HTO is involved in organising a special issue in Information Technology & People on People, Robots and AI at Work. The special issue examines how automation, robotics, and AI are reshaping work, job roles, and worker well-being, including questions of meaning, autonomy, cognitive load, participation, and competence development.
The guest editors are Erik Billing, Åsa Cajander, Rebecca Cort, Jessica Lindblom, and Virpi Roto.
The issue welcomes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods contributions that critically examine the design, introduction, and use of AI and robots in contemporary work environments.
Manuscript submission is open from 17 December 2025 to 31 May 2026.
Digitala tjänster som 1177 Direct med autoanamnes, autotriage och chatt blir allt vanligare i svensk primärvård. I en ny artikel i Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies undersöker Magdalena Ramstedt Stadin och Åsa Cajander hur detta påverkar sjuksköterskors organisatoriska och sociala arbetsmiljö .
Studien bygger på 29 intervjuer med sjuksköterskor från den centrala 1177-verksamheten, offentliga vårdcentraler och privata vårdcentraler. Med hjälp av Job Demands–Resources-modellen analyseras tre områden: professionell kompetens och patientkontakt, jobbkrav och tillgång till resurser.
Resultaten visar att 1177 Direct både stärker och begränsar sjuksköterskors arbete. Autoanamnes ger bättre förberedelser inför kontakten, men chattformatet gör det svårare att använda klinisk intuition och fånga upp nyanser i patientens tillstånd. Jobbkraven ökar när flera system och chattar hanteras samtidigt, utan att andra kontaktvägar minskar.
Sjuksköterskorna efterfrågar färre och tydligare kontaktvägar, bättre systemintegration, mer resurser när nya arbetsuppgifter införs samt större inflytande över chattens öppettider. De betonar också att digitala system bör komplettera – inte ersätta – den mänskliga omvårdnaden.
Var hittar jag artikeln? Artikeln “Registered Nurses’ Work Environment Associated with Auto-Anamnesis, Auto-Triage, and Online Chat” finns i Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies via tidskriftens webbplats: https://tidsskrift.dk/njwls/article/view/161779
As a researcher on software sustainabilty, I first tried to search for a definition of the term. But software sustainability turned out not to behave like a simple term. It crosses multiple dimensions and domains. It evolves over time in an unclear time period which can change depending on which aspect is being talked about. Software sustainability considers people, organizations, ecosystems, and technologies. I kept wondering, am I missing something in how I’m choosing my definition of software sustainability? As software and software development practices continually change and new technology developed that then reshape our environment, how could any single definition fully encompass this?
I have now been researching software sustainability for a couple of years, and the problem I faced on day one is the same problem I feel today: What is software sustainability? When people ask me this question, I pause longer than I should. Even though I have answered this question many times, I still get stuck on the best way to describe it. My current research explores industry perspectives on software sustainability, and those perspectives vary widely depending on context, priorities, and organizational concerns as well.
Ergonomic professionals may suggest other work conditions.
Then one day, I tried thinking of sustainability not as a definition but as a framework, and I realized that trying to force software sustainability into a definition may have been the real issue.
Why a Definition Doesn’t Quite Work
Oxford describes definition as ‘a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary,’ It creates boundaries and clarifies meaning. But definitions are reductive by design, they compress ideas into something succinct.
One of the dimensions identified in sustainability!
This works well for concepts like “protocol” or “algorithm,” but software sustainability is different. Any attempt to define it quickly requires further definitions: Are we talking about making a system more sustainable through the software? Or about the sustainability of the software itself? Or the sustainability of the socio-technical environment around it?
A single definition cannot hold all of this without a lot of explanation on how the term is being used.
Software Sustainability as a Framework
A framework provides structure. It breaks a concept into components or dimensions that can be examined, measured, and discussed. A framework explains how to think about a concept, not just what it is. It can also highlight the limitations of its own structure by making explicit what is included and what is not.
There is one framework that I know of that has been developed towards identifying software’s impact across five dimensions called sustainability awareness framework (SUSAF) which has had multiple publications identifying the usefulness of a framework for sustainability in education and industry.
A definition cannot as directly be used in this same way to develop, structure, or operationalize a concept.
Why Frameworks Work Better for Sustainability Research
Thinking of software sustainability as a framework gives researchers several advantages:
It avoids oversimplification. The complexity of sustainability is preserved rather than reduced away.
It aligns more easily with research goals. The specific elements relevant to a project can be made explicit.
It fits naturally with software engineering. Software engineering already relies on structured models (e.g. quality models, architectural models, lifecycle models) and sustainability integrates well when expressed similarly.
Frameworks can be validated. Their components can be tested, refined, and supported by evidence.
Frameworks are adaptable. They can evolve as technologies, practices, and sustainability challenges change.
Thinking of sustainability as a framework acknowledges that it is complex and multidimensional. It touches code, infrastructure, people, organizations, and the planet. It changes as software evolves and as its impacts unfold.
A definition indicates understanding. A framework enables action and analysis.
For researchers in software engineering and software sustainability, shifting the question from “What is sustainability?” to “How is sustainability structured?” makes the concept more usable and meaningful.
In our research group, we study the relationships and dynamics of Human, Technology, and Organisation (HTO) to create knowledge that supports sustainable development and utilization of ICT.
