**2. Background**

194 Virtual Reality and Environments

applying building codes and standards. Functional comfort is defined in terms of support for users' performance in work-related tasks and activities. Psychological comfort is related to feelings of belonging, ownership and control over workspace. We have expanded the category of psychological comfort and fit also to cover the social factors, and named the

Fig. 1. Vischer's (2005) model of comfort and fit modified (Hyrkkänen & Nenonen, 2011) for

Vischer's user-centered model (2007) merges environmental aspects with psychological aspects in a dynamic way. Vischer has developed this abovementioned model for assessing the fit or misfit of physical workspace. We have tested and developed its applicability for assessing virtual places (see Hyrkkänen & Nenonen 2011). In this article, the virtual workplace will be analyzed as a three-level entity that enhances well-being from the point of

*The purpose of this chapter* is to explore what are the elements of the virtual workplace that either hinder or enable productive mobile virtual work processes and well-being at work. The script will proceed as follows: first, there will be a broad literature inspection of the physical, functional and psychosocial elements of comfort and fit which either hinder or enable productive mobile virtual work. Secondly the method and findings of a preliminary study called "virtual me" will be presented for enlivening the literature review findings

third category psychosocial comfort and fit.

assessing virtual work places

view of the mobile employee.

with vivid up to date data.

The basic proposition in the background of this research follows the idea of Vischer's modified and tested model (Hyrkkänen & Nenonen 2011). The factors of fit and misfit are in the upcoming chapters examined from the physical, functional and psychosocial perspectives.

#### **2.1 The elements of physical comfort and fit in the virtual workplace of a mobile employee**

The elements of physical spaces and places impact on the possibilities for effective virtual work. Constraints of physical places hamper the mobile worker's way to virtual work places. It could be claimed that the access to the virtual reality is restricted in many ways by poor and out of date working environments, their lay outs, electrical designs and furniture. The reviewed articles demonstrated and confirmed this by describing many situations where the mobile employees met physical hindrances.

Despite the increase of "hot desking", many odd places are still offered for building up a work station, especially if the mobile employee is an occasional visitor (Hislop & Axtell, 2009; Mark & Su, 2010) at his own company's or customer's premises. At public places, mobile employees have even reported the need to compete for electrical power due to a limited amount of power outlets (Axtell et al., 2008; Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Forlano b, 2008; Mark & Su, 2010).

When executing the anywhere working style, the employee will undoubtedly encounter many physical places that are not in the first hand designed primarily for working purposes. This is likely to happen at airports, in different means of transportation, in cafeterias or in hotel rooms (Axtell et al., 2008; Breure & van Meel, 2003; Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Laurier, 2004; Laurier & Philo, 2003). Their furniture is primarily designed for travelling or for leisure time activities. They are hardly convertible for working. For example, in trains there are no flat surfaces large enough for laying down portable mobile devices (Perry & Brodie, 2006).

In the physical fit of virtual reality lies also the question of its appropriateness to the human sensory system. For example visual and auditory problems may arise. For ensuring the success of work, mobile employees carry many tools with them – including redundant tools to be on the safe side. To avoid letting the burden grow beyond measure, increasingly smaller-sized devices are selected. With small size you inevitably choose small displays – and visual difficulties. (Axtell et al., 2008; Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Felstead et al., 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2009; Mark & Su, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Perry & Brodie, 2006; Vartiainen & Hyrkkänen, 2010; Venezia & Allee, 2007.)

Noisy physical environments may disturb and interrupt concentrated working in virtual reality. Especially in public places, in trains and airplanes, tourists and neighbors near the mobile worker may disturb the work (Axtell et al., 2008; Breure & van Meel, 2003). On the other hand, a smooth level of discussing voices e.g. in a cafeteria may help the worker to relax and lose him/herself in virtual reality (Forlano, 2008a; Rasila et al. 2011).

The contradictory relation between the physical and virtual worlds might cause the misfit which may also lead to safety risks, e.g. when driving a car (Laurier & Philo, 2003; Perry &

The Virtual Reality of Work –

How to Create a Workplace that Enhances Well-Being for a Mobile Employee 197

an employer attempts to avoid huge operating expenses (Axtell el al., 2008). Furthermore, the perceived problems of spreading tacit knowledge in virtual spaces (Hallford, 2005) can

According to Vischer (2007), privacy is best understood as the need to exercise control over one's accessibility to others. In virtual spaces and places there are, e.g., problems in controlling simultaneous co- and telepresence (Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Hallford, 2005; Green, 2002; Mark & Su, 2010; Tieze & Musson, 2005). In addition, the need for better privacy mastery is confronted (Axtell et al., 2008; Brown & O'Hara 2003; Breure & van Meel, 2003; Hislop & Axtell, 2009; Mark & Su, 2010; Perry & Brodie, 2006) e.g. when you are

In Vischer's model (2005), environmental control consists of mechanical or instrumental control, and empowerment. Instrumental control exists, if the employee masters his furniture, devices and tools. Empowerment as a form of environmental control arises from participation in the workplace decision making. The reviewed articles highlighted the lack of control in staying in virtual reality. The stress arose from expectations of continuous availability (Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Felstead et al., 2005; Hallford, 2005; Green, 2002; Mark

When comparing the factors identified in the reviewed articles to Vischer's psychosocial factors, the similarities are evident. Ensuring the psychosocial fit of a virtual workplace is

In order to reflect the results of the literature review, a small scale empirical survey was carried out. The experience sampling method (ESM) was used as the research method. ESM refers to a technique that enables the capturing of people's behaviors, thoughts, or feelings

The ESM research process consisted of five stages. In the first stage the design for the research was made and the diary booklet was designed and tested. In the second stage the subjects were contacted and the diary booklet was delivered to them. The sample of 20 employees (users) from different organizations participated. They were instructed to carefully enter all their actions and places they had been to in a diary booklet. The diary phase focused on what virtual devices and tools are used and for what purposes. In the third stage, the filled diary booklets were retrieved and familiarized with and the first interpretations were made. In the fourth stage, the interviews concerning the themes of fit and misfit in virtual work places were finalized and carried out with 10 users. The aim of the interview phase was to examine employees' experiences of fit or misfit concerning physical, functional and psychosocial features of their virtual workplace. In the fifth and final stage the final interpretation of the

ESM can be seen as an application of a probes method. The probes method is a user-centered design approach and a qualitative knowledge gathering research tool that is based on user participation by means of self-documentation (Gaver et al. 1999; Gaver et al. 2004; Boeher et al. 2007; Mattelmäki 2008). The purpose of the method is to understand human phenomena and find signals of new opportunities by examining users' personal perceptions and background.

be seen as a factor of territoriality. The sense of presence is not easy to create.

handling confidential things with your ICT tools.

the question of territoriality, privacy and control.

as they occur in real time (Hektner et al. 2006).

collected material was done with help of AtlasTi-program.

& Su, 2010; Tietze & Musson 2005).

**3. Method** 

Brodie, 2006). Switching concentration from driving to working with ICT-tools causes hazards and is therefore for safety reasons limited by law and norms. (Hislop &Axtell, 2009).

#### **2.2 The elements of functional comfort and fit in the virtual workplace of a mobile employee**

The functional fit or misfit of the workplace can be assessed by defining the degree to which occupants can either conserve their attention and energy for their tasks or expend it to cope with poor environmental conditions. Related to the functional fit of virtual places, the connectivity problems that cause disturbances and hindrances to virtual work flow are crucial. The maturity and sophistication of the ICT infrastructure is one of the key factors. For example, the Wi-Fi connections are not yet fully developed in all environments (Axtell, et al., 2008).

Some of the connectivity problems are derived from the limited skills of mobile workers in employing virtual settings and infrastructure (Hallford, 2005; Mann & Holdsworth, 2003; Mark & Su, 2010; Perry & Brodie, 2006; Vartiainen & Hyrkkänen, 2010; Venezia & Allee, 2007). Time constraints and tight schedules of mobile employees together with timeconsuming downloads of connections and programs also make it unreasonable to start virtual work (Axtell et al., 2008; Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Breure & van Meel, 2005; Mark & Su, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Perry & Brodie, 2006).

The security regulations of mobile employees' own or their customers' companies may hinder the access to and functioning in virtual places (Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Mark & Su, 2010;). In addition very expensive connections may present a barrier to employing functional connections (Axtell el al., 2008).

#### **2.3 The elements of psychosocial comfort and fit in the virtual workplace of a mobile employee**

In Vischer's (2005, 2007) environmental comfort model, psychological comfort links psychosocial aspects with environmental design and management of workspace through the concepts of *territoriality, privacy and control.*

A sense of territory is associated with feelings of belonging and ownership. Territoriality of the virtual work place may be considered as a different composition of public, semipublic and private virtual places. Public shared places and platforms include the internet, many applications of social media and interfaces which are open for everyone. Semipublic areas include applications and media channels which demand an identity but are still shared among a defined group of users. The private zone requires a personal key and passwords and the content is not shared or if so, the principles of sharing are decided by the individual user. Virtual territory is personalized by individual choices e.g. in screen savers, chosen applications and programs. The visual appearance is a significant factor indicating both individual ownership and social belonging e.g. to the organization (see Ettlinger 2008).

In many cases, the need for belonging will not come true in virtual spaces (Brown & O´Hara, 2003; Hallford, 2005; Mann & Hodsworth, 2003, Perry et al., 2001). The lack of belonging is affected also by limited access to colleagues and individuals, who are distant. This is the case of the mobile employee's physical world but also the case of virtual reality, e.g., when an employer attempts to avoid huge operating expenses (Axtell el al., 2008). Furthermore, the perceived problems of spreading tacit knowledge in virtual spaces (Hallford, 2005) can be seen as a factor of territoriality. The sense of presence is not easy to create.

According to Vischer (2007), privacy is best understood as the need to exercise control over one's accessibility to others. In virtual spaces and places there are, e.g., problems in controlling simultaneous co- and telepresence (Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Hallford, 2005; Green, 2002; Mark & Su, 2010; Tieze & Musson, 2005). In addition, the need for better privacy mastery is confronted (Axtell et al., 2008; Brown & O'Hara 2003; Breure & van Meel, 2003; Hislop & Axtell, 2009; Mark & Su, 2010; Perry & Brodie, 2006) e.g. when you are handling confidential things with your ICT tools.

In Vischer's model (2005), environmental control consists of mechanical or instrumental control, and empowerment. Instrumental control exists, if the employee masters his furniture, devices and tools. Empowerment as a form of environmental control arises from participation in the workplace decision making. The reviewed articles highlighted the lack of control in staying in virtual reality. The stress arose from expectations of continuous availability (Brown & O'Hara, 2003; Felstead et al., 2005; Hallford, 2005; Green, 2002; Mark & Su, 2010; Tietze & Musson 2005).

When comparing the factors identified in the reviewed articles to Vischer's psychosocial factors, the similarities are evident. Ensuring the psychosocial fit of a virtual workplace is the question of territoriality, privacy and control.
