journal of Economic Issues 30 (4): 985–1016 Rogers, Adam 2018 “All Glassholes Are Revolutionaries.” Wired 26 (5): 29 Saldanha, Arun 2003 “Review Essay: Actor-Network Theory and Critical Sociology: Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Edited by John Law and Annemarie Mol, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002 Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience, by John Law, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002 The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice, by Annemarie Mol, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.” Critical Sociology 29 (3): 419–32 Scarbrough, Harry, and Gibson Burrell 1996 “The Axeman Cometh: The Changing Roles and Knowledges of Middle Managers.” In The Politics of Management Knowledge, edited by S Clegg and G Palmer, 173–89 London: Sage Schor, Juliet 2016 “Debating the Sharing Economy.” Journal of SelfGovernance & Management Economics (3): 7–22 Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams 2015 Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work London: Verso Books Sundararajan, Arun 2016 The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism Cambridge: MIT Press Vinge, Vernor 1993 “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era.” In Proceedings of a Symposium Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science & Engineering in the Era of CyberSpace, Held at NASA Lewis Research Center (NASA Conference Publication CP-10129) Yamamura, Kozo 1976 “The Development of Japanese Business 1600–1973 By Hirschmeier Johannes and Yui Tsunehiko Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1975 Pp 340 $12.00.” Business History Review 50 (1): 101–3 Supplementary Material Table 1 The list of questions from the survey used in our study All questions were non-obligatory Question Question type Nationality Age Gender What are you currently quantifying? Demographic Demographic Demographic Closed, multiple-choice (the options are presented on Fig 7.3 in the body of the text) Open Is there something you used to track before, but stopped? Why? When did you start quantifying? Have Open you been measuring all of the parameters you checked above since you started collecting data, or has their number gradually increased (or decreased)? Are you using wearable devices Open (wristbands, smartwatches, rings) on a daily basis? Are you using mobile apps that Open passively monitor your activity all the time? © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A Przegalinska, Wearable Technologies in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00907-6 83 84 Supplementary Material Table 1 (continued) Question Question type How often you track? Especially those Closed, one-choice; parameters that require an active data entry Options: Daily to be tracked A few times a week Weekly Monthly Irregularly Not at all at the moment Do you use any devices that enable lifelogging (Autographer, Narrative, Graava, Google Glass)? What motivates you to collect this information? Do you use any tools for analysis and visualization of data? If so, which ones? 10 How often you analyze data? 11 What periods of time you take into account? 12 Did the monitoring of your activity change your habits? If so, then to what extent was this change permanent? 13 Do you share the collected data? If so, with whom? 14 Do you see any dangers in the practice of self-tracking? 15 Do you have a sense of belonging to a group/community of self-trackers? 16 Have you ever used your data as an argument? If so, what was the case? If not, would you be willing to so? Open Closed, multiple-choice (Fig 7.5) Open Open Open Open Open Open Semi-closed; Options: Yes, No, Other Open Index A Alexa, 62, 63 Ambient, 5, 11, 26, 38, 57–59 Assistive technology, 16 Awareness, 9, 11, 29, 37, 38, 51, 57–59, 80 B Biofeedback, 36, 38, 39 C Chatbots, 19–21, 59–61, 63, 64 Collaboration, 4, 11, 20, 47–51, 53, 54, 64 Collaborative design, 54 Community, 3–5, 8, 10, 29, 48, 51–54, 59, 61, 68, 73, 76, 80 Computing, 5, 6, 38, 47, 53, 58, 64, 77 Context, 4–6, 8–11, 17, 29, 34, 41, 47, 53, 54, 57–60, 64, 65, 75–80 Control, 4, 7–10, 18, 30, 54, 72, 76, 78 D Data mining, 47, 49 Digital addiction, 25 Digital distraction, 25 Digital documents, 47, 49 E ELIZA, 60, 62 Equality, 42 F Face-to-face interaction, 47, 49, 51 Flow of information, 47, 49 G Gadgets, 5, 10, 75 H Human-centric design, 57 Human enhancement technologies (HET), 34, 41, 42 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A Przegalinska, Wearable Technologies in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00907-6 85 86 Index I Inclusion, 47 Instant messages, 20, 47, 49 Intelligence, 5, 9, 11, 26, 34, 42, 57–62, 64, 78 L Leaks, 16 Limitations of tracking, 67 M Mailing, 47, 49 Mind, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 28, 35–38, 41, 43, 62, 74–77, 79 Muse, 36–40, 47, 50, 59 N Negative effects of social media, 25 Neurotracker, 30, 33 O Online collaboration, 20, 47, 48 Overstimulation, 25, 28 P Pervasive computing, 57 Privacy, 10, 15, 17–19, 21, 25, 43, 54, 72, 75, 80 Productivity, 7, 8, 10, 25, 37, 50–52, 54, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79 Profiling, 21, 57 Q Quality, 17, 50, 51, 54, 71 Quantified Self, 4, 5, 67, 68, 73 R Replacement, 61, 62 S Safety, 10, 25, 42, 80 Self-enhancement, 11, 33, 34, 36, 79 Sociometric badge, 11, 51, 52 Stimulators, 25 Study, 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 26, 47, 67–69, 72, 74, 76 Survey, 47, 67, 68, 74, 76 T Transhumanism, 33, 41 Transparency, 19, 21, 25, 35, 76 U Ubiquitous computing, 57 User-centered innovation, 47, 53, 80 W Workplace, 8, 27, 37, 43, 47, 59 ... Management in Networked Societies (MINDS), Kozminski University, Poland Aleksandra Przegalinska Wearable Technologies in Organizations Privacy, Efficiency and Autonomy in Work Aleksandra Przegalinska... principles included, among others, matching workers to their jobs based on capability and motivation, and training them to work at maximum efficiency, monitoring worker performance, and providing... Has Invisible Hands: Designing Wearable Technologies for Haptic Communication of Emotions.” ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering