The movement of robots from the production line to the service sector provides a potentially radical solution to innovate and transform public service delivery. Although robots are increasingly being adopted in service delivery(e.g., health- and eldercare) to enhance and in some cases substitute labour-intensive services, the public administration research community is short on knowledge of the impact on the work processes carried out in public organizations and how staff and clients react toward robots. This case study investigates the implementation and use of robot vacuum cleaners in Danish eldercare, demonstrating how robot vacuums have proven to have considerable interpretive flexibility with variation in the perceived nature of technology, technology strategy, and technology use between key stakeholders in eldercare.
WeinerM.E., Service: The objective of municipal information systems, Institute of Public Service, University of Connecticut, 1969.
2.
DanzigerJ.D., DuttonW.H., KlingR. and KraemerK.L., Computers and politics: High technology in American local governments, New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
3.
TaylorJ.A. and WilliamsH., Public administration and the information polity, Public Admin69(2) (1991), 171-190.
4.
NorrisD. and MoonM.J., Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare? Public Admin Rev65(1) (2005), 64-75.
5.
PollittC., New perspectives on public services: Place and technology, Oxford University Press, 2012.
6.
BrynjolfssonE. and McAfeeA., The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.
7.
FordM., Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future, New York: Basic Books, 2015.
8.
EngelbergerJ., How robots lost their way, Businessweek, November 30, 2003.
9.
BrynjolfssonE. and McAfeeA., Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy, The MIT Center for Digital Business, 2012. http://ebusiness.mit.edu (accessed April 9, 2014).
10.
MutluB. and ForlizziJ., Robots in organizations: Workflow, social, and environmental factors in human - robot interaction, Proceedings of HRI08, New York, NY: ACM Press (2008), 239-248.
11.
BroadbentE., KuoI.H., LeeY.I., RabindranJ., KerseN., StaffordR. and MacDonaldB.A., Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot, Telemed J E Health16(5) (2010), 608-614.
12.
LiebertM.A., No longer rocket science: Robots have found their place in healthcare, Telemedicine and E-Health17(6) (2011), 409-414.
13.
CompagniA., MeleV. and RavasiD., How early implementations influence later adoptions of innovation: Social positioning and skill reproduction in the diffusion of robotic surgery, Acad Manag J58(1) (2015), 242-278.
14.
SparrowR. and SparrowL., In the hands of machines? The future of aged care, Minds and Machines16 (2006), 141-161.
15.
BanksM.R., WilloughbyL.M. and BanksW.A., Animal assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs, J Am Med Dir Assoc9 (2008), 173-177.
16.
ÖstlundB., OlanderE., JonssonO. and FrennertS., STS-inspired design to meet the challenges of modern aging: Welfare technology as a tool to promote user driven innovations or another way to keep older users hostage? Technological Forecasting and Social Change93 (2015), 82-90.
17.
SunsteinC.R., Simpler: The future of government, Simon & Schuster, 2013.
18.
AndersenK.N., GimpleG., MedagliaR., SjølinP. and MikkelsenL.S., Robots on the move from the production line to the service sector: The grand challenges for contractors, workers, and management, eChallenges 2010. Warsaw, Poland. eChallenges e-2010 Conference Proceedings. ed./P. Cunningham, M. Cunningham.
19.
OrlikowskiW.J. and GashD.C., Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations, ACM Transactions on Information Systems12(2) (1994), 174-207.
20.
PinchT.J. and BijkerW.E., The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, Soc Stud Sci14(1) (1984), 399-441.
StakeR.E., The art of case study research, Sage: Thousand Oaks, 1995.
23.
FlyvbjergB., Five misunderstandings about case-study research, Qual Inq12(2) (2006), 219-245.
24.
Ministry of Finance (2013). Digital velfærd - en lettere hverdag. Fællesoffentlig strategi for digital velfærd 2013-2020 [Digital welfare - an easier everyday. Collective putlic strategy for digital welfare]. Copenhagen: The government, Local Government Denmark and Danish Regions, URL http: //www.digst.dk/Digital-velfaerd/∼/media/Files/Velf%C3% A6rdsteknologi/Strategi%20for%20digital%20velf%C3%A6rd/digital_velfaerd. pdf (accessed November 11, 2015).
25.
WeickK.E., Sensemaking in organizations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, 1995.
26.
FountainJ.E., Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change, Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2002.
27.
BekkersV. and HomburgV., The information ecology of e-government revisited, in: The information ecology of e-government: E-government as institutional and technological innovation in public administration, BekkersV. and HomburgV., eds, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005, pp. 183-192.
28.
SiinoR.M. and HindsP.J., Robots, gender and sensemaking: Sex segregation's impact on workers making sense of a mobile autonomous robot, Stanford. URL http: //www.stanford.edu/∼ phinds/PDFs/Siino-Hinds-2005.pdf. (accessed November 11, 2015)
29.
OrlikowskiW.J., Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organ Sci11(4) (2000), 404-428.
30.
LinA. and SilvaL., The social and political construction of technological frames, Eur J Inf Syst14 (2005), 49-59.
31.
Ministry of Social Affairs. Consolidation act on social services, 2010. URL http: //english.sm.dk/ministryofsocialwelfare /legislation/social_affairs/social_service_act/Sider/Start.aspx (accessed November 11, 2015).
32.
NielsenJ.A. and AndersenJ.G., Hjemmehjælp som spareobjekt [Home care as object for savings], Gerontologi30(1) (2014), 26-31.
33.
DoyleM. and TimonenV., Home care for ageing populations: A comparative analysis of domiciliary care in Denmark, the United States and Germany, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2007.
34.
NielsenJ.A., MathiassenL. and NewellS., Theorization and translation in information technology institutionalization: Evidence from danish home care, Manag Inf Syst Q38(1) (2014), 65-86.
35.
KL. Robotstøvsugere er blevet en del af hverdagen. KL Momentum, January 28, 2013.
36.
DaneAge. Robotter skal erstatte hjemmehjælpen [Robots replace home care], 2012. URL https: //www.aeldresagen.dk/ presse/nyheder/Sider/robotter-skal-erstatte-hjemmehjaelpen.aspx?emne=Teknologi+og+IT (Accessed November 11, 2015).
37.
Billund Municipality (n.d.) Kvalitetsstandarder, hjemmeplejen kvalitetsstandard [Quality standards, home care quality standard] III $+$ IV. Billund Municipality, Denmark.
