Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

review articles

DOI:10.1145/ 3205945
which people use the technology. In
Digital effectiveness is not the same as this article, I discuss inclusion, equal-
ity and effectiveness under the concept
mastering the ICTs, rather it is the art of one’s digital effectiveness.
of using them in a purposeful, healthy way. Digital effectiveness manifests in
three dimensions—access, cogni-
BY CARLO GABRIEL PORTO BELLINI tion, and behavior. It refers to one’s
use of ICTs for private or professional

The ABCs of
purposes according to an arbitrarily
defined effectiveness criterion. The fo-
cal point of digital effectiveness is the
individual ICT user and the levels of

Effectiveness
purposeful ICT use he or she achieves.
That is, the focus is on the basic build-
ing block of the digital society—the
embryo of a society’s digital culture

in the Digital
and digital health. Digital effectiveness
describes an individual’s use of ICTs in
desirable ways, regardless of whether
the individual masters the ICTs or not.

Society
This approach is an extension of
the two-order digital divide perspec-
tive4,5,6 coupled with developments in
use effectiveness.3,7,8 The rationale is as
follows: (1) an individual should have
proper access to the ICTs, (2) possess
the cognitive potential to use them,
and (3) activate the needed behaviors
to operate the ICTs in practice (4) for
a specific purpose (5) in reference to
an effectiveness criterion (6) arbi-
trarily defined and measured against
a stakeholder’s utility function (7) that
takes as input the individual’s digital
capabilities and limitations.
THE USE OF information and communication
technologies (ICTs) by individuals is a long-time key insights
concern for researchers and practitioners. ICT use starts ˽˽ The use of ICTs can be described according
to three moments of maturation—the
with the inclusion of people in the digital society and inclusion of individuals in the digital
progresses toward the equalization of their capabilities society, the equalization of their digital
capabilities and opportunities, and their
and opportunities in technology-mediated information effectiveness in using the ICTs according to
personally meaningful purposes.
and communication processes. Approaches to ˽˽ ICT-related access, cognition, and behavior
inclusion and equality have become increasingly are the three critical dimensions of one’s
capabilities and limitations in using the
sophisticated through developments in human- ICTs in individually and systematically
IMAGE BY AND RIJ BORYS ASSOCIAT ES

desirable ways.
centered computing and human-computer interaction
˽˽ Digital effectiveness is the resulting
that replace the old focus on people’s mere access to measure of one’s digital limitations and
the ICTs. At the same time, a third, more empowering capabilities in terms of ICT-related access,
cognition, and behavior. It is a relativistic
moment of ICT use is attracting scholars, professionals concept, dependent on a stakeholder’s
ICT use purpose and on the systemic
and, hopefully, public agents—the effectiveness with impacts of that purpose.

84 COMMUNICATIO NS O F TH E AC M | J U LY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | NO. 7


JU LY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 7 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM 85
review articles

This approach therefore deals with certain circumstances, when a particu- the development of cognitive poten-
the enablers of ICT access, the cogni- lar digital limitation gives rise to another tial to deal with technology-mediated
tive enablers of potential ICT use, and limitation in the same or in a different information and communication pro-
the behavioral enablers to leverage the dimension. For instance, an individual’s cesses, and the development of healthy
actual benefits from ICT use. Further- poor ICT skills (a cognitive limitation) behaviors toward technology;
more, the three critical dimensions of may lead to technophobia (a cognitive ˲˲ Identifying innate personal traits
access, cognition and behavior are here or behavioral limitation, depending on and attitudinal mechanisms that im-
conceived in broad terms. Access to the how it is defined and measured), and pact one’s technology use effectiveness;
ICTs is not oversimplified as the indi- vice-versa. The possible causal link be- ˲˲ Stimulating technology-related
vidual’s socio-material setting or mere tween limitations is one of the reasons personal awareness (by doing self-eval-
contact with technology at home, work, why we measure limitations instead of uations about the use of ICTs), family
school, cybercafés or someone else’s capabilities to estimate one’s digital ef- counseling (by mentoring family mem-
venue; rather, access also includes the fectiveness. After the measurement of bers about the ICTs), organizational
contextual conditions of ICT use, that limitations in a given dimension, the improvement (by rationalizing the use
is, environmental ergonomics. ICT- level of capabilities in that same dimen- of ICTs at work), community empow-
related cognition, in turn, includes all sion is the difference between the upper erment (by promoting digital literacy
technology-mediated information and limit of the chosen scale (say, 100, as in a and citizenship), efficiency and trans-
communication mental activity reflect- percent scale) and the computed level of parency in public administration (by
ing formal and informal education, limitations. Finally, the digital effective- streamlining electronic government
personal experiences, emotions, and ness value is the difference between the processes), and social change (by means
the chain of attitudinal factors that pre- aggregated, normalized digital capabili- of user-generated content and regula-
cede actual behavior. Finally, ICT-relat- ties and limitations in all three dimen- tion in virtual social networks).
ed behavior includes the actual use of sions of access, cognition, and behavior.
technology as a result of one’s latent po- This is discussed in more detail later. Effectiveness in the Digital Age
tential, personal deliberation, and real The digital effectiveness approach The development of digital capabili-
possibilities. In all three dimensions, contributes in many ways to theory and ties and the mitigation of digital limi-
the diagnostic of effectiveness depends practice, such as in: tations is a concern for individuals and
on, first, defining who is the interested ˲˲ Broadening, organizing, and unify- groups. The digital society demands
party (the main stakeholder of ICT use), ing the complex discussion on digital personal awareness, family counsel-
and, second, the effectiveness criterion divide and inequality, along with intro- ing, community leadership, organiza-
(the ICT use purpose) that serves as ref- ducing technology use effectiveness as tional vision and public policies that
erence for action. Thus, it is meaning- a related concern; promote the proper access to, and the
less to address digital effectiveness in ˲˲ Differentiating between technol- purposeful use of, the ICTs. Digital ef-
theory or in practice before those two ogy mastering and use effectiveness; fectiveness is how I broadly refer to this
definitions are available. ˲˲ Stimulating public and social desirable state of positive outcomes to
As noted earlier, an individual’s three agents, organizational managers, com- be realized in the interaction of hu-
dimensions of digital effectiveness of- munity leaders, families, and individu- mans, information, and technology.
ten manifest in natural sequence—ac- als to better understand the complexity Bellini et al.1 outlined a three-dimen-
cess first, then cognition, then behavior. of technology use as critically depen- sion digital limitations model expected
But they may be also causally linked in dent on proper access to technology, to inform the digital divide/inequality
literature in the fields of communica-
Figure 1. From inclusion to effectiveness in the digital society. tions, information science, sociology,
and public policy making. I now extend
their propositions and introduce ICT
Digital Society use effectiveness as a related concern.
Together, the digital limitations model
Individual1 and the concept of ICT use effectiveness
form the digital effectiveness approach
Individual2 to the dimensions of ICT-related access,
cognition, and behavior. In particular, I
.
posit that each digital effectiveness di-
.
. mension can be measured within a di-
glim range of values for a given ICT user
Individual n in reference to an ideal parameter—an
arbitrarily defined, context-specific
ICT use expectation, which is set by the
Inclusion Equality Effectiveness stakeholder who is the focal beneficiary
of ICT use. As a result, anyone who ex-
pects particular outcomes from the use
of ICTs (for example, an employee who

86 COMMUNICATIO NS O F TH E AC M | J U LY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | NO. 7


review articles

performs an ICT-mediated task, or an tion of measuring limitations instead of


employer who provides a new ICT infra- capabilities in order to draw the coordi-
structure to an organizational unit) may nate (a,b,c) in Figure 2 and infer about
design evaluation instruments and col- effectiveness is based on the idea that
lect empirical data to address ICT use
outcomes from a diglim-level digitally Digital effectiveness it is more efficient to identify what does
not match a pattern than the opposite.
limited individual or group of individu-
als. This relativistic rather than opti-
manifests in three This is true in a vast number of situa-
tions. For instance, in the philosophy of
mizing view of technology use builds dimensions— science, all statements are assumed to
on developments on the interplay be-
tween cognition, affect and intentions
access, cognition, be falsifiable,11 that is, there is an excep-
tion to every rule—so, we should look
toward the Internet;6 Internet access and behavior. for the exceptions. Another example is
types known as motivational, material, that the process of building and using
skills, and usage access;13 Internet ac- computer information systems is “nev-
cess, skills, and use;9 the conceptualiza- er ending and error prone,”3 thus an im-
tion of use effectiveness;3,7,8 the causally portant principle in software testing is
linked digital divides known as access, to search for failure. Accordingly, if we
capability, and outcome divides;14 and focus on identifying one’s digital limita-
the idea that ICT diffusion with social tions instead of capabilities, we simply
embeddedness follows the stages of ac- need to look for any deviance from the
cess to technology, use of technology, pattern (the expected digital capability),
and the impact of technology use.10 in a management-by-exception fashion.
Also, a digital limitation may be the di-
Limitations, Capabilities, rect cause of another limitation, so pri-
and Effectiveness ority should be given to identifying limi-
Figure 1 shows three distinctive mo- tations instead of capabilities.
ments of the relationship between hu- The first dimension where we mea-
mans and ICTs. The moments nearly sure the occurrence of digital limita-
equate to how the literature evolved tions refers to one’s social, material and
toward its focal interests in the last contextual barriers to properly access
two decades. The human-ICT relation- and use the ICTs in information and
ship starts with the inclusion of indi- communication processes. It reflects
viduals in the digital society, progresses access limitations (Alim). Access limita-
through equalizing their digital capa- tions manifest through the levels of
bilities and opportunities, and eventu- social exclusion, the lack of Internet ac-
ally the individuals will develop their cess and desirable bandwidth, obsolete
own relativistic perception of effective- hardware and software, poorly designed
ness and preferred route in the digital human-computer interfaces and office
society. The relativistic perception is furniture, rooms that are not noise- or
due to individuals having different ICT smoke-free, rooms that are not clean or
use purposes and possessing different controlled for temperature and privacy,
personal traits and attitudinal mecha- insufficient time to perform the tasks in
nisms. As such, ICT-capable individuals the computer, and other factors.
reach at different, personally meaning- The second dimension refers to bar-
ful states of ICT use. riers in one’s neurological structure,
Figure 2 illustrates the three dimen- educational background, information-
sions of one’s digital effectiveness. processing capabilities, and hands-on
The three dimensions are plotted in a experience that undermine the po-
strictly positive Cartesian space that tential use of ICTs. It reflects cognitive
represents an individual’s digital limita- limitations (Clim). Cognitive limitations
tions. The strictly positive assumption manifest through how one tries to
means that magnitudes are measured search, select, process and apply ICT-
on a ratio scale (so, negative values are mediated information, with origins in
meaningless) and that it is axiomatical- neuropsychological traits and mental
ly impossible to eliminate all residues disorders, incomplete formal educa-
of digital limitations (so, a zero is also tion, lack of digital literacy and comput-
meaningless). er experience, poor general experience
Digital effectiveness is then defined (that causes low functional variety),
as the difference between digital capa- lack of interest in information process-
bilities and limitations. The proposi- ing and problem solving, unrealistic

JU LY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 7 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM 87
review articles

beliefs, wishful thinking, anxiety, pes- However, a given behavior is techni- likely refer to very different phenom-
simism, sadness, low self-confidence, cally considered a personal limitation ena. Also, as the effectiveness criterion
overconfidence, and other factors. only when that behavior does not pro- is arbitrarily defined by a stakeholder
The third dimension refers to bar- mote the arbitrarily defined purpose of in a specific situation of ICT use, the in-
riers in one’s complex intertwining of ICT use. Therefore, behaviors that could struments to measure the components
beliefs, attitudes and intentions that be seen as limiting one’s digital effec- need to be customized.
eventually result in negative behaviors tiveness, such as non-work-related com- The notation Alim + Blim + Clim = Dlim
toward the ICTs. It reflects behavioral puting (also known as cyberslacking or synthesizes the assumption that one’s
limitations (Blim). Behavioral limita- cyberloafing) and routine-preserving Digital limitations are the result of com-
tions manifest through at least three behavior (also known as resistance to puting his or her Access limitations,
archetypical behaviors: psychological change), will be considered actual be- Behavioral limitations, and Cognitive
barriers toward the ICTs that imply a havioral limitations and a threat to digi- limitations in order to also estimate
pathological type of technology non- tal effectiveness only if they prevent one the complementary symptom—one’s
use (technophobia); the unnecessary, to meet the criterion of ICT use effective- digital capabilities (Figure 3). A digital
excessive use of technology (technoad- ness that is defined by those who have limitation is the degree to which an in-
diction); and the use of technology in an interest in, or who are affected by, the dividual is limited in his or her capabil-
undesirable ways for the self or others particular behaviors. ities to use the ICTs in reference to an
(predatory technophilia). An individ- Table 1 synthesizes the important arbitrarily defined, context-specific ICT
ual’s behavior is shaped by his or her concepts of digital effectiveness and use objective. And digital effectiveness
neurological constitution, personal provides a few examples of phenome- is the difference between capabilities
discretion in decision-making, trau- na that may be addressed with the digi- and limitations. The resulting value
mas and addictions developed spon- tal effectiveness approach. represents an excess of capabilities (a
taneously or by influence of external It is important to note that cogni- positive value), an excess of limitations
sources. An individual can effect posi- tive, affective and hedonic events are (a negative value), the equivalence of ca-
tive behaviors toward the ICTs (such as here conceived as a single dimension. pabilities and limitations (a zero value),
using them productively in electronic In fact, it is very difficult—if not impos- or the individual’s digital evolution (a
commerce, electronic government, on- sible—to separate rational thinking variation across measurements).
line banking, distance learning, virtual from pure sentiments. Cognition and Hypothetically, if we adopt a percent
social networks, and so on) or negative the other two dimensions are modeled scale to measure each digital limitation
behaviors (such as using the ICTs for here to be critical and self-explanatory: dimension, and if diglimδ, δε{A,B,C}, is
leisure during work or for work during the access dimension addresses phe- the degree of one’s particular digital limi-
leisure, propagating false information nomena that are mostly external to the tation, then his or her digital effectiveness
and computer viruses, promoting un- individual; the cognitive dimension is ((100–diglimA)–diglimA+(100–diglimB)
ethical behavior, using any source of in- addresses phenomena that occur ex- – diglimB+(100–diglimC)–diglimC)/3, or
formation in excess so that it becomes clusively in the individual’s mind (cog- (Σδε{A,B,C} 100–2*diglimδ)/3. As an illustra-
a personal bias, giving less attention nition, affection, hedonism, and the tion, if someone has an access limitation
than needed to available information stock of data, information, knowledge, of 30% (access capability of 70%), a cogni-
relative to a particular issue, and so on). and wisdom12); and the behavioral di- tive limitation of 50% (cognitive capability
Behavioral limitations reveal that ICT mension addresses phenomena that of 50%) and a behavioral limitation of 10%
use effectiveness is not only dependent the individual instantiates through (behavioral capability of 90%), his or her
on technology access and cognitive po- real actions. If the digital effectiveness digital effectiveness is 40%, that is, ((70-
tential, but also on the actual interac- approach distinguished between types 30)+(50-50)+(90-10))/3. This value will be
tion of humans and computers in order of mental processes, there would be useful if three conditions hold:
to meet voluntarily espoused or exter- overlapping areas of mental dimen- ˲˲ The three dimensions are criti-
nally defined utilitarian purposes.a sions and much confusion on how to cal, that is, no dimension should be
plot the Cartesian coordinate for a giv- weighted for being more important
en mental phenomenon. The cognitive than another;
a I am interested exclusively in modeling utilitarian ˲˲ The components of all three di-
dimension thus includes all ICT-relat-
ICT use. Any other use purpose would be mean-
ingless to develop the 3D digital space, that is, it ed personal evaluations (apart from mensions are normalized; and
is not possible to plot a point in that space if there the effective actions they precede) that ˲˲ The components selected to de-
is no common way to measure ICT use effective- are rational or irrational, deliberate or scribe each dimension follow the 80–
ness based on one’s digital limitations—what instinctive, conscious or unconscious, 20 rule (Pareto principle), that is, most
is clearly dependent on the definition of use
purposes. However, if, say, hedonic or emotion-
planned or emergent, evidence-based of the total variance of the phenome-
based use is defined according to a utility or emotional. non results from vital few components.
function, it may be measured by this approach The three dimensions can be thus Measuring digital effectiveness as
as well. On the other hand, the definition of the plotted like in Figure 2 to illustrate one’s the difference between capabilities
utility of ICT use (that is, the intended purpose of digital limitations after the components and limitations gives rise to interpre-
use) may be influenced by mental dysfunctions.
This poses enormous complexity to any model.
of each dimension are identified, mea- tations. If the computed average of
So, I do not question whether a stakeholder’s sured, and normalized. Normalization limitations in the three dimensions is
purpose is rational or not. is needed because the components will 30% and the computed average of ca-

88 COM MUNICATIO NS O F TH E ACM | J U LY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | NO. 7


review articles

pabilities is 70%, then the individual’s Table 1. Key concepts and examples of limitations.
digital effectiveness is 40%—but what
does this mean in practice? Dimension Examples of cases that are typically considered limitations*
So far, the best interpretation pos- Access Social exclusion, lack of Internet access and desirable bandwidth, obsolete
sible is given by theory-based versus The mediating conditions hardware and software, poorly designed human-computer interfaces and
an individual has to deal office furniture,** rooms that are not noise- or smoke-free, rooms that are not
heuristics-based knowledge. In most
with in order to have clean or controlled for temperature and privacy, insufficient time to perform
practical decisions of everyday life, we contact with the ICTs tasks in the computer, and unstable supply of technology by local retailers.
decide in favor of a given alternative on and the information they
the basis of estimating its benefits and convey.

costs, irrespectively of whether we know Cognition Neuropsychological traits and mental disorders, incomplete formal education,
Information- and lack of digital literacy and hands-on computer experience,** poor general
of any supporting theory. If one says technology-oriented experience, lack of interest in information processing and problem-solving,
“weighing up the pros and cons, I prefer psychological processes of unrealistic beliefs, wishful thinking, computer anxiety,** low computer self-
to stay in my current job,” he or she is an individual, including both efficacy, and overconfidence.**
rational and affect-based
selecting an alternative solution based
processes.
on an estimated difference between
Behavior Technophobia, technoaddiction, propagating false information and viruses,
costs and benefits, and that difference The ways an individual promoting unethical behavior, excessive use of limited sources of information,
is deemed positive and significant by uses the ICTs, including impression management,** giving less attention than needed to available
the incumbent of the decision. Those deliberate nonuse. information, non-work-related computing,** ICT use for work during leisure,
and routine-preserving behavior.**
two computations (the difference and
Use expectation, use preference, subjective utility
the significance) are mostly based on
The criterion that guides the identification of digital limitations. It is based on a stakeholder’s judgment
personal experience and purpose, not about how the ICTs should be used in a specific situation. The stakeholder may be the very incumbent
on theory—that is, the decision maker of ICT use, his or her superior at work, family members, state officials, etc. When there are multiple
arbitrarily assigns an expected util- stakeholders involved in a use situation, they will have different priorities and hidden agendas, and as
such, power, negotiation and the criticality of ICT use will be the driving forces for defining the group’s
ity one is able to compute based on the digital effectiveness criterion.
evidence he or she is able to collect and
* Being considered a limitation or not is dependent on the stakeholder’s effectiveness criterion.
organize when thinking about the space ** Cases that my team and I already studied empirically, such as how the levels of computer
of alternative solutions. self-efficacy and anxiety reflect capabilities and limitations of digital natives in unexpected ways.2

Personal determination, family


and community counseling, organi-
zational mentoring, and public poli- Figure 2. An individual’s 3D digital limitations that compromise digital effectiveness.
cies should seek to minimize an indi-
vidual’s or a group’s diglimδ in order
to maximize digital capabilities and, Behavioral limitation (Blim)

ultimately, digital effectiveness. High Digitally limited individual


levels of digital effectiveness lead so- at level (a, b, c)
diglimB
ciety to a state of digital culture, digi-
tal literacy, and, hopefully, digital
health—that is, to the positive out- (a, b, c)
comes that might stem from the prop-
er use of ICTs. Therefore, digital ef-
fectiveness is a state of desirable
digital access, behavior, and cogni- Access limitation (Alim)
tion, or simply A + B + C = D. In other diglimC diglimA
words, digital effectiveness is not a
matter of mastering the ICTs, but of
using them effectively in regard to use Cognitive limitation (Alim)
objectives that promote desired out-
comes for individuals, families, com-
munities, organizations, and the larg-
er environment. This is critical to Figure 3. An illustrative dimension of digital effectiveness.
understand that digital effectiveness
promotes positive social develop-
Digital capability
ment. And the opposite is also true. Digital limitation
For instance, if someone masters the
technology (cognitive limitations can 0 100
be assumed to be low) but uses it to diglimσ
harm people or other systems (behav-
ioral limitations can be assumed to Note: The arrow to the left indicates that the minimization of limitations is the goal.

be high), we (as stakeholders) may


conclude that his or her digital effec-

JU LY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 7 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM 89
review articles

tiveness is low.b On the other hand, a work. Procrastinating tax submissions until one week before Tax Day, 92% did
very limited person in regard to ICT- is a common phenomenon. In 2017, it electronically,e while in Brazil all sub-
related cognition who is able to de- 50% of U.S. taxpayers did not file their missions are in electronic form since
ploy technology as demanded in pro- tax returns until the last two weeks be- 2011. Therefore, filing tax returns is
fessional routines may deliver high fore Tax Day, while 40% did not until the an ICT-dependent process marked by
levels of digital effectiveness. last week; and, comparing the submis- significant procrastination in practice.
sions in equivalent weeks of 2017 and Although electronic tax submissions
A Case 2016, the numbers were worse in 2017 have several benefits over other forms
I will exemplify the main aspects of the in all comparisons before and after the of submission, users see the process as
approach with a case on electronically due date.c Contrasting the U.S. numbers complex, tedious, and time consuming.
filing tax returns, and doing it while at with those in a country with a different However, procrastinating tax submis-
economic and social reality but com- sions or doing it incorrectly may impose
b It is also possible that, if ICT use objectives are
parable size and population such as important penalties on individuals,
defined so as to harness people or other systems, Brazil, the situation is similar.d Among while also impeding governments to
and if one’s actions are effective that end, we the U.S. taxpayers who filed their forms see the big picture of taxes earlier.
could argue that the ICT user’s digital effective- As many people spend hours at work
ness criterion was met. Although the present ap-
each day, it is reasonable to expect non-
proach may include such cases, I take for grant- c https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/2017-
ed that we need a responsible digital society, so and-prior-year-filing-season-statistics work-related computing (NWRC) in
that ICT use objectives and outcomes should not https://goo.gl/bRcKm companies when the deadline for tax
be detrimental to people and the environment. d https://goo.gl/ZwvPtB submission is approaching. However,
many companies have policies restrict-
Table 2. A case about preparing and submitting personal tax forms using the organizational ing the use of organizational resources,
ICTs at work.
including the ICTs, for personal mat-
ters, whereas people use different ethi-
Stakeholder Digital effectiveness criterion cal standards to guide personal behav-
Employee The employee wants to file his or her tax return using the available ICTs at work. ior, sometimes indulging themselves
Employer The employee should use the company’s ICTs exclusively for work due to in doing NWRC. A digital effectiveness
productivity and security issues.
situation thus arises, which involves at
Government The taxpayer (employee) should file his or her tax return electronically by the due
least three stakeholders—the employee
date regardless of other issues.
(taxpayer), the employer, and the gov-
Context
The three stakeholders differ in their digital effectiveness criteria about the employee’s due actions. ernment. Table 2 synthesizes the ana-
Here I will focus on the employee’s perspective. Let me call him John. John is a new 21-year-old lytical aspects for the specific case in
customer-service attendant in a department store. He works at the store during eight hours per which the employee is the focal stake-
weekday. John depends on the store’s ICTs to prepare and submit the tax forms, as his smartphone
has an obsolete operating system that does not run the needed apps or websites, whereas, at home,
holder, that is, the one whose ICT use
John devotes attention to family. He also does incidental gardening services when time permits. purpose should be met.
Access limitations The approach promotes reflection
John planned to use the store’s computers and Internet access to prepare and submit the tax forms about the ICT use situation, as there
during break times and fractions of working time. There was no private room to do it, so John was is always a need to accommodate the
afraid of doing NWRC and people seeing his tax numbers. Moreover, the shared computer rooms were
noisy, the air conditioning system was being repaired, and people frequently interrupted John to chat. personal interests (the ICT use pur-
He also needed permission from the technical support to have access to external websites and install pose) and the opportunities for action
temporary tax apps. Finally, the tax tools required registration and authentication by the user, thus (the personally and environmentally
imposing more delays on John’s access to the actually needed ICT functionality.
defined limitations and capabilities).
Cognitive limitations As in Table 2, enforcing or wisely re-
It was the first time John used computer tools for tax submission. Although he pertains to the digital
natives generation, he had a learning curve to overcome. Also, John had significant changes in his tax
laxing the norms about ICT use in or-
profile in the preceding year, as the family increased and he moved to this new job and company. To ganizations is a matter of managing
make things more problematic, John did not know much about tax preparation, and, in his country, priorities and reducing possibly un-
alternative tools were available for electronic tax filing, with each tool having a different interface and necessary tension, that is, recognizing
options for free (basic) and paid (full) services.
the presence of different rationalities,
Behavioral limitations personal needs and paths to group ef-
John delayed until the very last week to prepare the tax forms. He also procrastinated to organize
the documents reporting his expenditures and earnings in the preceding year. And when John had the fectiveness. In the particular case of
chance to use the store’s computers to prepare the tax forms, he often got distracted by checking the NWRC, it should not be always seen
virtual social networks and reading online reviews about his consumption passion—musical instruments. as detrimental to work, either because
Digital effectiveness people will inevitably search for the
John had significant digital limitations in all three dimensions, but eventually he was able to file the
satisfaction of pressing needs, or be-
forms by the due date. Particularly helpful were his capabilities to adapt technology and the work
environment to the situational needs, learn fast due to information-processing capabilities grounded cause judicious NWRC can be com-
in formal education and innate analytical talents, and find support from others who alleviated pared to a coffee break—a needed
the policies on NWRC and temporarily exchanged task responsibilities. However, the process was pause at work.
stressful and the quality of assigned tasks at work was compromised. From a purely utilitarian
perspective, though, John achieved digital effectiveness to some degree.
e http://fortune.com/2017/04/14/tax-day-2017-
april-18-not-april-15/

90 COMMUNICATIO NS O F TH E ACM | J U LY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | NO. 7


review articles

An Agenda for Research and Action each of its components might be mea- level of effectiveness of multiple indi-
I described the key aspects of an ap- sured according to a normalized five- viduals in a group.
proach to integrate digital inclusion, point scale ranging from “fully absent” The goal of the digital effectiveness
digital equality, and ICT use effective- to “fully present” or according to a per- approach is to promote awareness
ness. Someone is digitally included, cent scale. Contrarily, if case-specific about the requisites of a purposeful,
equal, and effective if he or she has the scales are available, Likert and percent healthy digital society, starting at the
desired/neededf access to the ICTs, the scales might be also useful to normalize individual level. Such a society has
desired/needed cognitive potential to the measurements for 3D plotting. specific demands for human-centered
use the ICTs, and the desired/needed ˲˲ I proposed an interpretation for the design of technology and for how ICT
behavior to leverage the benefits that digital effectiveness value—the arith- innovation, diffusion, and use are con-
may stem from ICT use. metic difference between capabilities ceived. In particular, I advocate that
Academic studies, individual and and limitations. However, is it possible organizations, scholars and public
group practice, and public policy mak- to define an ideal proportion or differ- agents should devise actions to include
ing benefit from this approach in orga- ence between limitations and capabili- and equalize people in the digital so-
nizing the key factors in research mod- ties in each effectiveness dimension, so ciety, while also assuring the posi-
els, personal actions, organizational that we could look directly at the propor- tive conditions for the individuals, by
planning and social programs that tar- tion or the difference and straightfor- themselves, to define and pursue effec-
get inclusion, equality, and effective- wardly decide if an individual is digitally tiveness in the use of ICTs according to
ness in the digital society. However, the effective or not? That is, is there a refer- their interests and the interests of the
digital effectiveness approach is not an ence value based on statistical records larger environment.
operating model to be put into action di- of decisions made in practice and their
rectly, as it is highly abstract. Rather, it is reported outcomes on a given digital ef- References
1. Bellini, C.G.P., Giebelen, E. and Casali, R.R.B. Limitações
a guide for research, practice, and policy fectiveness situation? digitais. Informação & Sociedade 20, 2 (2010), 25–35.
making in positioning, measuring, and ˲˲ Another question is if the effec- 2. Bellini, C.G.P., Isoni Filho, M.M., De Moura, Jr., P.J.
and Pereira, R.C.F. Self-efficacy and anxiety of digital
interpreting phenomena in one, two, or tiveness criteria defined by different natives in face of compulsory computer-mediated
tasks: A study about digital capabilities and limitations.
three interrelated dimensions and ac- stakeholders significantly differ in Computers in Human Behavior 59, 1 (2016), 49–57.
cording to several assumptions. The ap- most situations. For instance, what is 3. Burton-Jones, A. and Grange, C. From use to effective
use: A representation theory perspective. Information
proach is expected to have the qualities the typical difference of ICT-related Systems Research 24, 3 (2013), 632–658.
of being systemic and systematic, but it purposes between employers and em- 4. Dewan, S. and Riggins, F.J. The digital divide: Current
and future research directions. J. AIS 6, 12 (2005),
must be parameterized in each applica- ployees, teachers and students, family 298–337.
tion. In particular, the components of members, or the users of a shared tool 5. DiMaggio, P. and Hargittai, E. From the ‘digital divide’ to
‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration
each digital dimension and the stake- for online communications? increases, (2001), Working paper #15, Princeton, NJ,
holder’s effectiveness criterion should ˲˲ Also, what is the typical positioning Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton
University. http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/
be modeled beforehand, for the mea- of group members and their clustering workpap15.html. Retrieved July 27, 2015.
sure of effectiveness to be as accurate in the 3D digital effectiveness space, 6. Donat, E., Brandtweiner, R. and Kerschbaum, J.
Attitudes and the digital divide: Attitude measurement
and useful as possible. Here, I present such as a work unit, a family, a class of as instrument to predict Internet usage. Informing
ideas for studies and applications: students, or an electoral district? That Science 12 (2009), 37–56.
7. Gurstein, M. Effective use: A community
˲˲ Current studies on particular digital is, is there a typical distance between informatics strategy beyond the digital divide. First
effectiveness topics can be positioned group members in certain situations? Monday 8, 12 (2003).
8. Gurstein, M. Open data: Empowering the empowered
in the most appropriate dimension of ˲˲ Another effort would be to iden- or effective data use for everyone? First Monday 16,
2 (2012).
this approach. Also, it is interesting tify the typical individual that is most 9. Helsper, E.J. and Reisdorf, B.C. A quantitative
to answer what is the main focus of al- limited in each digital effectiveness examination of explanations for reasons for Internet
nonuse. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social
ready published studies in light of the dimension, given that this may reflect Networking 16, 2 (2013), 94–99.
approach—are current studies more demographic phenomena that we are 10. Hilbert, M. Technological information inequality as
an incessantly moving target: The redistribution of
interested in the components of digital not aware of. information and communication capacities between
limitations in specific situations, the in- ˲˲ The digital effectiveness approach 1986 and 2010. J. Assoc. Information Science &
Technology 65, 4 (2014), 821–835.
dependent variables that act on them, originally describes the capabilities and 11. Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (2002),
the intervening variables that moder- limitations of a single individual. Never- Routledge, London, U.K.
12. Rowley, J. The wisdom hierarchy: Representations
ate the effects, or the outcome variables theless, it can be extended to describe of the DIKW hierarchy. J. Information Science 33, 2
of digital effectiveness? New studies how the effectiveness level of one indi- (2007), 163–180.
13. Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. Toward
might also start with the digital effec- vidual impacts the effectiveness level of a multifaceted model of Internet access for
tiveness approach to organize the ana- another individual. For instance, an in- understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation.
The Information Society 31, 5 (2015), 379–391.
lytical frame of reference before going dividual’s behavioral limitation regard- 14. Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H.C. and Tan, B.C.Y.
to the empirical field. ing the misuse of netiquette in a virtual Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model
of the digital divide. Information Systems Research
˲˲ In the absence of more specific social network, such as when generat- 22, 1 (2011), 170–187.
scales to measure a given limitation, ing irrelevant information —noise—in
excess, may limit the access of others Carlo Gabriel Porto Bellini (carlo.bellini@pq.cnpq.br)
is an associate professor of information systems in the
f It is desired if defined by the person himself/
to relevant information. Therefore, re- Department of Management at the Federal University of
search on digital effectiveness might Paraíba, Brazil.
herself, and it is needed if defined by some-
one else. also address the interplay between the © 2018 ACM 0001-0782/18/7 $15.00.

JU LY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 7 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM 91

Potrebbero piacerti anche