ArticlePDF Available
Ulrich Gnewuch Marcel Ruoff Christian Peukert Alexander Maedche
Received: 9 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 June 2022
The Author(s) 2022
Keywords Multiexperience Device Modality Multi-
device Multimodality Human–computer interaction
1 Introduction
The development of new devices, such as smart speakers or
wearables, and recent advances in artificial intelligence
(AI) that facilitate more natural interactions via speech or
gestures are changing the interplay between user, task, and
technology within information systems (IS). Today, people
own multiple different devices, such as personal comput-
ers, smartphones, tablets, or smart speakers, and use them
interchangeably, often switching between multiple devices
in order to complete a task (Levin 2014; Westcott et al.
2020). In addition, many of these devices afford users new
ways of interacting with them through touch, speech, or
gestures (Turk 2014). For example, customers can shop at
Amazon using multiple devices and multiple interaction
modalities as well as combinations thereof (e.g., Amazon’s
Echo Show devices combine speech interaction with a
touchscreen display). The same trend can be found at the
workplace, where employees can, for example, use natural
language to interact with enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems (e.g., SAP CoPilot) or business intelligence
and analytics (BI&A) systems (e.g., Tableau Ask Data).
This trend has not gone unnoticed by market research
firms that recently introduced the term multiexperience
(MUX) as a key area of strategic importance in the next
years (Gartner 2019). There also is a plethora of existing
research related to MUX that provides insights into how
users interact with IS across different devices and modal-
ities and how to design for MUX (Brudy et al. 2019; Li and
Zhang 2005;Turk2014; Zhang et al. 2009). However,
what is new today is that the sheer number of available
devices and mature modalities presents an opportunity
and challenge to better meet users’ needs and preferences
when they interact with an IS to perform tasks. Similar
tasks can be performed quite differently and may result in
different outcomes, depending on the devices used (e.g.,
smartphones vs. smart speaker) and modalities available
(e.g., clicking on a screen vs. speech input) (Diederich
et al. 2020; Rzepka et al. 2020a). Thus, there is a need to
improve our understanding of the nature of MUX and the
roles of devices and modalities within IS. Considering that
many devices (e.g., virtual reality headsets) and modalities
(e.g., speech interaction) are now beginning to reach a level
of maturity which allows widespread application, we
believe the time is ripe to (re)define the concept of MUX.
The goal of this catchword is to build a bridge between
the new term of MUX and existing research in our field in
order to provide a solid conceptual grounding for MUX
and identify future research opportunities for the BISE
community. Drawing on the rich body of research on multi-
device and multimodal IS in the fields of IS and human–
computer interaction (HCI), we propose a clear conceptu-
alization of MUX and provide a framework of three
guiding paths toward MUX that may be equally useful for
researchers and practitioners in the BISE community.
Additionally, we describe several real-world examples to
explain the benefits and challenges of each path in our
Accepted after two revisions by Christine Legner.
U. Gnewuch (&)M. Ruoff C. Peukert A. Maedche
Institute of Information Systems and Marketing, Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology, Kaiserstraße 89-93, 76133 Karlsruhe,
Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
framework and offer practical guidance for moving along
these paths toward MUX. Finally, we outline promising
areas for future research and highlight the unique position
of the BISE community in capitalizing on these
2 Conceptual Foundations: Multi-Device
and Multimodal Information Systems
In the early days of personal computing, researchers and
practitioners primarily focused their efforts on a single
device the personal computer (PC). However, already in
1991, Mark Weiser shared his vision of a world in which
people can interact with content across multiple computing
devices in different shapes and sizes (Weiser 1991). This
idea served as inspiration for research that went beyond a
single user at a single computer (Brudy et al. 2019). A
classic example is Rekimoto’s seminal work from the late
1990s on interaction techniques that crossed device
boundaries of multiple portable computers and displays on
table/wall surfaces (Rekimoto 1997; Rekimoto and Saitoh
1999). Around the same time, commercial products such as
the first BlackBerry device were introduced that offered
new ways to do everyday tasks that would typically be
done on a computer in an office (Lyytinen and Yoo 2002).
For example, people could not only send and receive
emails but also synchronize their schedule, tasks, and
contacts with their PC something that is commonplace
nowadays but represented a major leap forward at that
time. Since the advent of mobile devices in the 1990s in
general, and smartphones in the 2000s in particular, the
number and diversity of devices has grown significantly. In
addition, many companies allow employees to use private
devices for work purposes, and vice versa (Ko
¨ffer et al.
2015). Today, the most popular devices range from PCs,
smartphones, tablets, and TVs to smart speakers, smart-
watches and augmented (AR) or virtual reality (VR)
devices (GlobalWebIndex 2020). Each device is charac-
terized by certain display capabilities (e.g., screen size),
processing power, input/output modalities, and sensors
(Levin 2014). Furthermore, people use devices much dif-
ferently than they did 10 or 20 years ago. Since many tasks
span multiple devices (Dearman and Pierce 2008), people
use several devices simultaneously and switch between
them to complete a single task (Brudy et al. 2019). For
example, Netflix’s ‘Continue Watching’ feature allows
customers to start watching a movie on one device (e.g., a
TV in the living room) and continue watching on another
device (e.g., a smartphone or tablet) while commuting or
waiting for an appointment (Netflix 2013). However, there
are also several technical challenges associated with multi-
device IS, particularly when it comes to sharing
information and keeping it consistent across multiple
devices (Dong et al. 2016). Commercial solutions, for
example, are often limited to devices within a particular
manufacturer’s ecosystem (e.g., Apple) and there are only
few open standards that support the integration of multiple
devices (Brudy et al. 2019). Nonetheless, current trends
suggest that researchers and practitioners cannot consider
the PC, smartphone, or any other device as a standalone
platform anymore, but need to understand and design for
use patterns across multiple devices (Levin 2014).
An important distinguishing feature of the aforemen-
tioned devices is that they offer users a wide variety and
diversity of interaction modalities (hereafter referred to as
modalities for simplicity). Modality broadly refers to the
type of communication channel used to convey or acquire
information (Nigay and Coutaz 1993). This includes both
input modalities (i.e., users providing data to the system)
and output modalities (i.e., users receiving data from the
system). Users provide input using their effectors (e.g.,
limbs, eyes, vocal system, head) and perceive output
through their five senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, smell,
and taste). For example, in the interaction with a PC, users
primarily provide input through typing on a keyboard or
mouse clicks using their fingers (i.e., limbs). Further input
modalities, such as speech, mid-air gestures, and eye gaze,
that leverage other effectors are possible but less common
today. In terms of output modalities, users primarily rely on
their visual sense since most applications on a PC feature a
graphical user interface. Secondary output modalities that
leverage other senses, such as audio output (e.g., ‘‘beep-
ing’ when an error occurs), may also play a role. Table 1
provides an overview of different categories of devices and
their input as well as output modalities.
Although humans employ multiple senses and effectors
to interact with the world around them, research in the
fields of IS and HCI has historically been focused on
unimodal interaction (i.e., using only a single input and a
single output modality) (Liu et al. 2019; Turk 2014). An
example is the PC that displays text on a screen with a
keyboard for input. However, advances within the AI
subfields of natural language processing and computer
vision as well as affordable sensor technology are paving
the way toward more natural interactions that replace or
complement traditional modalities (Turk 2014). Multi-
modality refers to the use of more than one input and/or
output modality in the interaction (Nigay and Coutaz
1993). These modalities can be used simultaneously or
sequentially during the interaction. For example, in the
interaction with an Amazon Echo Show device, users can
provide input via speech (e.g., ‘Alexa, what’s the weather
like in Berlin today?’’) and its touch screen (e.g., touching
a button) and receive spoken output (e.g., ‘‘ The current
weather in Berlin is ’) and visual output on the screen
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(e.g., a weather forecast). The key assumption is that
‘well-designed multimodal systems integrate complemen-
tary modalities to yield a highly synergistic blend in which
the strengths of each mode are capitalized upon and used to
overcome weaknesses in the other’ (Oviatt 1999, p. 74).
Indeed, research has shown that multimodality can lead to
higher task performance (Lee et al. 2001) and improve
learning outcomes (Suh and Lee 2005). Similar to multiple
devices, the integration of input from multiple modalities is
a key technical challenge (Reeves et al. 2004). The main
reason is that due to the unique characteristics of each
modality, there are no obvious points of similarity and
therefore no straightforward ways to connect them (Turk
2014). Over the years, several so-called fusion approaches
have been developed to address this challenge (Jaimes and
Sebe 2007). In general, fusion can be performed at dif-
ferent levels, ranging from feature level (i.e., integrating
input signals) to higher semantic levels (i.e., integrating
common meaning representations derived from different
modalities) (for an overview, see Jaimes and Sebe 2007).
Although significant progress has been made, technical
challenges related to the integration of modalities remain
and the development of fusion approaches continues to be
an active area of research.
To summarize the conceptual foundations of MUX,
Table 2provides an overview of the two research streams
on multi-device and multimodal IS with key papers and
exemplary artifacts.
3 Three Paths Toward Multiexperience
Against the backdrop of the conceptual foundations, we
define MUX as the user’s perceptions and responses
Table 1 Examples of devices and input/output modalities
Devices Input modalities Output modalities
(e.g., keyboard)
(e.g., mouse, pen)
Touch Speech Mid-air
Gaze Vision Audio Haptic
Personal computer (desktop/laptop) XX xx x xXx
Smartphone and tablet x x Xxx Xxx
Large interactive screens
(e.g., Surface Hub)
xx XxXx
Smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo) XX
Smartwatch (e.g., Apple Watch) XxXx
Augmented reality smart glasses
(e.g., HoloLens 2)
Virtual reality headset
(e.g., Oculus Quest 2)
Bold entries are the prominent modalities of a device.
Smell and taste only exist in research prototypes today (Obrist et al. 2016)
Table 2 Overview of literature streams related to multiexperience
Research stream Description Important papers Exemplary artifacts
Multi-Device Information Systems Information systems that offer
users the ability to use more
than one device in the
interaction. The use can be
sequential or in parallel.
Weiser (1991)
Rekimoto and Saitoh (1999)
Lyytinen and Yoo (2002)
Dearman and Pierce (2008)
¨ffer et al. (2015)
Dong et al. (2016)
Brudy et al. (2019)
‘Pick-and-Drop’ (Rekimoto 1997)
BlackBerry email service (1999)
Play-along apps for TV shows (e.g.,
The Million Pound Drop; 2012)
Netflix’s ‘Continue Watching’
feature (2013)
Apple’s ‘Continuity’ feature on iOS
and macOS devices (2014)
Multimodal Information Systems Information systems that offer
users the ability to use more
than one input and/or output
modality in the interaction. The
use can be sequential or in
Nigay and Coutaz (1993)
Oviatt (1999)
Lee et al. (2001)
Reeves et al. (2004)
Suh and Lee (2005)
Turk (2014)
Liu et al. (2019)
‘Put That There’ (Bolt 1980)
PalmPilot PDA (1997)
iPhone (2007)
Smartwatches (e.g., Fitbit; 2015)
Amazon Echo Show (2017)
Microsoft HoloLens 2 (2019)
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
resulting from the use and/or anticipated use of an IS that
leverages multiple devices and/or multiple modalities. As
such, it combines the terms multi (i.e., multi-device, mul-
timodality) and (user) experience
to account for the
increasing prevalence of more than a single device and/or
modality within an IS. New devices and advanced inter-
action modalities have certainly made scenarios a reality
that belonged in the realm of science fiction just a few
years ago (e.g., talking to an ERP system or wearing smart
glasses that display information directly in the field-of-
view). However, since both the IS and HCI field have a
long tradition of investigating how users interact with IS
across different devices and modalities and how to design
IS with multiple devices and/or modalities, we argue that
MUX is not an entirely new phenomenon. What is new is
that the sheer number of available devices and modalities
today provides a greater opportunity and challenge to better
meet users’ needs and preferences when they interact with
an IS. In addition, many devices (e.g., virtual reality
headsets) and modalities (e.g., speech interaction) are now
beginning to reach a level of maturity that allows wide-
spread application.
To shed a more nuanced light on the concept of MUX,
we propose and describe a conceptual framework of
guiding paths toward MUX. As depicted in Fig. 1, the
framework conceptualizes MUX based on the two axes of
devices and modalities, illustrating the shift from single to
multiple devices and/or modalities. Drawing on previous
research on multi-device and multimodal IS, we propose
three paths toward MUX that differ not only in their reli-
ance on multiple devices and/or multiple modalities, but
also in their prevalence in prior literature. They are
intended to serve as starting points for individuals and
organizations who seek to proceed on the path toward
MUX. In this spirit, our framework is meant to assist; not
to constrain or suggest that other paths are not possible.
There are four important points to be highlighted. First, our
framework suggests that MUX is not achievable when
there is only a single device and a single modality. Fun-
damentally, MUX requires at least two devices or two
modalities, but not necessarily both (i.e., multiple devices
and multiple modalities). Although many of today’s devi-
ces technically support multiple modalities, applications
running on these devices do not always capitalize on this
potential. For example, a smartphone-only application that
only supports touch input and visual output would not be
able to achieve MUX. Second, our framework allows for
variance in MUX. Similar to the use of the UX concept,
MUX can vary from low to high. Just because another
device is supported or another modality is added does not
automatically imply that MUX has improved. For example,
most websites today can be accessed from multiple devi-
ces, but a website that offers the exact same layout and
content across all devices would achieve rather low MUX
(e.g., because text could be difficult to read on a smart-
phone or large images could result in slow loading times).
In contrast, higher MUX could be achieved when the
website is optimized for each device (i.e., using a respon-
sive design) or dedicated apps are developed for smart-
phones and tablets. Consequently, the extent to which
MUX is achieved also depends on how devices and/or
modalities are integrated and allow users to transition from
one device or modality to another during use. Third, there
are different entry points to each of the three paths. In this
sense, our framework is not bound to a specific sequence or
set of devices and/or modalities to achieve higher MUX.
For example, one company might enter the path to MUX
by adding a mobile app to run alongside their website,
whereas another might choose a very different path by
adding speech interaction capabilities to their ERP system.
Finally, our framework suggests that MUX can be achieved
by moving along one axis either vertically along Path 1
(devices) or horizontally along Path 2 (modalities) or
along both axis simultaneously. However, as we explain in
the next sections, the greatest potential lies in Path 3 that
leverages both multiple devices and multiple modalities
rather than focusing on one dimension alone.
3.1 Path 1: Leveraging Multiple Devices
Technological development has brought and continues to
bring a constant stream of new devices to the market.
Therefore, taking advantage of these new devices and the
opportunities that they offer is a common path toward
MUX. For example, starting in the 1990s, mobile devices
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework of guiding paths toward
ISO 9241 defines user experience as the ‘user’s perceptions and
responses that result from the use and/or anticipated use of an
interactive system’ (ISO 2010).
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
became increasingly popular and today they are an essen-
tial part of our everyday lives. Many companies have
developed mobile apps to complement existing desktop
applications. However, particularly at the beginning, this
often resulted in merely migrating functionality, content,
and design from existing applications to mobile devices
without taking their specific characteristics, such as smaller
screens and limited keyboard input, into account (Levin
2014). Similar trends can be observed for AR/VR devices
with applications that try to faithfully recreate existing
functionality from mobile or desktop applications without
taking the main advantage of AR/VR not being bound to
characteristics of physical reality into account (Berke-
meier et al. 2019; Wohlgenannt et al. 2020). These
observations indicate that leveraging multiple devices can
be a viable path toward MUX. However, when such efforts
are based on a limited understanding of technology char-
acteristics, task characteristics, and user needs, it will be
rather difficult to achieve higher MUX. The following two
examples may serve to illustrate past and current efforts on
this path toward MUX.
3.1.1 Example #1: Mobile Banking Apps
With the advent of the internet in the 1990s, banks started
offering online banking to supplement traditional offline
(e.g., ATM, local branch) and phone banking. Customers
with a PC connected to the internet could access their
accounts and conduct financial transactions through the
bank’s website. A few years later, when the first cell
phones came out, banks launched the first mobile banking
services via SMS. However, mobile banking only became
an important banking channel after smartphones were
introduced at the end of the 2000s. Today, most banks offer
native mobile banking apps that enable customers to access
their bank accounts through smartphones and tablets in
order to conduct a range of financial transactions, including
balance checks, fund transfers, and stock trading. However,
customers’ usage of mobile banking apps often remains
either rudimentary (e.g., only checking balances) or lacking
altogether (Crowe et al. 2017). Hoehle et al. (2017) provide
the example of a bank that spent EUR 300,000 on
designing a mobile banking app that was only used by a
handful of customers. Research suggests that customers’
usage patterns of mobile banking apps are related to
technology characteristics (Hoehle et al. 2017; Kim et al.
2009). Some tasks (e.g., more complex financial transac-
tions) may be too difficult to perform on a mobile device
due to its small screen and on-screen keyboard. In contrast,
the same task may be much easier to perform on a laptop or
desktop computer with a physical keyboard and a larger
screen. Consequently, when leveraging multiple devices, it
is also important to develop a thorough understanding of
technology characteristics (e.g., screen size) and task
characteristics (e.g., simple vs. complex) in order to bal-
ance the strengths and weaknesses of each device.
3.1.2 Example #2: Augmented and Virtual Reality
in E-Commerce
The gaming industry is considered the pioneer in the use of
AR and VR (Wohlgenannt et al. 2020). However, AR and
VR applications that can, for example, be experienced via
head-mounted displays, smart glasses, or smartphones are
increasingly employed by e-commerce providers as well
(Wedel et al. 2020). Their main goal is to overcome
e-commerce’s inherent limitation ‘that online consumers
can only passively understand the product information but
cannot touch and feel the product’ (Tarafdar et al. 2019,
p. 1). AR and VR applications can allow consumers to
evaluate products in real scale and from different angles
(Peukert et al. 2019). For example, to complement existing
online shopping experiences via their website and mobile
apps, the Swedish furniture company IKEA has developed
an AR application that enables consumers to view furniture
in real size, from different angles (360view), and at the
intended place (Ozturkcan 2020). Furthermore, IKEA
provides different VR applications that help consumers to
increase the imagination of product arrangements and
encourage co-creation with others. Similarly, Europe’s
largest retailer for consumer electronics (the Media-
MarktSaturn Retail Group) offers a holistic VR shopping
environment, Virtual SATURN, encompassing several
products from their online shop. Nevertheless, there are
also examples of AR and VR applications that are just
standalone ‘gimmicks’ either to serve as marketing tools
or as a means to gain experience with this novel technology
(Peukert et al. 2019). Consequently, it is important to
reflect on the use of AR and VR for tasks that have little
additional benefit when compared to physical reality
(Steffen et al. 2019) and explore how to integrate AR and
VR applications with existing applications offered on other
devices in a way that generates substantial added value for
3.2 Path 2: Leveraging Multiple Modalities
Humans interact with the world through multiple senses
and effectors. However, most IS have traditionally focused
on unimodal interaction (i.e., a single input and output
modality), such as providing visual output on a screen with
a keyboard for input. In recent years, system designers
have begun to complement the more traditional modalities,
such as mouse, keyboard, and touch, with more advanced
modalities such as speech or mid-air hand gestures. For
example, Apple’s Siri allows users to perform various
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
commands via speech (e.g., setting an alarm or creating a
to-do list), which traditionally had to be made via key-
strokes or touching buttons. Similar virtual assistants are
introduced to the workplace to assist in work-related tasks
(Mirbabaie et al. 2021; Seeber et al. 2020). Furthermore,
e-commerce providers are increasingly complementing
touch- and mouse-based interaction with gesture-based
interaction (i.e., reaching, pointing, and manipulating
products using hand movements in the air) in order to
provide a more natural interaction experience (Liu et al.
2019). However, multimodal interaction capabilities alone
do not automatically result in a better or more natural
interaction with a system. The number one myth about
multimodality is that ‘if you build a multimodal system,
users will interact multimodally’’ (Oviatt 1999). Whether
or not users interact multimodally depends upon many
factors, including the nature of the task, the current envi-
ronment, as well as the user’s individual expectations,
experience, and needs. Moreover, different modalities vary
in the degree to which they are capable of transmitting
similar information (Oviatt 1999). For example, compre-
hensive results from data analyses in a BI&A system are
rather difficult to communicate to users via speech output,
while the same information can be easily conveyed using
visual output in the form of a graph or chart. Therefore,
simply replicating the functionality of one modality in
another modality is unlikely to play to the particular
strengths of each modality. This is particularly important
when multiple modalities can be used simultaneously or
sequentially (e.g., pointing at an object and then speaking a
command). Taken together, leveraging multiple modalities
can be another viable path toward MUX. However, pro-
viding multimodal capabilities alone is not sufficient to
realize the benefits of having more than one modality
available. A thorough understanding of the unique
strengths and weaknesses of each modality, the nature of
tasks, and user needs is also required to achieve higher
MUX. The following two examples may serve to illustrate
past and current efforts on this path toward MUX.
3.2.1 Example #1: From Smart Speakers to Smart
Looking at the recent history of smart speakers, it is
interesting to observe how they have evolved from smart
speakers to smart displays. While smart speakers (e.g.,
Amazon Echo, Google Home) offer only one modality
speech for input and output, users can interact multi-
modally with smart displays (e.g., Amazon Echo Show,
Google Nest Hub) because they combine speech interac-
tion with a touchscreen display. For example, users can
provide input via speech (e.g., ‘Alexa, order toilet paper’’)
and touch (e.g., selecting a product by touching a button on
the screen) and receive both speech output (e.g., ‘Here are
some options for toilet paper’’) and visual output (e.g.,
different products with names, images, and prices). In
contrast, when a user provides the same speech input to a
smart speaker (i.e., ‘Alexa, order toilet paper’’), it would
respond with something like ‘The top choice for toilet
paper is (product name). It costs (product price) euro in
total. Would you like me to order it?’’. Since it is difficult
to present several alternatives via speech output, the smart
speaker selects a ‘top choice’’, for example based on the
users’ shopping history, and asks them if they want to make
the purchase. However, while this product selection pro-
cess can increase efficiency, it also comes at the cost of
transparency and control (Rzepka et al. 2020b). A lack of
transparency and control may be less critical for routine
tasks, such as playing music or getting weather updates, but
play an important role in high involvement tasks (e.g.,
purchase decisions). Consequently, smart displays try to
combine the best of both worlds by leveraging multiple
modalities: efficiency via speech in-/output and trans-
parency by augmenting speech output with visual
3.2.2 Example #2: Multimodality in Augmented
and Virtual Reality
A fundamental characteristic of AR and VR applications is
their extensiveness i.e., ‘the range of sensory modalities
accommodated’ (Slater and Wilbur 1997, p. 605). AR/VR
applications not only differ in the number of modalities
they offer but also in the extent to which these modalities
are stimulated. Although head mounted displays (HMDs)
with visual output represent the main category of output
devices, additional input and output modalities are
increasingly integrated into AR/VR devices and, in turn,
leveraged by applications (for a comprehensive overview
of input and output devices, see Anthes et al. 2016). For
example, many HMDs already provide audio output and, in
the future, this modality may be complemented with haptic
feedback ranging from controller vibrations to realistic
force feedback in order to make forces originating from
virtual objects perceptible (e.g., HaptX Gloves or Tesla-
suit). The latest HMDs are equipped with various sensors
that provide the necessary hardware components for mul-
timodal interactions. For example, Facebook’s Oculus
Quest 2 is able to capture hand movements via the built-in
external cameras and understand speech commands.
Therefore, users can control apps through gesture- and
speech-based interaction as well. These functionalities can
when supported by an application make controllers
obsolete. For example, YouTube’s VR app can be con-
trolled with only hand gestures. Microsoft’s HoloLens 2
goes one step further and in addition to gestures and
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
speech allows gaze-based interactions via integrated eye-
tracking technology. As a result, natural interactions are
possible even in hands-free scenarios, such as picking tasks
in logistics, or remote assistance use cases at the workplace
where gloves must be worn or fingers become dirty.
3.3 Path 3: Combining Multiple Devices and Multiple
The final path in our conceptual framework results from the
conflation of both previously described paths. This path can
be regarded as the logical next step in the efforts toward
MUX because it seeks to leverage both multiple devices
and multiple modalities. While researchers and practi-
tioners have traditionally focused their efforts on either
devices or modalities, recent years have seen an increased
interest in the combination of both elements. For example,
Domino’s AnyWare platform allows customers to order
pizza in 15 different ways using various devices laptops,
smartphones, smart speakers, smart watches, smart TVs,
and even cars and different modalities mouse and
keyboard, touch, and speech (Domino’s 2021). However,
as the example indicates, this path can quickly become
complex and unmanageable because of the sheer number of
available devices and modalities. The constant stream of
new devices and mature modalities leads to an over-
whelming number of possible combinations (i.e., number
of devices times the number of modalities supported by
each device). Therefore, the key challenge on this path is to
choose wisely among the numerous possibilities and
identify those combinations that provide the greatest ben-
efit to users. To tackle the increased complexity, it is
essential to develop a holistic understanding of the inter-
play between devices and modalities (e.g., strengths and
weaknesses), tasks as well as user needs and preferences.
Despite these challenges, the plethora of options also opens
up the opportunity to balance the relative strengths and
weaknesses of different devices and modalities in order to
better meet users’ needs overall. Hence, we argue that this
path is the one with the greatest potential for both
improving user interaction with IS and making significant
contributions to research. The following two examples may
serve to illustrate past and current efforts on this path
toward MUX.
3.3.1 Example #1: Multiexperience in Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) Systems
Traditionally, ERP systems have focused on a consistent
graphical user interface that provides visual output and
allows users to interact with the system via mouse and
keyboard (Klaus et al. 2000). Most employees access their
company’s ERP system when they are in their office at a
desk equipped with a PC, mouse, and keyboard. Given the
complex information that is conveyed to users through
transaction screens, tables, and reports as well the nature of
work, the workplace setting will likely continue to be the
dominant context of use. However, with the growing
popularity of mobile devices in the 2000s, software ven-
dors started to enable mobile access to ERP systems
without requiring a local ERP client (Markus et al. 2000).
Today, many vendors offer mobile applications for
smartphones and tablets (e.g., Sage Mobile Sales app) and
provide platforms or frameworks to allow customers to
develop their own mobile applications (e.g., Oracle Mobile
Application Framework). Recently, ERP systems have also
started integrating speech interaction via written or spoken
language to complement existing modalities of the tradi-
tional graphical user interfaces (vom Brocke et al. 2018).
For example, in 2017, SAP launched CoPilot, a digital
assistant integrated into the SAP Fiori user interface that
can be operated via speech (SAP 2017). Instead of using
mouse and keyboard to enter transaction codes, users can
also speak or write natural language commands to navigate
the interface and perform routine tasks (e.g., ‘‘create a sales
order for customer X’’). Moreover, CoPilot can not only be
used from inside an SAP application, but also comes as a
standalone mobile application for smartphones and tablets.
As a result, users are able to switch seamlessly between
desktop and mobile devices and between traditional and
speech modalities according to their individual preferences
and the characteristics of the task at hand. At their desks,
users may prefer to interact with the Fiori user interface via
mouse and keyboard, while only occasionally using the
CoPilot to enter natural language commands for specific
transactions. At home and on the go, they may favor the
CoPilot mobile app and interact with it via speech com-
mands, for example, to get a quick overview of current
sales and inventory levels for an upcoming meeting. As a
result, more efficient and intuitive interactions with an ERP
system are possible through combining multiple devices
and multiple devices. Therefore, users can not only select
the most suitable device and modality for their current task,
but also perform a task seamlessly across multiple devices
and multiple modalities.
3.3.2 Example #2: Multiexperience in Business
Intelligence and Analytics (BI&A) Systems
Important business decisions need to be made by individ-
uals, teams, or groups in many places at the desk, in
meetings, or in the field. To support data-driven decision-
making in all of these situations, BI&A systems have
evolved from traditional desktop applications for expert
users to flexible systems that leverage both multiple devi-
ces and multiple modalities to accommodate a wide range
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
of users (Chen et al. 2012). Today, decision makers can use
BI&A systems on their smart phones or tablets while on the
go (Power 2013). In meetings, cross-functional teams can
make decisions together by collaboratively interacting with
BI&A systems on large interactive screens (e.g., Micro-
soft’s Surface Hub) (Ruoff and Gnewuch 2021). To facil-
itate transparent interaction, particularly for non-expert
users, BI&A systems increasingly support multiple
modalities. For example, Tableau’s Ask Data feature helps
users visualize and analyze data by asking a question in
natural language. Moreover, mid-air hand gestures have
been found to facilitate the collaborative analysis of com-
plex data in BI&A systems (Butscher et al. 2018). Bringing
both trends together, BI&A systems increasingly try to
combine multiple devices and multiple modalities to better
meet decision makers’ needs and preferences when per-
forming different tasks. At their desks, individual decision
makers may use mouse and keyboard and leverage the
large screen of their PCs to perform complex data analyses
tasks and prepare detailed management reports. In meet-
ings, teams of decision makers may use a combination of
speech- and touch-based interaction to perform ad-hoc
analyses on large interactive screens. In the field, particu-
larly when hands-free operation is required, individuals or
teams may use speech or gestures to analyze data on the
fly. As a result, faster and more intuitive interactions with
BI&A systems are possible through combining multiple
devices and multiple devices. Moreover, these BI&A sys-
tems put the human at the center because they allow users
to choose the device and modality most suited for the
characteristics of the task at hand and switch between them
in accordance with their individual preferences.
4 Future Research Directions
This catchword sheds light on the concept of MUX and
proposes a framework with two dimensions devices and
modalities and three different guiding paths toward
MUX. Drawing on illustrative examples for each path, we
embed the concept of MUX into existing streams of
research in IS and HCI, explain benefits and challenges of
each path, and offer practical guidance for moving along
these paths toward MUX. While substantial research has
been conducted on the first two paths toward MUX, less
attention has been paid to the third path, which seeks to
leverage the combination of multiple devices and multiple
modalities. Therefore, many promising research questions
remain and the BISE community is well suited to address
them. In the following, we suggest four areas for future
research on MUX. Table 3summarizes the identified future
research directions and provides illustrative research
First, while this catchword represents a valuable step
toward a better understanding of MUX, our conceptual-
ization could benefit from further refinement. Our frame-
work of paths toward MUX provides sufficient structure to
guide future research, but also leaves ample room for
further exploration of the nature of MUX and the interplay
between devices and modalities. For example, future
research could systematically identify and classify the
many different combinations of devices and modalities that
can be used for MUX (e.g., in the form of taxonomies or
morphological boxes). Another vital step would be to
operationalize the concept of MUX and develop suit-
able measurement instruments. These instruments would
be equally useful for researchers who seek to empirically
evaluate MUX and practitioners who want to assess their
software products’ utility. Existing measurement instru-
ments for usability and UX, such as the system usability
scale (Brooke 1996) and the user experience questionnaire
(Laugwitz et al. 2008), could serve as a suitable starting
point. Additionally, future research could identify ways to
measure MUX objectively using behavioral data, such as
interaction logs across devices and modalities, to comple-
ment self-report measures.
Second, another promising direction for future research
is the empirical investigation of MUX. From an individual
perspective, such work could, for example, examine whe-
ther and how MUX influences the adoption and use of IS.
Since MUX involves utilitarian and hedonic aspects,
studies should investigate both instrumental (e.g., better
performance) and experiential outcomes (e.g., enjoyment)
as well as potential trade-offs and synergies between them.
Given the important role of contextual factors in MUX,
future research is also needed to better understand how
users behave in different contexts (e.g., at work, at home,
while riding on a subway), when performing different tasks
(e.g., information search, online transactions, entertain-
ment), and when switching between different contexts and
tasks. Moreover, future studies should consider how indi-
vidual differences, such as demographics, personality
characteristics, and preferences for different devices or
modalities, affect MUX over time and whether users can be
classified into different MUX user types (e.g., mobile-first
users, keyboard- or touch-only users). Finally, from an
organizational perspective, empirical investigations could
attempt to shed light on whether and when investments into
MUX (e.g., developing an AR app) pay off and how
organizations can find and achieve an ‘optimal’ level of
Third, numerous opportunities exist for future research
to deliver new design knowledge through building and/or
evaluating innovative MUX artifacts. Such research could
follow a design-oriented behavioral research approach
(Maedche et al. 2021) to observe and analyze existing
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
MUX artifacts (e.g., SAP CoPilot, Tableau Ask Data,
Amazon’s Echo devices) or a design science research
(DSR) approach to build new MUX artifacts that tackle
important real-world problems. Moreover, a better under-
standing of whether and how existing design knowledge for
single-device and unimodal artifacts can be reused for the
design of MUX artifacts would be beneficial. Of particular
interest could be to provide design knowledge on how to
effectively combine devices and modalities to be able to
adapt the MUX to individual users and their changing
needs over time. For example, future research could
investigate the design of IS that automatically change or
recommend modalities and devices according to the users’
current needs. Research in this area may also profit from
setting up collaborations with researchers from other fields
such as computer science.
Finally, future research should aim to provide methods
and tools that support the development, implementation,
and management of MUX. While existing methods and
tools from areas, such as human-centered design, UX, and
software engineering, may be used as a starting point, it is
evident that handling the complexity of MUX resulting
from the large number of possible combinations of devices
and modalities requires a new set of methods and tools.
For example, future research could develop methodological
guidance to help researchers and practitioners choose
among the plethora of options in order to identify the most
suitable and promising combinations of devices and
modalities for a particular purpose. Similarly, method-
ological guidance on implementing MUX in an existing IT
landscape would be valuable. Finally, while many software
vendors offer their own MUX development platforms
Table 3 Suggested directions and questions for a research agenda on multiexperience (MUX)
Research directions Illustrative research questions
Conceptualization and
Operationalization of MUX
How to create a MUX taxonomy or classification based on the different characteristics and combinations of
devices and modalities?
Can existing measurement instruments for usability and UX adequately capture MUX or is the development
of specific MUX scales necessary? Can we establish a MUX benchmark (in analogy to SUS)?
How can MUX be objectively measured using behavioral data about user interactions with different devices
and modalities?
Empirical Investigations of
How does MUX affect users’ perceptions and evaluations of an IS before, during, and after use? Does MUX
lead to synergies or trade-offs between instrumental and experiential outcomes?
How do different contextual factors (e.g., location), task characteristics (e.g., complexity), and individual
differences (e.g., demographics) impact MUX?
Can users be classified into different MUX user types (e.g., mobile-first users, keyboard- or touch-only users)?
Do different user types prefer different manifestations of MUX?
How to assess the potential gap between the devices and modalities supported by an IS and their actual use?
How does MUX evolve over time? To what extent does training or experience influence whether users take
advantage of MUX capabilities instead of relying on a single device and modality?
How can organizations balance the costs and benefits of increasing their level of MUX? Can there be an
optimal number of devices and modalities? Is there something like ‘‘MUX maturity’’?
Designing Innovative MUX
Which fundamental design principles and theories should guide the design of MUX artifacts to effectively
combine multiple devices and modalities?
To what extent can existing design knowledge for single-device and unimodal artifacts be reused for the
design of MUX artifacts?
How to design MUX artifacts that are capable of adapting to individual users’ preferences and behavior over
How to enable MUX artifacts to automatically change or recommend modalities and/or devices according to
the users’ current context?
How can MUX artifacts be designed to allow users to effortlessly transition from one device or modality to
another one after a failure or breakdown?
Methods and Tool Support for
MUX Development,
and Management
How to develop methods and tools to support researchers and practitioners in identifying the most
suitable and promising combinations of devices and modalities for a particular purpose?
How to provide methodological guidance on implementing MUX into an existing IT landscape? What
technical prerequisites need to be in place?
How to develop platform-independent tools that enable individuals with different backgrounds to design for
MUX together?
How to create a domain-specific language to facilitate the integration of and communication across different
devices and modalities?
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(Gartner 2021), future research could provide platform-
independent tools that empower everyone to design for
MUX, regardless of whether they use commercial software
packages or their own software stack.
Overall, we believe that this catchword offers a fresh
perspective on MUX and opens up manifold opportunities
for future research. MUX has not only been an important
theme in prior IS research, but current trends and the
constant technological advancement also indicate that it
will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. At the
same time, it is clear that the multitude of ways in which
devices and modalities can be combined adds another layer
of complexity to understanding the interplay between user,
task, and technology. For example, it is difficult enough to
design a unimodal artifact for one specific device or to
rigorously examine how users interact with an IS on a
single device using one modality. Going forward, there is
little doubt that these difficulties will increase as the
number of available devices and mature modalities con-
tinues to grow. Given the background, interests, and skills
of BISE researchers, we are convinced that the BISE
community is well positioned to both address the chal-
lenges and take advantage of the opportunities for future
research on MUX, and we invite fellow researchers to
contribute to this exciting research stream.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
Anthes C, Garcia-Hernandez RJ, Wiedemann M, Kranzlmuller D
(2016) State of the art of virtual reality technology. In:
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE aerospace conference. https://
Berkemeier L, Zobel B, Werning S, Ickerott I, Thomas O (2019)
Engineering of augmented reality-based information systems.
Bus Inf Syst Eng 61(1):67–89.
Bolt RA (1980) ‘Put-that-there’’: voice and gesture at the graphics
interface. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 14(3):262–270.
Brooke J (1996) SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan P
et al (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis,
Milton Park, pp 189–194
Brudy F, Holz C, Ra
¨dle R, Wu C-J, Houben S, Klokmose CN,
Marquardt N (2019) Cross-device taxonomy: survey,
opportunities and challenges of interactions spanning across
multiple devices. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on
human factors in computing systems.
Butscher S, Hubenschmid S, Mu
¨ller J, Fuchs J, Reiterer H (2018)
Clusters, trends, and outliers. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems. https://doi.
Chen H, Chiang RHL, Storey VC (2012) Business intelligence and
analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q 36(4):1165–1188.
Crowe M, Tavilla E, McGuire B (2017) Mobile banking and payment
practices of U.S. financial institutions: 2016 mobile financial
services survey results from FIs in seven Federal Reserve
districts. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. https://www.bos
tions.aspx. Accessed 18 Feb 2021
Dearman D, Pierce JS (2008) ‘‘It’s on my other computer!’’:
computing with multiple devices. In: Proceeding of the 2008
CHI conference on human factors in computing systems,
pp 767–776.
Diederich S, Brendel AB, Kolbe LM (2020) Designing anthropo-
morphic enterprise conversational agents. Bus Inf Syst Eng
Domino’s (2021) Domino’s anyware.
Accessed 4 Mar 2021
Dong T, Churchill EF, Nichols J (2016) Understanding the challenges
of designing and developing multi-device experiences. In:
Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing inter-
active systems, pp 62–72.
Gartner (2019) Gartner top 10 strategic technology trends for 2020.
tegic-technology-trends-for-2020/. Accessed 17 Sep 2020
Gartner (2021) Multiexperience development platforms (mxdp)
reviews 2021.
perience-development-platforms. Accessed 12 Mar 2021
GlobalWebIndex (2020) GlobalWebIndex’s flagship report on device
ownership and usage.
device. Accessed 3 Mar 2021
Hoehle H, Kude T, Huff S, Popp K (2017) Service-channel fit
conceptualization and instrument development. Bus Inf Syst Eng
ISO (2010) ISO 9241-210:2010: Ergonomics of human-system
interaction Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive
systems. International Organization for Standardization
Jaimes A, Sebe N (2007) Multimodal human-computer interaction: a
survey. Comput vis Image Underst 108(1–2):116–134. https://
Kim G, Shin B, Lee HG(2009) Understanding dynamics between initial
trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf Syst J
Klaus H, Rosemann M, Gable G (2000) What is ERP? Inf Syst Front
¨ffer S, Ortbach K, Junglas I, Niehaves B, Harris J (2015)
Innovation through BYOD? The influence of IT consumerization
on individual IT innovation behavior. Bus Inf Syst Eng
Laugwitz B, Held T, Schrepp M (2008) Construction and evaluation
of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger A (ed) HCI and
usability for education and work. Springer, Heidelberg,
pp 63–76.
Lee H-K, Suh K-S, Benbasat I (2001) Effects of task-modality fit on
user performance. Decis Support Syst 32(1):27–40. https://doi.
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Levin M (2014) Designing multi-device experiences: an ecosystem
approach to user experiences across devices. O’Reilly Media,
Li NL, Zhang P (2005) The intellectual development of human-
computer interaction research: a critical assessment of the MIS
literature (1990–2002). J Assoc Inf Syst 6(11):227–292. https://
Liu Y, Jiang Z, Chan HC (2019) Touching products virtually:
facilitating consumer mental imagery with gesture control and
visual presentation. J Manag Inf Syst 36(3):823–854. https://doi.
Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2002) Research commentary: the next wave of
nomadic computing. Inf Syst Res 13(4):377–388.
Maedche A, Gregor S, Parsons J (2021) Mapping design contributions
in information systems research: the design research activity
framework. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 49(1):355–378. https://doi.
Markus ML, Petrie D, Axline S (2000) Bucking the trends: what the
future may hold for ERP packages. Inf Syst Front 2(2):181–193.
Mirbabaie M, Stieglitz S, Bru
¨nker F, Hofeditz L, Ross B, Jun FNR
(2021) Understanding collaboration with virtual assistants the
role of social identity and the extended self. Bus Inf Syst Eng
Netflix (2013) Netflix quick guide: how to continue watching on a
different device.
67WFBbBpeSs. Accessed 21 Dec 2020
Nigay L, Coutaz J (1993) A design space for multimodal systems:
concurrent processing and data fusion. In: Proceedings of the
1993 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems,
pp 172–178.
Obrist M, Velasco C, Vi C, Ranasinghe N, Israr A, Cheok A, Spence
C, Gopalakrishnakone P (2016) Sensing the Future of HCI.
Interact 23(5):40–49.
Oviatt S (1999) Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Commun ACM
Ozturkcan S (2020) Service innovation: using augmented reality in
the IKEA Place app. J Inf Technol Teach Cases.
Peukert C, Pfeiffer J, Meißner M, Pfeiffer T, Weinhardt C (2019)
Shopping in virtual reality stores: the influence of immersion on
system adoption. J Manag Inf Syst 36(3):755–788. https://doi.
Power DJ (2013) Mobile decision support and business intelligence:
an overview. J Decis Syst 22(1):4–9.
Reeves LM, Lai J, Larson JA, Oviatt S, Balaji TS, Buisine S, Collings
P, Cohen P, Kraal B, Martin J-C, McTear M, Raman T, Stanney
KM, Su H, Wang QY (2004) Guidelines for multimodal user
interface design. Commun ACM 47(1):57–59.
Rekimoto J, Saitoh M (1999) Augmented surfaces: a spatially
continuous work space for hybrid computing environments. In:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (CHI ’99), pp 378–385.
Rekimoto J (1997) Pick-and-drop: a direct manipulation technique for
multiple computer environments. In: Proceedings of the 10th
annual ACM symposium on user interface software and
technology (UIST ’97), pp 31–39.
Ruoff M, Gnewuch U (2021) Designing multimodal BI&A systems
for co-located team interactions. In: Proceedings of the 29th
European conference on information systems (ECIS 2021), a
virtual AIS conference.
Rzepka C, Berger B, Hess T (2020a) Is it a match? Examining the fit
between conversational interaction modalities and task charac-
teristics. In: Proceedings of the 41st international conference on
information systems, India
Rzepka C, Berger B, Hess T (2020b) Why another customer channel?
Consumers’ perceived benefits and costs of voice commerce. In:
Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on
system sciences, pp 4079–4088
SAP (2017) Hey I am talking to you!
news/hey-i-am-talking-to-you/. Accessed 2 Mar 2021
Seeber I, Bittner E, Briggs RO, de Vreede T, de Vreede G-J, Elkins A,
Maier R, Merz AB, Oeste-Reiß S, Randrup N, Schwabe G,
¨llner M (2020) Machines as teammates: a research agenda on
AI in team collaboration. Inf Manag 57(2):103174. https://doi.
Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual
environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in
virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virt Environ
Steffen JH, Gaskin JE, Meservy TO, Jenkins JL, Wolman I (2019)
Framework of affordances for virtual reality and augmented
reality. J Manag Inf Syst 36(3):683–729.
Suh K-S, Lee YE (2005) The effects of virtual reality on consumer
learning: an empirical investigation. MIS Q 29(4):673–697.
Tarafdar P, Leung A, Leung A (2019) Impact of immersive interface
design on consumer perceptions during online product presen-
tation. In: Proceedings of the 40th international conference on
information systems, Munich
Turk M (2014) Multimodal interaction: a review. Pattern Recogn Lett
vom Brocke J, Maaß W, Buxmann P, Maedche A, Leimeister JM,
Pecht G (2018) Future work and enterprise systems. Bus Inf Syst
Eng 60(4):357–366.
Wedel M, Bigne
´E, Zhang J (2020) Virtual and augmented reality:
advancing research in consumer marketing. Int J Res Mark
Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am
Westcott K, Loucks J, Littmann D, Wilson P, Srivastava S, Ciampa D
(2020) Connectivity and mobile trends survey - build it and they
will embrace it. The Deloitte Center for Technology, Media &
html. Accessed 22 Dec 2020
Wohlgenannt I, Simons A, Stieglitz S (2020) Virtual reality. Bus Inf
Syst Eng 62(5):455–461.
Zhang P, Li NL, Scialdone MJ, Carey J (2009) The intellectual
advancement of human-computer interaction research: a critical
assessment of the MIS literature (1990–2008). AIS Trans Hum
Comput Interact 1(3):55–107
U. Gnewuch et al.: Multiexperience, Bus Inf Syst Eng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
Full-text available
Despite growing interest in design science research in information systems, our understanding of what constitutes a design contribution and the range of research activities that can produce design contributions remains limited. We propose the Design Research Activity (DRA) framework for classifying design contributions based on the type of statements used to express knowledge contributions and the nature of the researcher role that led to them. These dimensions combine to produce a DRA framework containing four quadrants: construction, manipulation, deployment, and elucidation. We use the framework in two ways. First, we classify design contributions published in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) from 2007 to 2019 and show that a broad range of design research across all four quadrants is published. Second, we show how our framework can be used to analyze the maturity of design-oriented knowledge in a specific field, as reflected in the degree of activity across the different quadrants. The DRA framework contributes by showing that design research encompasses both design science research approaches, as well as design-oriented behavioral research approaches. The framework is useful to authors and reviewers in assessing research with design implications, and to researchers for positioning as well as understanding design research as a journey through the four quadrants.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Teams are crucial for organizations in making data-driven decisions. However, current business intelligence & analytics (BI&A) systems are primarily designed to support individuals and, therefore, cannot be used effectively in co-located team interactions. To address this challenge, we conduct a design science research (DSR) project to design a multimodal BI&A system providing touch and speech interactions that can be used effectively by teams. Drawing on the theory of effective use and existing guidelines for multimodal user interfaces, we propose three design principles and instantiate them in a software artifact. The results of a focus group evaluation indicate that enhancing the BI&A system with multimodal capabilities increases transparent interaction and facilitates effective use of the system in co-located team interactions. Our DSR project contributes novel design knowledge for multimodal BI&A systems with touch and speech modalities that facilitate effective use in co-located team interactions
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Owing to technological advancements in artificial intelligence, specifically natural language processing, voice assistants (VAs) offer a new modality for interacting with computers. Compared to formalized and deliberate text-based interaction, speech is more natural and intuitive. As companies offer customers the possibility of communicating with them via VAs, it is important to determine the kind of tasks for which this interaction modality is beneficial. Drawing on cognitive fit and task-technology fit theory, we present a research model for examining the fit between speech-and text-based interaction modalities and task characteristics. To test this model, we propose a mixed design laboratory experiment with interaction modality serving as between-subject factor and task type serving as within-subject factor. For this purpose, we developed a VA using DialogFlow and trained it in two pre-tests. The results of the experiment will extend theory on cognitive fit and provide practical insight regarding the applicability of speech.
Full-text available
Organizations introduce virtual assistants (VAs) to support employees with work-related tasks. VAs can increase the success of teamwork and thus become an integral part of the daily work life. However, the effect of VAs on virtual teams remains unclear. While social identity theory describes the identification of employees with team members and the continued existence of a group identity, the concept of the extended self refers to the incorporation of possessions into one's sense of self. This raises the question of which approach applies to VAs as teammates. The article extends the IS literature by examining the impact of VAs on individuals and teams and updates the knowledge on social identity and the extended self by deploying VAs in a collaborative setting. Using a laboratory experiment with N = 50, two groups were compared in solving a task, where one group was assisted by a VA, while the other was supported by a person. Results highlight that employees who identify VAs as part of their extended self are more likely to identify with team members and vice versa. The two aspects are thus combined into the proposed construct of virtually extended identification explaining the relationships of collaboration with VAs. This study contributes to the understanding on the influence of the extended self and social identity on collaboration with VAs. Practitioners are able to assess how VAs improve collaboration and teamwork in mixed teams in organizations.
Full-text available
IKEA, a worldwide known “Assemble & Install-It-Yourself” furniture company of Swedish origin, launched an augmented reality app, namely, IKEA Place, that aimed to solve practical problems surrounding furniture shopping in September 2017. The IKEA Place, which used augmented reality to allow its users to visualize how furniture will look in their own home, is examined in this article. Discussion is centered around how the app permitted IKEA to create a service-centered value as it signaled that it understood the hurdles involved in the furniture shopping process for investing to extend technology-based support to its customers. (***--*** Please click on the DOI for open access full-text.***--***)
Full-text available
Read this article online:
Full-text available
The increasing capabilities of conversational agents (CAs) offer manifold opportunities to assist users in a variety of tasks. In an organizational context, particularly their potential to simulate a human-like interaction via natural language currently attracts attention both at the customer interface as well as for internal purposes, often in the form of chatbots. Emerging experimental studies on CAs study the impact of anthropomorphic design elements, so-called social cues, on user perception. However, while these studies provide valuable prescriptive knowledge on selected social cues, they neglect the potential detrimental influence of the limited responsiveness of present-day conversational agents. In practice, many CAs fail to continuously provide meaningful responses in a conversation due to the open nature of natural language interaction, which negatively influences user perception and often led to CAs being discontinued in the past. Thus, designing a CA that provides a human-like interaction experience while minimizing the risks associated with limited conversational capabilities represents a substantial design problem. This study addresses the aforementioned problem by proposing and evaluating a design for a CA that offers a human-like interaction experience while mitigating negative effects due to limited responsiveness. Through the presentation of the artifact and the synthesis of prescriptive knowledge in the form of a nascent design theory for anthropomorphic enterprise CAs, this research adds to the growing knowledge base on designing human-like assistants and supports practitioners seeking to introduce them in their organizations.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Owing to rapidly increasing adoption rates of voice assistants (VAs), integrating voice commerce as a new customer channel is among the top objectives of businesses' current voice initiatives. However, customers are reluctant to use their VAs for shopping; a tendency not explained by extant literature. Therefore, this research aims to understand consumers' perceived benefits and costs when using voice commerce, based on a theoretical framework derived from prior literature and the theory of reasoned action. We evaluated and extended this framework by analyzing 30 semi-structured interviews with smart speaker users. According to our results voice commerce consumers perceive benefits in terms of efficiency, convenience, and enjoyment, and criticize the perceived costs of limited transparency, lack of trust, lack of control, and low technical maturity. The resulting model sheds light on the promoters and inhibitors of voice commerce and provides guidelines that enable practitioners to design and improve voice commerce applications.
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies are having a profound impact on a variety of marketing practices and are attracting increasing attention from marketing researchers. In this article, we review developments in VR/AR applications and research in the area of consumer marketing. We propose a conceptual framework for VR/AR research in consumer marketing that centers around consumer experiences provided by VR/AR applications along the customer journey and the effectiveness of such applications, and delve into the key concepts and components of the framework. Next, we provide a comprehensive overview of VR/AR applications in current practices and extant research on VR/AR in consumer marketing. Finally, based on this framework, we offer an outlook for future developments of VR/AR technologies and applications, discuss managerial implications, and prescribe directions for research on consumer marketing.
Companies have the opportunity to better engage potential customers by presenting products to them in a highly immersive virtual reality (VR) shopping environment. However, a minimal amount is known about why and whether customers will adopt such fully immersive shopping environments. We therefore develop and experimentally validate a theoretical model, which explains how immersion affects adoption. The participants experienced the environment by using a head-mounted display (high immersion) or by viewing product models in 3D on a desktop (low immersion). We find that immersion does not affect the users’ intention to reuse the shopping environment, because two paths cancel each other out: Highly immersive shopping environments positively influence a hedonic path through telepresence, but surprisingly, they negatively influence a utilitarian path through product diagnosticity. We can explain this effect via low readability of product information in the VR environment and expect VR’s full potential to develop when the technology is further advanced. Our study contributes to literature on immersive systems and IS adoption research by introducing a research model for the adoption of VR shopping environments. A key practical implication of our study is that system designers need to pay special attention to the current state of technology when designing VR applications.