Wearable Technology in the Workplace

David Kreps and Marie Griffiths, Centre for Digital Business, University of Salford

Do You Know Your Wearables?

So you know your Garmin from your Jawbone, your iWatch from your SmartGear? Are you tracking your fitness, hoping to reach the golden 10,000 daily step challenge, checking in on how your heart rate is doing throughout the day and monitoring your sleeping patterns? If so you are probably the proud owner of a fitness or activity tracker. In this whitepaper we examine the ‘activity trackers’ that have started to appear on our wrists, clipped to our clothing, and communicating with our mobile devices. Firstly we look at the volume and expected growth of these devices and discover who is wearing them. We then take an historical look at wearable technology, at the what, where and when, prior to their emergence in the current popular guise as a fitness tracker. The final part of this whitepaper reports a study that we conducted with Sigma UK Ltd as we followed the fitness tracker into the workplace in its new role as a productivity tool. Interestingly, although not too surprisingly, according to ABI Research, by 2019 around 13 million wearable devices will be introduced by organisations and integrated into employee wellness programmes (Martin 2014).

For clarity, there is a need to untangle the myriad terms that have become synonymous with wearable technology: are they wearable computers, fitness/activity trackers, or wearable devices? The terms and their definitions have shifted rapidly as the technology itself has advanced. Originally wearable computers were known as “body-borne” computers designed to calculate and process data collected from the wearer. Activity trackers are still basically devices that monitor and track fitness related activities such as running, climbing stairs, calorie consumption, water intake and or sleep quality. These wearables reflect the notion of the ‘connected self ’ and have sensors, web connectivity (normally via Bluetooth) to a smartphone, and are geared toward helping achieve specifc goals such as staying fit, being organised, staying hydrated or losing weight.

These technologies have come a long way.

Technology publications and technology commentators hailed 2014 as ‘The Year of the Wearable’ and the big electronic companies and smaller Kickstarter and tech start-ups were quick to respond to the hype which resulted in an upsurge in the scale and variety of the wearables market. Of course many sectors, such as medical and the military have been using wearables for years but the change over this period

is found in the personal consumer marketplace, with smart glasses, activity trackers and smart fabrics. The predicted outcome of such growth is a global wearables market that is expected to reach $19 billion in 2018, increasing its value more than ten times over a mere five years. Furthermore, the worldwide wearables market is expected to grow to 155 million unit shipments by 2020 with 115 million of that figure being wearable wristwatch, 18 million eyewear, 15 million being clothing and the rest being classed as other (Statista 2016).

More locally in the UK, a recent study by Mintel (2016) reports that around one in seven (14%) Brit owns a wearable technology, 7% being fitness bands and 3% owning a smartwatch. Interestingly, it’s the 16–34 age-group who have the strongest interest in wearable tech, they are 3 times more likely to own a fitness band than over 35 age-group and 6% of the 16–34 age group own a smartwatch compared to just 1%

of the over 35 age group. Mintel (2016) also report that it is ‘fashion over function that consumers buy into’. Design features are more important that accuracy and reliability of the measurements that are being tracked and the battery life.

History of Wearable Technology

Early Wearable Technology

Watches in the 1970s that could also be used as calculators are considered as one of the first wearable computers. But the concept of wearable computing has advanced alongside rapid growth in computing technology and today’s wearables enable much more than just simple calculations (Lamkin, 2014). In 1981, Steve Mann introduced a backpack-mounted multimedia computer created to control photographic systems such as cameras and flash-bulbs (Daw, 2011). In 1983, Keith Taft invented a Z-80 based “toe-operated” computer, the software for which was designed to assist blackjack players in counting cards (Hall-Stigerts, 2014). Later in 1989, Reflection Technology marketed a head-mounted display labelled “Private Eye”. This device had a red monochrome monitor with a resolution of 720 x 280 pixels and a screen size of 1.25 inch on the diagonal, and was designed in such way that the image would appear as a 15 inch display when watched from 18 inch away (Racoma, 2013).

Early Connectivity

Wearable computing technology really started becoming something we might recognise today with the popularisation of the internet, and the first connected wearable computing technology. In the beginning of 1990s, Gerald Maguire and John Ioannidis demonstrated the first student electronic notebook that contained the “Private Eye” and mobile IP (5election, 2013). In the 1991 Scientific American article, “The Computer for 21st century”, Mark Weiser projected the idea of “Ubiquitous Computing” and introduced the world to the concept of embedding computational devices in daily objects in order to communicate information (Lamkin, 2014). Two years later, in 1993, the “Pathfinder” system was invented by BBN, introducing a wearable device embedded with GPS and a radiation detector (Cubeos, 2007). By 1994, a wearable computer called “Forget-Me-Not”, that enabled continuous recording of interactions between humans and devices, was introduced. The device could also store collected information in a database. The “Forget-Me-Not” interacted through wireless transmitters (Miller, 2012). Also in 1994, Edgar Matias announced the first “wrist computer” — a modification of the HP 95LX palmtop personal digital assistant that was featured with a half-QWERTY keyboard (Redorbit, 2014). Remaining in 1994, two more key inventions emerged from the DARPA initiated “Smart Modules Program,” and Steve Mann developed the “Wearable Wireless Webcam” that allowed the transmitting of pictures from a head-mounted camera directly to the Web (Paulson, 2014). In 1996 DARPA ran a “Wearables in 2005” workshop, and Boeing hosted a wearable computing conference in Seattle, USA (Ballard, 2015). In 1997 Creapole Ecole de Creation and Alex Pentland organised the Smart Clothes Fashion Show and the first IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers was co-hosted by CMU, MIT and Georgia Tech (Cheng, 2015). Then the burst of the dotcom bubble slowed developments down for a while.

In 2002, the “Poma Wearable PC” was introduced by Xybernaut, however the project struggled to gain any commercial success (Pierini, 2015). In 2003 Fossil launched a Wrist PDA that could also be referred to as a “smartwatch,” based on Palm OS4, with PC synchronisation via MicroUSB (Fossil, 2004). But it was in 2009, that Glacier Computers released the W200 wearable computer, designed to function on either Linux or Windows CE operating systems. The W200 had a backlit keyboard, touch colour display with the resolution of 320x240 and it featured both wireless and integrated wired connectivity for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS. The device was built for emergency services and field logistics as well as for defence and security solutions (Popat and Sharma, 2013), but signalled the application of the kind of computing power and connectivity that is recognisable today in the new ‘wearable tech’ phenomenon.

Growing competition in the technology market — led by the smartphone revolution — brought reductions in costs of such components as displays, batteries, memories and processors all of which made it easier and cost effective to start developing wearable technologies (Racoma, 2013). With the launch of the 6th generation iPod Nano to be worn on the wrist, and the innovation of Google Glass, wearable computing entered an age of new-found popularity in the 2010s.

The biggest growth market in this area, in the last few years, has without question been in health and fitness monitoring, tracking, and the gamification of activity designed to promote improved fitness. FitBit, BodyMedia, FitLinxx, Garmin, Jawbone and a range of other companies have been highly successful in this growing market with their (mostly) wrist-based wearables, with tech giants like Apple introducing new elements of their mobile operating systems to act as hubs for the vast quantities data (iOS 8’s Health App) and their own Apple iWatch with the Activity Monitor at the core of its functionality.

Wearable Technology in the Workplace

In what many see as a natural progression from hobbyists interested in monitoring their own physical fitness, companies that are concerned with the health of their workforce have taken an interest in this new technology. The signs so far are that in “firms where the tech is already in place, the benefits have been overwhelmingly positive: clearer goals, proactive approaches to health, and employees who are thinking about improving their lifestyle on a regular basis” (Nield 2014).

US-based ABI Research suggest more than 13 million wearable fitness tracking devices are expected to be incorporated into employee wellness programs by 2019. “Corporate wellness is increasingly being targeted by a mix of specialist and consumer focused device vendors and competition will also extend to software applications on mobile devices,” their report reads (ABI Research 2013). Research in 2015 at Goldsmiths University suggested that up to 13% of UK smartphone users were “very likely to get at least one wearable device in the next 12 months, meaning 8 million adults or 16% of the population will use them by 2016.” (Brauer 2015)

There are many positives to introducing such schemes into the workplace, but also potentially some negatives. Wearable technology may lead to an illegal documentation and recording of a company’s and its employees’ data by the vendor, or of the employee’s data by the company rolling out the scheme, as well as misuse of the confidential and personal information in relation to the products and services of an organisation. Personal information stored in the cloud on a vendor’s website may be difficult to delete if the device is lost or stolen, and there is little yet in the way of protection for consumers in these instances. Today’s wearable technology involves working with a large amount of data and therefore attracts the attention of those who seek personal and organisational data that can be invaded: cyber-security concerns are that such devices can inadvertently grant a window into an organisation’s otherwise commercially sensitive data, let alone the personal data of the employee wearing it. The massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack in October 2016 on the Dyn backbone services for the Internet across the US and Europe — was “one of the largest cyber onslaughts of all time” — which brought down such internet giants as Twitter, Paypal, parts of Amazon and The Guardian newspaper, was reportedly operationalised through webcams, baby monitors, digital video recorders and other small connected devices around the home, whose operating systems lack the kind of security of most desktop and laptop computers (Agerholm 2016). Risk management, therefore, is an area that needs to be considered when engaging in such schemes (TrendMicro, 2015).

Some concerns have also been raised in academic circles about the ‘quantified self’ being created by the sheer amount of data these devices generate. They argue that it serves to increase the surveillance, monitoring, and perhaps unwanted behaviour change that today’s highly competitive world of work continues to bring to the lives of individuals, for whom this latest innovation may seem like just another way for their employers to encroach upon their lives (Moore 2015). It is perhaps instructive that one of the organisations that have introduced mandatory wearing of Fitbits is a private Christian College in Oklahoma, where all students must wear the devices (Thielman 2016). Oral Roberts University, named after its televangelist founder, has reportedly begun using fitness trackers to keep track on how its students are doing. “Personal health and wellbeing was a part of Roberts’ own ministry — the evangelist was renowned for what has come to be known as the “prosperity gospel”, a theological approach that considers individual good fortune proof of God’s favor,” according to The Guardian report. BP, in contrast, ensured their own scheme was completely voluntary, albeit there was an incentive. Distributing 24,500 devices to staff and dependent spouses in 2015 alone, the BBC reported that “the scheme’s popularity is partly due to the fact that activity points earn staff discounts on their health insurance premiums.” (Young 2015).

Case Study at Sigma UK Ltd

Research at the University of Salford in 2015 focussed on the introduction of wrist-based fitness trackers to the workforce of Sigma UK Ltd in the UK Northwest digital sector. The research consisted of a set of semi-structured interviews with both managers and employees in the workforce. The interviewees are distinguished below into two groups and allocated a simple number, e.g. RA1 and RB2.

After reviewing various types of wearable sensors, such as Jawbone, Nike and Fitbit, the company decided on Fitbit sensors to encourage a healthier lifestyle at the workplace. Fitbit was chosen due to its “user-friendly network system.” One of the managers described the strategy and approach behind the Fitbit project. “We have seen sickness rates creeping up, particularly around Christmas time, people were starting to feel a bit burned out towards the end of the year, people were working longer hours in the office, I could see people weren’t taking breaks at lunch, I know myself I wasn’t doing that, so we said let’s try and pull all this together and (RA1) came up with the idea of, well why don’t we gift the team something, and the idea was Fitbit and the reason we chose Fitbit was partly the price, partly because they were doing something quite nice around corporate teams, some videos on the website around how they’d help corporate teams improve performance, productivity, health…” (RA2).

Mindful, perhaps, of the privacy concerns described above, the tech company in this research were keen to ensure their employees saw the introduction of the Fitbits in a favourable light: “We made it very clear it was a gift so people were free to do with them what they wanted, they didn’t have to share their data, if they wanted to share their data they’d have full control over what they shared and they could withdraw that data at any time. It was essentially a leisure activity that we were buying into but if they were happy, we’d be quite happy to look at the team experience over 12 months….” (RA2). There were a few employees out of the whole team that were not interested in wearing Fitbits, as they believed that health and wellbeing is a very private thing outside of work, or they explained their lack of interest by saying that they were not ‘into’ the technology. Even though the majority of employees accepted the gift, there were a few members of staff that did not agree to share their data. RA2 suggested: “There’s some people wearing Fitbits who may be doing very, very well or very, very few steps, I have no idea, we haven’t seen… We made it very clear that we wouldn’t monitor and we wouldn’t use the Fitbit data for any kind of HR intervention, it was purely personal to them.”

These careful preparations, and the freedom of employees to engage or not according to preference, seemed to pay off. Even though the programme was not ‘officially sanctioned’ it was successful in encouraging most employees to be more active. “I think it’s been much more of a social exercise than strategic one but it’s definitely been interesting and it definitely got quite high engagement.” (RA1).

The key outcomes of the use of these wearable devices amongst the workforce were,

Efficiency — it led to increased competition between the workers based on the number of steps walked and calories burnt. This element of competition in the team may have had a positive impact on the company’s efficiency as every wearer would want to be more active throughout their working hours. Then it improved sickness absence figures: “There was clearly a focus on health and wellbeing and maybe that in itself corrected some of the issues”. RA2 told the Salford researchers, recalling the issue with the number of sick days being taken over the previous year. “But I would say, in general, people were healthier.” RA1 was clearer: “Previously we had had our worst absentee record ever since we started. The year we ran the programme, we had our best year ever.”

The element of competition, moreover, seemed to enthuse many in the company: “There was a bit of gamification around weekends. When Fitbit brought in the “Weekend Warrior Challenge” about halfway through the year people did immense numbers of steps over the weekends and some of the more competitive members of the team took it very seriously and you could see almost mini-leagues forming, mini competitions at the top of the league, the middle of the league” (RA2).

It wasn’t all roses, however. One employee felt the competition, in particular, got in the way of their enjoyment of the Fitbit, at least at first. “I think when it became a bit more competitive within the team” RB2 told the Salford researchers, “if I did six thousand steps one day I was, like, ‘Brilliant! That’s really, really good.’ And then I’d see other people start logging their times and suddenly there’d be, like, ten thousand, thirteen thousand, and I was suddenly at the bottom of the list and I started to find it very de-motivating.” (RB2) Fortunately this employee, after dropping from the group league, was able to just concentrate on their own progress. “What mattered is over a period of time I was improving” (RB2).

Recommendations

The data protection issues, and fear of a ‘Big Brother’ approach to the introduction of wearable tech in organisations, should be cause for caution when bringing tracking devices to the workforce.

Nonetheless, there are clear benefits to the health and wellbeing of employees, if the pitfalls are avoided, and benefits for your organisation too.

• Avoid compulsory schemes forcing all employees to take part
• Encourage voluntary data sharing and run in-house no-pressure competitions with sociable incentives such as healthy snacks or juice drinks.
• The introduction of the devices should be seen as ‘fun’ rather than as a staff requirement; encouraging walking meetings’ and regular movement around the office can be gamified rather than strictly organised
• Consider ‘gifting’ the devices to employees rather than ‘issuing’ them as company property

References

ABI Research (2013) ‘Corporate Wellness is a 13 Million Unit Wearable Wireless Device Opportunity’. https://www.abiresearch.com/press/corporate-wellness-is-a-13-million-unit-wearable-w/

Agerholm, H. (2016) “Cyber attack: Hackers use everday devices to cause major internet outages”. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/cyber-attack-hack-twitter-paypal-netflixmajor-internet-outages-caused-by-everyday-devices-latest-a7374971.html

Ballard, B. (2015) “Tracing the Roots of Wearable Technology”. http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/24/tracing-the-roots-of-wearable-technology/ Accessed: 12th January 2016.

Brauer, C. (2015) “Fitness tracking and faster payments most important use for wearable tech, research shows”, Goldsmiths News. http://www.gold.ac.uk/news/shift-wearable-tech/ Accessed: 21st October 2016

Cappellina (2016) “Fitbits are now mandatory for students at a university in Oklahoma” https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbits-mandatory-students-university-oklahoma-2250

Cubeos (2007) “The history of wearable computing”. http://www.cubeos.org/lectures/W/ln_2.pdf Accessed: 10th January 2016.

Daw, D. (2011). “Computers that you can wear”, PCWorld. http://www.pcworld.com/article/237238/computers_that_you_can_wear.html Accessed: 11th January 2016.

Hall-Stigerts, L. (2014) “Google Wear’s Great Grandparents: A Brief History of Wearable Computers”. http://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/google-wear-history-wearable-technology/ Accessed: 11th January 2016.

Lamkin, P. (2014) “History of wearable technology”. http://raconteur.net/technology/history-of-wearable-technology Accessed: 11th January 2016.

Martin, J. (2014) “Pros and Cons of Using Fitness Trackers for Employee Wellness”. http://www.cio.com/article/2377723/it-strategy/pros-and-cons-of-using-fitness-trackers-for-employeewellness.html Accessed: 12th March 2016.

Mintel (2016) “Brits set-up to werables Technology: sales of Fitness bands and smartwatches up 118% in 2015’. http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/technology-press-centre/brits-step-upto-wearable-technology-sales-of-fitness-bands-and-smartwatches-up-118-in-2015 Accessed: 27the October 2016

Miller, P. (2012) “Project Glass and the epic history of wearable computers. How we have tried to become more than human”. http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-projectglass-wearable-computers-disappoint-me Accessed: 11th January 2016.

Moore, P. (2015) “Tracking bodies, the quantified self and the corporeal turn” In: van der Pijl K (ed.) The Handbook of International Political Economy of Production. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 394–408.

Nield, D. (2014) “In corporate wellness programs, wearables take a step forward”, Fortune.com. http://fortune.com/2014/04/15/in-corporate-wellness-programs-wearables-take-a-stepforward/

Paulson, M. (2014) “A Brief History of Wearables. Wearable”, Tech World. http://www.wearabletechworld.com/topics/wearable-tech/articles/380055-brief-history-wearables.htm Accessed: 12th January 2016.

Pierini, D. (2015) “First wearable computers made you look like a freaking Borg”. http://www.cultofmac.com/311850/first-wearable-computer-xybernaut-poma/ Accessed: 12th January 2016.

Popat, A., and Sharma, P. (2013) “Wearable Computer Applications. A Future Perspective”, InternationalJournal of Engineering and Innovative Technology, 3(1). http://www.ijeit.com/Vol%203/Issue%201/IJEIT1412201307_37.pdf Accessed: 13th January 2016.

Racoma, J.A. (2013) “Wearable tech: A brief history and a look into the future”. http://www.androidauthority.com/wearable-computing-history-238324/ Accessed: 10th January 2016.

Redorbit (2014) “The History of Wearable Technology”. http://www.redorbit.com/reference/the-history-of-wearable-technology/ Accessed: 12th January 2016.

5election (2012) “A short history of wearable computers”. The International Coolhunting Magazine. http://www.5election.com/2012/09/03/a-short-history-of-wearable-computers/ Accessed: 10th January 2016.

Statista (2006) “Forecast wearables unit shipments worldwide by product category”, https://www.statista.com/statistics/437879/wearables-worldwide-shipments-by-product-category/ Accessed: 27th October2016

Thielman, S. (2016) “Fitbit used to track students’ physical activity at Oral Roberts University”. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/29/oral-roberts-university-fitibit-students-physical-fitnessfreshman-15

Trend Micro (2015) “Walking into Wearable Threats. Assessing business readiness for wearable devices”. http://www.trendmicro.co.uk/media/campaigns/wearables/uk/pdf/wearables-pdf.pdf Accessed: 2nd April 2016.

Young, E. (2015) “Do you want your company to know how fit you are?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33261116