What Is Personalization? Perspectives on the Design and

What Is Personalization? Perspectiveson the Design and Implementation

of Personalization in Information Systems

Haiyan FanMarshall Scott Poole

Department of Information and Operations ManagementMays School of Business

Texas A&M University, College Station

In e-commerce and mobile commerce, personalization has been recognized as an im-portant approach element in customer relationships and Web strategies. However,there are wide differences in how this concept is defined, characterized, and imple-mented in the literature. In this article we present a high-level framework for classify-ing approaches to personalization that delineates fundamental assumptions aboutpersonalization in the literature and relates them to strategies for developing personal-ization systems. The framework consists of 2 parts: (a) a set of perspectives on person-alization that guide the design of personalization systems at a general level and (b) ascheme for classifying how personalization can be implemented. The personalizationperspectives represent 4 distinct schools of thought on the nature of personalizationdistilled from the literature of several fields. These perspectives are ideal types and wediscuss them in terms of the motivation they supply for personalization, the goals andmeans of personalization, and the ways in which they conceptualize and model users.The implementation classification scheme is constructed on 3 dimensions of imple-mentation choices. These 3 dimensions pertain to what to personalize (content, inter-face, functionality, channel), to whom to personalize (individuals or categories of indi-viduals) as well as who does the personalization (implicit or explicit personalization).The personalization perspectives represent particular concepts of personalization thatguide general design choices; these choices are implemented via the options describedin the implementation classification scheme. The framework contributes to the devel-opment of a common theoretical basis for the study of personalization. We discuss im-plications of the framework for design of personalization systems and future researchdirections.

personalization, multiparadigm review, classification scheme, ideal types,design philosophy, electronic commerce, mobile commerce

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMPUTINGAND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 16(3&4), 179–202 (2006)

Correspondence should be sent to Haiyan Fan, Department of Information and Operations Manage-ment, Mays School of Business, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–4217. Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

The impulse to personalize environments, tools, and products to fit the unique con-cerns of the individual is as old as human society. In this era of technological inno-vations, the Internet, and new media, personalization is possible on a broader scaleand can be done more quickly and effectively than ever before. As an important so-cial phenomenon that carries great economic value [1, 2], personalization hasdrawn increasing research attention from both academia and industry. Personal-ization has been studied in such academic fields as economics, management, mar-keting, information systems (IS), and computer science. In industry, corporatespending on content personalization is estimated at $6 billion by 2004 [3], and per-sonalization technology providers have mushroomed (e.g., Net Perceptions,BroadVision, Documentum, Vignette).

However, there is little consensus on how best to characterize the personaliza-tion construct. There is considerable diversity in thinking about the concept acrossthe various disciplines and researchers who have studied personalization. Such di-versity is advantageous because it offers multiple creative viewpoints on an impor-tant phenomenon. However, the wide range of viewpoints has tended to hinderaccumulation of a foundational body of research on personalization. Most currentresearch on this topic has centered on the technical level in which the conceptual-ization of personalization systems depends on the developer or researcher’s partic-ular view of personalization. This has resulted in studies and systems that aredifficult to relate to one another. Furthermore, empirical studies that have com-pared and contrasted the effectiveness of different personalization technologies arerare. The current practice of focusing on “how to do personalization” rather than“how can personalization be done well” suggests that the field is still in its infancy.

This situation motivated us to develop a high-level framework for classifyingapproaches to personalization. The framework delineates fundamental assump-tions about personalization in the literature and relates them to design strategiesfor developing personalization systems. It consists of two parts: (a) a set of perspec-tives on personalization that guide the design of personalization systems at a gen-eral level and (b) a scheme for classifying how personalization can beimplemented. The personalization perspectives represent four distinct schools ofthought on the nature of personalization distilled from the literature of severalfields. These perspectives are ideal types and are discussed in terms of the motiva-tion they supply for personalization, the goals and means of personalization, andthe ways in which they conceptualize and model users. The implementation classi-fication scheme is constructed on three dimensions of implementation choices.These three dimensions pertain to what to personalize (content, interface, function-ality, channel), to whom to personalize (individual or categories of individuals) aswell as who does the personalization (implicit or explicit personalization). The per-sonalization perspectives represent particular concepts of personalization thatguide general design choices; these choices are implemented via the options de-scribed in the implementation classification scheme. The classification scheme of-fers a descriptive analysis of personalization practices, whereas thepersonalization perspectives offer a normative analysis of design possibilities.Whereas the implementation classifications shed light on the question of how per-

180 FAN AND POOLE

sonalization can be done, the personalization perspectives provide insight intopossibilities—diverse ways of thinking about personalization and the design ofpersonalization systems.

We organized this article as follows. We first consider definitions of personaliza-tion ventured by scholars and designers from a range of fields to illustrate some ofthe complexities behind the construct. Based on the literature review, we advance aworking definition for personalization that presents a broad view of the phenome-non. Next, we present the classification scheme for methods of implementing per-sonalization. We introduce this prior to the perspectives on personalizationbecause it flows directly from our analysis of the definitions and also delimits themeans by which personalization is conducted. This provides important context forthe perspectives, which are at a more general level and shape the form and contentof the implementation. Finally, we discuss the implications for design of personal-ization systems as well as for IS research and practice.

2. DEFINITIONS OF PERSONALIZATION

We conducted a literature review in electronic databases using the keywords per-sonalization, variants of the same word stem, and related terms such as customiz-ation, adaptation, individuation, consumer-centric, and one-to-one relationship. The ini-tial filtering of over 300 abstracts and book summaries yielded a total of 142references that discussed or studied personalization including 86 journal articles, 35books or book sections, 13 conference papers, and eight Web references.

These sources represent six general areas in which personalization has beenstudied: marketing/e-commerce; computer science/cognitive science; architec-ture/environmental psychology; information science; and social sciences includ-ing sociology, anthropology, and communication. Readers may get a sense of thediversity of concepts in current research from Table 1, which exhibits sample defi-nitions of personalization. This array of definitions reflects the multidisciplinarynature of personalization research.

At the conceptual level, personalization means different things to different peo-ple in different fields. For architects, personalization means creating functional,pleasant personal spaces; for social scientists it is a way of enhancing social rela-tionships and building social networks [4, 5]; for some computer scientists, person-alization is a toolbox of technologies to enhance the Web experience throughgraphic user interface design. Different conceptualizations in turn dictate differentresearch methodologies and implementations. Cognitive scientists resort to ex-plicit mental modeling to differentiate users, whereas e-commerce marketers relyon user profiles and purchase records to segment customers.

The two largest bodies of work in our review were comprised of research byscholars in the computer science and marketing/e-commerce areas. Each of thesegroups has different research agendas and assumptions about personalization. Pri-marily comprised of researchers in marketing, management, economics, and IS,the marketing/e-commerce group focuses on how to manage customer relation-ships by delivering unique value and benefits to each individual customer. Thisgroup is particularly interested in the use of personalization in Web-enabled com-

PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN IS 181

Table 1Representative Definitions of Personalization

Discipline Sample Definitions

Marketing/e-commerce a. “Personalization is the combined use of technology and customerinformation to tailor electronic commerce interactions between abusiness and each individual customer” [78].

b. “Personalization is about building customer loyalty by building ameaningful one-to-one relationship; by understanding the needsof each individual and helping satisfy a goal that efficiently andknowledgeably addresses each individual’s need in a givencontext” ([63], p. 26).

c. “Personalization is the capability to provide users, customers,partners, and employees, with the most relevant web experiencepossible” ([79], p. 15).

d. “Personalization is any behaviors occurring in the interactionsintended to contribute to the individuation of the customer”([80],p. 87).

e. An enterprise, process, or ideology in which personalizedproducts and services are integrated and implemented throughoutthe organization including all points of sale; other points ofcustomer contact; and back-end activities and departments such asinventory, shipping, production, and finance [66].

Cognitive science f. Personalization is “a system that makes explicit assumptionsabout users’ goals, interests, preferences and knowledge based onan observation of his or her behavior or a set of rules relatingbehavior to cognitive elements” [81].

g. Personalization is the process of providing relevant content basedon individual user preferences or behavior [12, 66].

h. Personalization is the“explicit user model that represents userknowledge, goals, interests, and other features that enable thesystem to distinguish among different users” ([82], p. 31).

i. Personalization is the understanding of “the user, the user’s tasks,and the context in which the user accomplishes tasks and goals”([83], p. 50).

Social science j. Technology that reflects and enhances social relationships andsocial networks [4, 5].

k. “Technology that provide experiences that bridge cultures,languages, currencies, and ideologies” ([77], p. 14).

Computer science l. “Personalization is a toolbox of technologies and applicationfeatures used in the design of an end-user experience” ([84], p. 44).

m. “Personalization system is any piece of software that appliesbusiness rules to profiles of users and content to provide avariable set of user interfaces”[13].

n. Machine-learning algorithms that are integrated into systems toaccommodate individual user’s unique patterns of interactionswith the system [21].

o. “Computer networks that provides personalized features,services and user interface portability across network boundariesand between terminals” ([25], p. 128).

p. Unifying platform embedded in any type of computing devicesthat support individualized information inflow and outflow [85].

q. Presenting customers with services that are relevant to theircurrent locations, activities, and surrounding environments [22].

182

merce and mobile commerce. On the other hand, with an interest in making com-puter technologies more usable by people, computer scientists in the computer-human interaction (CHI) group view personalization as a way to close the gap be-tween user and computer. The assumption in this case is that systems that are de-signed and adapted to user requirements will facilitate user goal attainment. Thesetwo groups hold considerably different understandings about what personaliza-tion is, and each group has developed its own terminology, methodology, and toolkits. Moreover, as Table 1 shows, there are differences within each group as well.Differences in views of personalization among fields and among researchers in thesame field make it difficult to relate personalization studies to one another and tocumulate knowledge about personalization.

The concept of personalization is intuitive but also slippery. As Table 1 indi-cates, the term has been used in so many ways that it is difficult to discern core fea-tures by just scanning the definitions. A thematic analysis of the definitions inTable 1 suggests that most definitions of personalization include (a) a purpose orgoal of personalization, (b) what is personalized (interface, content, etc.), and (c)the target of personalization (user, consumer, etc.). Although most definitions alsoinclude a statement of the means by which personalization is implemented, we be-lieve that to be useful to the many fields involved in personalization research, a def-inition must be neutral as to means of personalization. It is clear that there aremany ways to do personalization whether via knowledge representation, a specificproduct, or a Web page, and a general definition should not favor any particularapproach. To this end, we adapt Blom’s [6] general concept and define personaliza-tion as a process that changes the functionality, interface, information access andcontent, or distinctiveness of a system to increase its personal relevance to an indi-vidual or a category of individuals.

This definition is framed around the goal of increasing personal relevance toavoid dependence on particular motivations for personalization that limit thescope of many of the definitions in Table 1. Definitions built around specific


(continued)Table 1 Continued

Discipline Sample Definitions

r. Consumer-centric infomediary that act on behalf of users toperform online shopping, searching and information-gatheringservices [23, 24].

Architecture/environmental psychology

s. “The relationship between persons and the spatial dimensions ofthe environment that effects the cognitive, affective and socio-cultural components of the individual” ([39], p. 142).

t. Deliberate decoration or modification of an environment to reflectthe occupants’ identities by increasing the usability and aestheticvalue of the space [38].

Information science u. Fine-tuning and prioritizing information based on criteria thatinclude timeliness, importance, and relevance to the audience [86].

v. “Delivering to a group of individuals relevant information that isretrieved, transformed, and/or deduced from informationsources” ([87], p. 30).

goals—such as tailoring electronic commerce transactions, delivery of businessprocesses, and enhancing social relationships—or for specific targets such as cus-tomers, partners, and employees are too context bound to be useful in understand-ing the entire field. Definitions that emphasize certain techniques or tools ofpersonalization—such as user models, machine learning algorithms, computernetworks, or infomediaries—predecide how personalization is to be done and alsolimit one’s view of the phenomenon. Our definition attempts to provide a moregeneral view of personalization. In our view, an adequate definition of personal-ization should open up the field of personalization research to many perspectivesand methods and avoid specific assumptions about motives, context, or method.

At this point, it is useful to explore a few terms that are closely related to person-alization and sometimes used synonymously for it. The term customization is fre-quently used interchangeably with personalization. Most work in whichcustomization is used [7, 8] has referred to it as customer-initiated personalizationactions. Somewhat analogous to ordering from a menu, customization is oftencomprised of a suite of template-driven, finite set of options from which userschoose. Examples are personal portal sites such as “My Yahoo!” [9] or sites that of-fer custom-made apparel such as “Lands End” [10]. Because users are in direct con-trol, customization is advantageous with respect to high predictability and lowintrusiveness. In relation to the definition of personalization just advanced, cus-tomization would be one approach to implementing personalization.

Another closely related term is adaptation. In the CHI literature, this term hasbeen used to refer to the properties of a system that can automatically adjust its be-havior and interaction to suit the user’s needs [11]. Specifically, an adaptive systememploys explicit mental or cognitive modeling of the user to enable the system todistinguish among different users. Adaptable systems, on the other hand, require theuser to explicitly specify how he or she wants the system to be different. The dis-tinction between adaptable and adaptive systems is similar to the distinctions be-tween explicit and implicit personalization [7, 12–14] and static and dynamicpersonalization [15] that can be found in descriptions of commercial systems forpersonalization (see also Karat et al. [16]). This terminological duplication is proba-bly due to different perspectives. The CHI research is system oriented and focuseson what the system can do as compared to the application-oriented business re-search that focuses on applying personalization technology in e-commerce or mo-bile commerce. In terms of our definition of personalization, the adaptive oradaptable system is the means to accomplish personalization. In this article, weadopt the widely accepted classification of implicit versus explicit personalizationfrom the e-commerce literature to reflect the adaptive–adaptable distinction.

Personification refers to endowing inanimate computer objects with human qual-ities or human form [6, 17, 18]. In CHI terminology, personification is often imple-mented as anthropomorphic software agents [19, 20]. This term does not relate toour discussion of personalization.

Beyond terminological issues, diversity in the technologies used in building per-sonalization systems also constitutes a barrier to mutual understanding amongpersonalization researchers. There exist many approaches to personalization rang-ing from computational algorithms to less rigorous applications of various types.For example, machine-learning algorithms have been integrated into systems to ac-

184 FAN AND POOLE

commodate the individual user’s unique patterns of interactions with the system[21]. Ubiquitous computing and context-aware computing provide customers withservices relevant to their current locations, activities, and surrounding environ-ments [22]. Agent technology has been used in building consumer-centricinfomediaries that act on behalf of users to perform various tasks [23, 24]. Com-puter networks can provide personalized features, services, and user interface por-tability across network boundaries and between terminals [25].

To get a perspective on the variety of approaches to personalization, it is usefulto define general dimensions underlying the implementation of personalizationsystems. These dimensions can be used to construct a classification scheme for per-sonalization systems that relates them to theoretical and practical concepts.

3. A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR IMPLEMENTATIONSOF PERSONALIZATION

The scheme is constructed along three dimensions of implementation implicit in theprevious section: (a) the aspect of the information system that is manipulated toprovide personalization (what is personalized), (b) the target of personalization (towhom to personalize), and (c) who does the personalization (i.e., the user or the sys-tem). This classification scheme draws on several previous classification systems.Blom [6] distinguished three motivations to personalize: to access information, toaccomplish work goals, and to accommodate individual differences. Rossi et al. [26]made a distinction between base information and behavior, what the user perceivesand how the user perceives. This framework is largely concerned with system-levelelements such as personalization for links, navigation structure, and navigationcontext. Instone [13] and Wu et al. [27] classified personalization on e-commerceWeb sites into a two-by-two grid with implicit versus explicit personalization onone dimension and Web content versus Web interface on the other dimension.

In terms of the first dimension, what is personalized, we can distinguish four as-pects of IS that can be personalized: the information itself (content), how the infor-mation is presented (user interface), the media through which information isdelivered (channel/information access), and what users can do with the system (func-tionality). These represent the basic elements of IS that can be manipulated in a per-sonalization system to make the system more personally relevant to the user. Thisdimension focuses on the particular parts of the system that deliver personaliza-tion to the user.

The second dimension, the target of personalization, can be either a category ofindividuals or a specific individual. One option is to implement personalization fora particular category of user such as women, single-child families, or members of aclub. Insofar as an individual user identifies with this category, he or she is likely toperceive that the system is personalized for them. Another option is to design sys-tems to adapt and cater to the needs of a single user. Individuated personalization istargeted to a specific individual, and its goal is to deliver goods, services, or infor-mation unique to each individual as an individual.

Research on social identity [28, 29] has shown that people may think of them-selves either as members of a social group (a category) or as individuals, depend-


ing on the social cues available in a particular context. Furthermore, research hasindicated that people react differently when they are focused on their unique iden-tity as an individual (individuated) as opposed to how they act if their focus ontheir identity as members of a social group (categorized). When people focus oncategory membership, their motivation revolves around values and concerns of thesocial group; they are more influenced by group norms than by individual consid-erations; they tend to make judgments based on perceived group standards; andthey may stereotype members of outgroups, groups they view as opposed or dif-ferent from their own. When people are individuated, their motivation is largelydriven by their particular individual needs; they are not as strongly influenced bynorms but make decisions on individual bases, and they are more likely to see oth-ers as individuals as well and not as members of other social groups. Personaliza-tion systems based on categories are likely to give categorical cues (e.g., “This site isspecially designed for members of the Blackwell Club”) and are likely to elicit quitedifferent user reactions than are individuated systems.

Interestingly, the actual implementation of individuated personalization maybe based on categorical analysis. If it is desirable to capture the unique individual-ity of a person, this can be defined as the unique intersection of a variety of catego-ries representing the individual’s important characteristics (e.g., female, Hispanic,professional, living in Idaho, 25 years old, one child, etc.) and utilizing enough cat-egories to define the individual uniquely. Although categories are used, this sys-tem functions for all intents and purposes as an individuated personalizationsystem. In general, as this example illustrates, individuated personalization takesmore system resources than categorical personalization.

The third dimension pertains to degree to which personalization is automated.Personalization in which the user participates by making choices or providing infor-mation to give the system guidance as to how to adapt is termed explicit personaliza-tion. Personalization that is done automatically by the system is termed implicitpersonalization. As we noted in the previous section, this distinction parallels the dif-ferentiation of system-initiated versus user-initiated personalization, adaptive ver-susadaptablesystems,andstaticversusdynamicpersonalization.Thisdistinction isanimportantonenotonlybecause ithas implicationsfor thetechniquesusedtocarryout personalization but also because users are likely to react differently to a systemthey know they control (explicit personalization) and one that seems to have a life ofitsownandadapts to themof itsownaccord(implicitpersonalization) [18].Researchhas suggested that people react to systems that display agency on the same basis asthey respond to other human beings, whereas a system that is dependent on humaninput—and thus clearly responsive rather than proactive—is more likely to beviewed as nonhuman. Hence, implicit personalization would be expected to affectusers differently than would explicit personalization.

Together, the three dimensions capture key implementation choices involved inpersonalization, yielding the scheme depicted in Table 2. The dimension along thetop of the table, aspects of IS used to personalize, breaks out options pertaining totechnical implementation. The target and automation dimensions, which run alongthe side, highlight implementation choices with different implications for user re-sponse to a personalization system. One other noteworthy classification scheme wasdeveloped by Amoroso and Reinig [30]. Amoroso and Reinig classified technologies

186 FAN AND POOLE

Table 2Classification Scheme for Personalization Systems With Examples

Target Automation Content Functionality User InterfaceChannel/

Information Access

Implicit Individuated Recommendationof newdestination sentby travelcompany in apersonalizedgreeting card toexistingcustomers eachyear around thetime they tooktheir last tripbased on theanalysis ongroups of otherlike-mindedtravelers [72]

Mobile wirelessagentsequipped withglobalpositioningsystems actingas a personaltourist guidesthat candynamicallyadjust to users’interests andchanges inenvironment[55]

Computersystems thatdynamicallyrenderinformationstructure,grouping, orlook and feelaccording touser’s real-timeaction [21]

Context-awarenesscomputing inwirelesscustomersupport such asflight schedulechange alertsent totraveler’spersonalizeddigital assistant(PDA) (www.travelocity.com)

Categorical Recommendersystemsuggests relatedtitles to allcustomers whobrowsed orbought Scienceof the Artificial(www.amazon.com)

Truckingcompany Website designedwith differentfunctionalitiesfor users ofdifferent roles:businesspartners, truckdrivers, andmanagers(BroadVisioncase study onwww.broadvision.com)

3D interactivemapdynamicallychanges itspresentation fordifferentgroups ofvisitors such aspreschoolers,big kids,romance &relaxations,magicalgatherings, etc.

Bank’smultichannelcustomerservice: callcenter, Web,ATM, wirelesstransactionsupport, etc.[57]

Explicit Individuated Personalizeddigital library(my book bag,my bookmark);personalizedweb portal (MyYahoo!);custom-madeapparel (Lands’End)

Customer builtpersonal virtualmodel bysubmittingspecifications ofbodyparameters(Lands’ End);Virtualcosmetics toolwith whichcustomer canexperimentwith myriads ofcosmeticsproduct(L′ ORÉALEasyMakeover)

Customersconfigure thelook and feel ofMy page savedon the serverside(www.msn.com)

Personalizedcommunicationnetwork,virtual homeenvironment(3rd generationpartnershipproject)

(continued)

used in personalization management systems into four broad categories. User-behavior tracking technologies include cookies, clickstream tracking, and hover tech-nologies. As the name implies, this type of technology provides mechanisms to iden-tify users and to monitor user online behavior in the background. Personalizationdatabase technologies are built on large database systems and require intensive com-puting power. This type of technology includes statistical analysis, data mining,webhousing, intelligent agent, recommender systems, collaborative filtering, anduser profiling. Personalized user interface technologies include user interface design,human-oriented digital design, and adaptive hypermedia. Finally, customer supporttechnologiesarepersonalized just-in-timeapplications inmobilecommercecapitaliz-ing on a user’s current location, activity, and surrounding environment. Thisscheme, which captures complex bundles of technology used in personalization, of-fersausefulsupplement toourscheme,butwedonot incorporate itbecause itwouldmake the scheme too complex.

Thus far, we have undertaken the descriptive task of structuring research onpersonalization by defining the construct and offering a classification of keychoices in the implementation of personalization systems. In the following section,we present a normative analysis of general perspectives on personalization. Nor-mative perspectives guide design by developing a vision of what personalizationcould be that articulates the purpose of personalization and criteria for realizingthat purpose. Current approaches to personalization in both industry and acade-mia tend to adopt relatively narrow, specialized views of the subject. However, webelieve that creative and effective design will best be facilitated by consideringwidely different approaches. The commercial and functional approaches that dom-inate the marketing and computer science schools on personalization are only twoof several approaches that can be taken to the design and execution of personaliza-tion. Alternative norms to guide design can be identified through exploring alter-native ways in which personalization is characterized, conceptualized, andpracticed in diversified disciplines.

188 FAN AND POOLE

Table 2 Continued

Target Automation Content Functionality User InterfaceChannel/

Information Access

Categorical Online interestgroups andsupport groupson varioushealth topicssuch asdepression,pregnancy, andcancermoderated bymedicalprofessionals(www.webmd.com)

Differentdownloadable,interactive toolssuch as quizzes,games for kids,teenagers,parents, andteachers(www.younginvestor.com)

Distinctivelydifferent lookand feel of theweb site fordifferentcountries(www.lorealparis.com)

Local restaurantor vendingmachinedirectoryavailable onuser’s PDA(Zagat’srestaurantguide)

4. PERSPECTIVES ON PERSONALIZATION

Different schools of thought can be discerned within the diverse personalization lit-erature. To capture the characteristic features of these logically consistent ap-proaches to thinking about personalization, we distilled four perspectives from theliterature on personalization. In conducting this multiparadigm review, we utilizedtwo metatriangulation techniques discussed by Lewis and Grimes [31] to uncoverparadigmatic disparity and complementarity. First we used paradigm bracketing todifferentiate and articulate various sets of assumptions. In some cases, these as-sumptions underlie prevailing thought about personalization, and we attempt tomake them more explicit. In other cases, these assumptions are more explicit but areembedded in less well known paradigms, and we argue that they should be consid-ered by personalization researchers [32]. Second, paradigm bridging suggests “tran-sition zones” where paradigmatic boundaries become fuzzy and new views perme-ating across paradigms are synthesized. In this section, we present the results ofparadigm bracketing that enabled us to identify four perspectives on personaliza-tion. At the end of this section and in the following section, we use paradigm bridg-ing to identify commonalities and differences among the perspectives and to ex-plore design implications.

We relied on Weber’s [33] ideal type theory in defining the personalizationperspectives. Weber argued that social, economic, and historical research cannever be fully inductive or descriptive, as one always approaches it with a con-ceptual apparatus. This conceptual apparatus Weber defined as the ideal type,which is an abstraction of essential features of a particular social or economicphenomenon. The ideal type is useful for studying personalization for two rea-sons. First, it focuses on the development of internally coherent perspectives onthe subject. It is important to study each of the distinct schools of thought on per-sonalization in its “pure form” so as to capture their respective central character-istics. Ideal type theory provides a methodology for analyzing the typical orlogically consistent features of social institutions or behaviors [33]. Second, thereis a strong need to establish a common frame of reference against which the cur-rent practice of personalization can be evaluated. Although the ideal type doesnot describe any particular concrete course of action, it does describe whatWeber referred to as “objectively possible” courses of action. The ideal type is ananalytical tool for comparing the extent to which a concrete example of practiceis similar to or different from the defined ideal. In this sense, ideal types canserve as guidelines for conducting and evaluating personalization systems inlight of alternative approaches.

From our literature review, we distilled four ideal types of personalization asshown in Table 3: the architectural, relational, instrumental, and commercial per-spectives. Each perspective represents a different philosophy concerning the moti-vation behind personalization and what personalization tries to accomplish (itsgoal). Each perspective also implies a different strategy for personalization, differ-ent means for carrying out this strategy, and different user modeling techniques.Finally, each perspective implies different criteria for evaluating personalizationsystems. In discussing the four perspectives, we use Web enabled e-commerce ormobile commerce sites as focal cases.


4.1 Architectural Personalization

Architectural personalization is most generally associated with the fields of archi-tecture, environmental psychology, and urban planning. This approach is reflectedin the definitions under the architecture category in Table 1. Architecture has longbeen used as a reference discipline for CHI research, primarily in the graphic designand visualization areas [34]. As a recognized reference discipline for managementIS research, the social processes and research methodologies of architecture havebeen studied [35, 36]. For example, Kim et al. [37] applied architectural constructs tomeasure the architectural quality of Internet business. In this article, we exploreways in which architects personalize physical environments that are applicable tothe Web-enabled environment.

We define architectural personalization as the construction of the digital environ-ment to create a pleasant user space and a unique experience for the user througharrangement and design of digital artifacts in a way that meet the user’s needs andreflect his or her style and taste. Because architectural personalization is concernedwith building digital environments, it relates particularly to the interface aspect ofthe system.

The motive of architectural personalization is to fulfill the user’s needs and toenable him or her to express himself or herself through design of the online envi-ronment. The goals for personalization in this view are twofold: (a) to create a func-

190 FAN AND POOLE

Table 3Personalization Ideal Types

Architectural InstrumentalMotive: To fulfill a human being’s needs for

expressing himself/herself through thedesign of the built environment

Motive: To fulfill a human being’s needs forefficiency and productivity

Goals: To create a functional and delightfulWeb environment that is compatible with asense of personal style

Goals: To increase efficiency and productivityof using the system

Strategy: Individualization Strategy: UtilizationMeans: Building a delightful Web

environment and immersive Webexperience

Means: Designing, enabling, and utilizinguseful, usable, user-friendly tools

User model: Cognitive, affective, and social-cultural aspects of the user

User model: Situated needs of the user

Relational CommercialMotive: To fulfill a human being’s needs for

socialization and a sense of belongingMotive: To fulfill a human’s beings needs for

material and psychic welfareGoals: To create a common, convenient

platform for social interaction that iscompatible with the individual’s desiredlevel of privacy

Goals: To increase sales and to enhancecustomer loyalty

Strategy: Mediation Strategy: SegmentationMeans: Building social interactions and

interpersonal relationshipsMeans: Differentiating product, service, and

informationUser model: Social context and relational

aspects of the userUser models: User preference or demographic

profiling; user online behavior and userpurchasing history

tional and delightful Web environment that provides aesthetic value and reflectsthe user’s personal style and (b) to help the user cultivate a sense of personal andsocial identity within the space [38].

The general strategy of architectural personalization is individualization. Re-search in architecture has shown that personalized design that incorporates theneeds and requirements of users has significantly improved the quality and func-tion of the built environment [39–43]. Personalization of domestic and work spacesstrives to make them true reflections of the occupant’s personal and social identity,particularly with respect to social-cultural positions such as ethnic, socio-demographic, socioeconomic, or socioprofessional background [39]. Architectsseek to honor individual experience sui generis, and therefore, architectural per-sonalization is in direct contrast with commercial personalization, which starts andends with the premise that personalization must enhance the marketability of theproducts and profitability of the business transaction.

In transferring the architectural perspective to the Web-enabled environment, re-searchers are confronted with a question: What constitutes the space? We contendthat this space is the digital counterpart of analog space. Novak et al. [44] argued that“the Internet is best thought of not as a simulation of the ‘real world’, … but as an al-ternative real, yet computer-mediated environment in which the online customerexperience becomes paramount” (p. 23). Just as the human-made ecosystem consistsof physical artifacts such as buildings, furniture, and other objects [45], digital spaceis comprised of human-made digital artifacts such as the structure of a Web site, nav-igation components, hyperlinks, layout, and site flow [46]. Architectural personal-izationinthedigitalenvironmentfollowstheaxiomsofarchitecturethatstressunity,form, and function, and its central reference point is a balance that is captured by thephrase “aesthetic functionality.”

Theories of behavior–environment congruence advance the premise that ma-nipulating physical space provides an effective means for influencing the cogni-tive, affective, and social-cultural aspects of residents [47–49]. Personalizationsystems designed following the architectural design philosophy employ user mod-els that map the cognitive, affective, and social-cultural aspects of users. Most cur-rent research has explored principles for constructing digital spaces that affordeasy navigation, intelligent presentation, and aesthetic delight [34, 50, 51]. Less re-search has been devoted to how to utilize a user’s individual style and taste asshaped by his or her individual and social identity. A good example of architec-tural personalization would be the L′ ORÉAL® Web site. The site is designed witha different look and feel for different countries. The Japanese site is presented withthe fresh pure look of oriental lotus, the Brazilian site is imbued with passionatedashes of red, and the French site is enlivened by an avant-garde-looking model.The variety brings in intrigue, mood, and added value to a site.

4.2 Instrumental Personalization

In Marxist philosophy, a human being is defined as the creature capable of creatingand using tools. Human history is a history of creation and use of increasingly pow-erful tools and machines. From the industrial revolution to the information age, me-


chanical tools followed by electronic and digital machines have emerged at an ex-ponential rate, becoming an indispensable part of daily life. Instrumentalpersonalization attempts to facilitate human use of computer systems as tools.

Instrumental personalization correlates with the goals of the traditional systemsdesigner and is exemplified by definitions under the computer science, cognitivescience, and IS categories in Table 1. It refers to the utilization of IS to enhance effi-ciency and personal productivity by providing, enabling, and delivering useful,usable, user-friendly tools in a way that meet the user’s situated needs. Instrumen-tal personalization focuses on the functionality of the system. The assumption inthis case is that users will find systems that are designed and tailored to their par-ticular requirements more relevant. Regardless of the type or sophistication of themachines, the purpose for instrumental personalization nevertheless is singular—to support users in accomplishing their goals. Unlike architectural personalizationin which function and form balance each other, instrumental personalization em-phasizes functionality and usability and treats aesthetics as a secondary consider-ation to be addressed once instrumental standards are met.

There are three aspects of instrumental personalization: providing tools, design-ing tools, and utilizing tools. Each aspect takes a different perspective on the per-sonalization issue and entails different research interests. Providing tools isconcerned with creating devices for personalized use that can be delivered throughthe appropriate channels. Channels for provision of services include the wired andwireless Webs, personal digital assistants, interactive TV, and voice portals amongothers. Devices deployed in wired or wireless applications offer personalized func-tions ranging from Hallmark’s® interactive calendar that sends reminders of im-portant dates to personal agents capable of conducting business transactions [24,52]. Designing tools is concerned with making tools and machines usable, useful,and user friendly, the traditional domain of software engineers.

Utilizing tools is concerned with choosing the appropriate channels and devicesto deliver relevant content effectively. The challenge lies in identifying the propervehicle to carry out the service through multiple channels. For example, ubiquity,localization, and convenience have been often cited as key mobile value proposi-tions [53, 54]. Mobile wireless agents equipped with Global Positioning Systemsare suitable for personal tourist guides that can dynamically adjust to users’ inter-ests and changes in environment (e.g., indicating when museums are open duringtimes convenient for the user) [55]. Web-based shopping agents are capable of per-forming complicated price, utility, and functionality comparison among brands[56]. The challenge lies in identifying the proper vehicle to carry out the servicethrough the “multi-channel zigzag” [57]. An important task for instrumental per-sonalization is the integration of different computing devices across platforms.Truly personal control over the flow of information across the boundaries of net-works, platforms, and devices can be realized through the creation of personalizedcommunication networks such as 3rd Generation Partnership Project’s “PersonalService Environment” and “Virtual Home Environment” [25].

Instrumental personalization highlights the importance of the user’s situatedneeds. Deviating from traditional artificial intelligence research that treats the per-son as a rational, linear information processing system, studies of situated needs andaction argue that “every course of action depends in essential ways upon its material

192 FAN AND POOLE

andsocialcircumstances.Rather thanattemptingtoabstractactionawayfromitscir-cumstances and represent it as a rational plan, the approach is to study how peopleuse their circumstances to achieve intelligent action” ([58], p. 7). Personalization sys-tems designed under the instrumental perspective utilize information about theuser’s context such as time, location, and surrounding environmental parameters tomake inferences or predictions and to act accordingly [59].

4.3 Relational Personalization

Another way to personalize one’s world is to create a unique web of social relation-ships. This approach is most closely associated with sociology, communication, andanthropology and is reflected in the definitions in the social science category in Ta-ble 1. Positive social relationships give individuals a sense of well-being by creatingsupport and a sense that they are not alone and are valued. In a very real sense, theylend an aura of the personal to one’s world.

Relational personalization can be defined as the mediation of interpersonal rela-tionships and utilization of relational resources to facilitate social interactions byproviding a convenient platform for people to interact with others in a way that iscompatible with the individual’s desired level of communality and privacy. Themotivation behind relational personalization is to fulfill the user’s needs for social-ization and a sense of belonging. The goal of relational personalization is twofold:(a) to enhance the effectiveness of interpersonal interactions and (b) to help gener-ate “social capital” [4] by providing new opportunities for strengthening social re-lationships and maintaining social networks. Relational personalization takes amyriad of forms, ranging from personalized gifts to computer-mediated interper-sonal communication (MIT Media Lab).

Personalization systems designed according to the relational perspective focuson a strategy of mediation. They seek to provide a common, convenient platformfor interpersonal communication and community building that emphasizes designon the basis of what Preece [60] termed sociability. Once a social network hasemerged, the designer can use this critical mass to further enlist users and increasethe relational potential of the network. Applications amenable to relational person-alization vary greatly in size and complexity. They can be as simple as providing an“e-mail to a friend” button to notify others of one’s flight schedule after bookingtickets online or as complicated as a conglomeration of online information portaland activity center in a “Digital City” that engages residents or visitors [61].

The relational perspective models the user’s relational needs and the social con-text that satisfies them. Preece [60] discussed several aspects of social context thatare important in meeting users’ needs for sociability. These include a clearly statedpurpose that attracts people with similar goals and interests to the community,provision of people who play key roles in the community (moderators, mediators),and community governance policies that make participation safe and preserve pri-vacy. In this model, the individual’s attempt to achieve a desired level of privacy onone hand is balanced by his or her attempt to maintain a sense of community on theother [62]. A relationship that maintains a desired level of privacy ensures goodcommunity building, whereas good community building enhances trust.


4.4 Commercial Personalization

One of the most important human activities is the consumption of goods and ser-vices. Personalization driven by the commercial perspective is reflected in the defi-nitions in the marketing/e-commerce categories in Table 1. Adopting Riechen’s[63] definition, we define commercial personalization as the differentiation of prod-uct, service, and information to increase sales and to enhance customer loyalty bysegmenting customers in a way that efficiently and knowledgeably address eachuser or group of users’ needs and goals in a given context. Commercial personaliza-tion is strongly technology driven. Information technology makes mass personal-ization possible through the personalized channel of “addressable media.” The en-tire business paradigm shifts from mass-produced goods and standardizedservices to an emphasis on one-to-one contact as discussed by Peppers and Rogers[64] in The One To One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a Time, a corner-stone book for much recent activity in the personalization industry.

The motivation of commercial personalization is to fulfill users’ material needsand thus contribute to their psychic welfare [65]. Commercial personalization pri-marily focuses on the content of the system. The assumption is that product, ser-vice, and information of high relevance to the consumer yields a satisfyingshopping experience and loyal adherence to the Web site as well as the organiza-tion behind it. The goal of commercial personalization is to increase sales directlyand through cross sales [14] and to increase customer loyalty and build brands [63].Customers benefit from customized products, individualized services, and an en-hanced experience [10]. Cultivating a one-to-one relationship makes future trans-actions smoother and more efficient, benefiting both parties in the long run.

The primary strategy of commercial personalization is segmentation. Commer-cial personalization is ultimately effective only to the extent that the offerings pro-vide value to the target market segments by differentiating the product, service,and information provided. Business goals are sometimes in direct conflict with theinterests of consumers, who are money conscious, time conscious, and sensitive toprivacy infringement. Personalization strategies merely for the benefit of the busi-ness are not sustainable even if they result in an initial sales boost.

Rich knowledge about the personalizee is a prerequisite for success in commer-cial personalization. This requires continuous learning about each individual, un-derstood as a systemic entity in terms of personal preferences and interests [66],cognitive ability, motives, demographic or psycho-cultural profiles [14], user be-haviors [12], and specific contexts. Two types of contextual information are impor-tant for adaptive personalization. One type pertains to users’ intent, preferences,and purchasing history, whereas the other relates to environmental factors such astime and location of the user [67]. Effective personalization takes into account thesecontextual elements to better anticipate customer needs and predict the goods andservices that will satisfy them.

4.5 Implications for Design

In this section, we discuss paradigmatic similarities, differences, andcomplementarities among the four perspectives. The purpose of such exercise is

194 FAN AND POOLE

to anchor the perspectives to design strategies. A close examination of the fourpersonalization ideal types reveals that the four types can be further classifiedinto a 2 × 2 grid. First, the perspectives can be differentiated in terms of utilitar-ian or affective orientation. The instrumental and commercial perspectives em-phasize task achievement and commercial transactions and therefore areoriented to utilitarian issues, whereas architectural and relational perspectivesplace more emphasis on users’ feelings, both aesthetic and socioemotional. Theperspectives can also be differentiated in terms of the basic premise of use,whether the user primarily engages the system as an individual or through an in-teraction. Both architectural and instrumental personalization are concerned withindividual use of an artifact, be it a building, an information system, or a Website. Design emphasis is on an individual’s interaction with the artifact. On thecontrary, relations among multiple entities and the management of the relationsare of paramount importance in relational and commercial personalization.

Commercial and instrumental personalization, predominantly used for infor-mation retrieval, transaction processing, and content management, belong to theclass of productivity applications [68]. The purpose for personalization is utilitar-ian oriented, the goal of which is to get something done. Hence, content, function-ality, and usability are given priority in design. In contrast, architectural andrelational personalization—primarily used for creating an attractive Web environ-ment, an interactive social network, and a sense of psychological and social well-being—belong to the class of entertainment applications. The purpose for person-alization is affect oriented, the goal of which lies in the experience itself. Hence, abalance between form and function as well as meaning of the using the system isemphasized. Affective design is process oriented, whereas utilitarian design is re-sults oriented [68]. Note that the distinction between productivity and entertain-ment applications is based on the intended use of the software, not the intention ofthe user. For example, a recommender system that suggests potentially interestingDVD titles to the user would be a productivity application because the built-infunction of the recommender is to reduce information overload by focusing on in-formation relevant to the specific user. The difference between productivity appli-cations and entertainment applications is important because a series of designdecisions are contingent on the nature of the application.

The majority of existing personalization systems are designed to enhance pro-ductivity, whether in the form of one-click ordering (e.g., www.amazon.com) orwireless, just-in-time, personalized information services such as stock, weather,and local traffic information (e.g., DoCoMo). People use these systems to get thingsdesired (such as relevant information, quality product, or service) but not the expe-rience of using such systems (see Figure 1). Hence, the utility function is to maxi-mize convenience and efficiency [53]. Productivity applications are resultsoriented and task oriented [68], with a focus on results such as fast checkout, high-quality information retrieval, and immediate response. Design guidelines for thesetypes of task-oriented applications are similar to those for designing tools such asthe principles advanced by Norman [69] for designing everyday things in whichcontent, functionality, and usability are emphasized. Key usability issues for pro-ductivity applications are ease of use, clarity, consistency, freedom from ambigu-ity, and error. The aspect of ease of use includes both the use of the application itself


and the setup and configuration to make personalized features functional. Consis-tency helps users better orient themselves to the site and alleviates cognitive effort.For example, in Amazon, the shopping cart is always on the upper right-hand cor-ner, browsing history is always displayed on the left column, and recommendationlist always appears after the user places an item in the shopping cart.

Nevertheless, in addition to “getting things done,” people also have a need to“simply enjoy things.” This implies that personalization systems may not only ful-fill the functional aspects of human needs but also their entertainment aspects. En-tertainment-oriented personalization applications capitalize on the process andexperience of using the systems. They are designed to stimulate thinking and to in-voke feelings. The results are not tangible, but the process itself is critical in creat-ing an engaging, fulfilling user experience. The principle of consistency may not besufficient to invoke feelings or engage users on the site for an extended amount oftime.

Architectural personalization and relational personalization have provided in-sight into designing for affect. A key design principle of architectural personaliza-tion is the balance of function and form. The idea of function and form as one wasadvocated by the influential Bauhaus movement in architecture. Later articulatedby Frank Lloyd Wright, “form was to display the functionality of a building in anorganic way” ([70], p. 162). Rather than “looking functional,” “forms in organic ar-chitecture are uniquely suited to their purposes” ([70], p. 162). The organic, holisticview of forms and function implies that decisions related to form should be movedforward in the design life cycle to be considered together along with function. Rela-tional personalization, on the other hand, lays an emphasis on meaning, which isderived from social interactions with different circles of life from close friends andfamily, to immediate community, and to the society at large [71].

Although the ideal types represent distinctive paradigms of design strategy,there exists great potential to combine multiple paradigms in a way that best meetdifferent needs of users. A design that combines function and form; embeds mean-ing in use; and integrates productivity, education, and entertainment is more likelyto fulfill human needs. A good example of combining form and function is found inDisney World Web site. The “select an experience” bar presents to the users differ-ent segments of audience, that is, “preschoolers,” “teens,” “big kids,” “romanceand relaxation,” and so forth. Once an experience is selected with a sparklingmagic wand (the cursor), the site takes the user to a three-dimensional map whereusers conveniently locate points of attractions and activity spots that are suitablefor that specific audience group. Combining productivity, education, and enter-

196 FAN AND POOLE

Figure 1. Personalization design paradigms.

tainment is another effective way to promote use of personalization. The Web sitefor the Public Broadcasting System teenage reality show American High is an excel-lent example of utilizing relational personalization for teen education. The Website is an innovative way of bringing students, teachers, parents, educators, andartists together, making sure every voice gets heard and every role benefits fromthis technological and artistic collaboration. Students can meet and chat with char-acters in the show, talk with the filmmaker, and experiment with a personalizedonline yearbook. Teachers of media arts or social studies can find lesson plans thatprovide a framework for creating student-produced video diaries and explore so-cial issues related to reality TV (http://www.pbs.org/americanhigh). These twoexamples, a business organization and a nonprofit organization, both show thatthere exist tremendous possibilities for creating a personalized experience by com-bining perspectives.

5. DISCUSSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR IS RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

In this article, we attempted to achieve two purposes. First, we have advanced aworking definition for personalization and proposed a classification scheme toframe personalization research and practice. Second, we have developed a norma-tive framework of personalization ideal types that distinguishes four distinct per-sonalization design philosophies.

The goal of the classification scheme was to give a clearer structure to the diverseand rapidly developing field of personalization. The scheme focuses on a generaldescription of personalization in terms of (a) the elements of a system that can bepersonalized (content, functionality, interface, channel), (b) who initiates the per-sonalization activity (user or system), and (c) the target of personalization activity(individual or group). We believe these properties span the space of current ap-proaches to personalization. These represent a set of core design choices for systemdevelopers. They are also useful as a structure for organizing previous researchand to situate future projects. The goal of the definition and classification scheme isto help to establish a common language for talking about personalization that canhelp to integrate this multidisciplinary field.

The significance of the personalization ideal types is twofold. First, they definedifferent lenses for personalization research and practice. Although it is useful todescribe possibilities for personalization systems, in the end, personalization is apractice that is shaped by the designer’s motives for personalization and viewpointon “what personalization really is.” The personalization ideal types, although ad-mittedly abstract, are useful because they identify relatively consistent tendenciesin personalization theory, research, and practice. Each ideal type describes a differ-ent philosophy that is built around a view of the particular goals for personaliza-tion and what it means to satisfy those goals. We suspect that differentorganizations and different activities would best fit particular ideal types and sothe match between ideal type and the context in which the personalization systemoperates would influence its effectiveness.

The ideal type scheme implies that no single standard or approach to personal-ization is “the best.” Each ideal type employs different criteria for evaluating how


well the system succeeds in delivering the desired effect. Each type also has a dif-ferent model of the user, which suggests that different user modeling techniquesand implementation tools should be employed. Researchers and developers whooperate within a single perspective on personalization have tended to generalizethe motives, viewpoint, and approaches of that perspective to the entire field. Thishas the potential to limit creativity and confine the development of personalizationsystems to a few well-defined trajectories. In defining multiple ideal types for per-sonalization, we are attempting to open a wider space for researchers and design-ers that will enable them to imagine other ways of doing personalization than theiraccepted approach. Currently, the instrumental and commercial approaches topersonalization are the most commonly employed. Most of the prototypes andmethodologies that have been described in the literature on personalization havebeen embedded in these two perspectives. This is, to some extent, appropriate be-cause IS research is situated at the intersection of management, organizational, andcomputer sciences. However, being embedded in particular ways of thinking canblind one to other possibilities. The architectural perspective, with its emphasis onbalancing aesthetics and functionality, and the relational perspective, which ar-gues that personalization is best handled by creating a personal social world on-line, offer quite different approaches to personalization. They throw prevailingthinking into perspective and suggest novel approaches to personalization.

A second goal for the ideal types is to provide a first step toward formulating asystematic methodology for the design and development of personalization sys-tems. Jupiter Research, Forrester Research, and Mainspring Research, among oth-ers, identified several major obstacles to the effective implementation andevaluation of personalization systems [72] including low return on investment,lack of measurement methodologies, low levels of technology adoption, andmounting technical difficulties. The ideal type system can help address at least thefirst two of these. In this analysis, we specified four distinct kinds of user motivesfor using personalization systems: aesthetic value for architectural personalization,social welfare/psychological well-being for relational personalization, productiv-ity/efficiency for instrumental personalization, and material and psychic well-being for commercial personalization. These motive types suggest different stan-dards for assessing the effectiveness of personalization, which should help re-searchers and IS professionals better focus instruments for measuring the impactsof personalization. Although return on investment and click-to-buy rates are themost widely used measures of personalization effectiveness on Web sites [72], ouranalysis suggests that it is not reasonable to measure everything using a singleyardstick. Other measurement constructs should be developed to suit differentcontexts.

The ideal types are theoretical constructs that can guide research and practiceand do not represent the realities of practice itself. It is possible, and even likely,that two perspectives might be combined in designing particular personalizationapplications. For example, the popular online role-playing games such asEverquest® seem to combine the architectural and relational perspectives to enableusers to create shared worlds that to many users seem more real and desirable than“real life.” This seems to represent a relatively harmonious mix of types, but it isalso possible that perspectives could be combined in a dissonant fashion.

198 FAN AND POOLE

6. FUTURE ACTION

The frameworks we presented in this article suggest several directions for future re-search. First, from this multiparadigm review, one can see that personalization is amultidimensional construct. Measurement of such a multidimensional construct isalways a challenge. Existing literatures in e-commerce and marketing tend to adopta monolithic approach [73, 74]; therefore, personalization dimensions that havebeen evaluated in those studies might not have captured personalization valuesthat users/customers have [44, 75]. We are currently developing and validatingsuch a measurement instrument that incorporated all paradigms we reviewed herein this article. Second, there is the question of how existing practices in the personal-ization industry map onto the typologies. Which ideal types are most common, howare they combined, and what is their effectiveness? Which aspects of personaliza-tion systems contribute to their effectiveness? What factors, for example, contributeto the effectiveness of adaptive versus adaptable systems? How might one validatethe typologies? Third, there are different levels of understanding of the perspec-tives. As we have noted, the commercial and instrumental types have enjoyed agreat deal of attention. The architectural and relational types require further explo-ration and development. We suspect that a number of practitioners of personaliza-tion have pursued the architectural and relational approaches despite the fact thatthey have not been discussed much in the academic IS literature. Study of thesepractitioners seems likely to yield insights into personalization designs and meth-ods that are different from those currently described in the literature.

Personalization is one of those subjects that will always be with humans. In dif-ferent forms and guises, it continues to maintain currency. Personalization willcontinue to be an important dimension if IS because it has a central place in a soci-ety embracing heterogeneity and diversity, an economy increasingly individualoriented, and a capitalism remarkably personalized [76]. Because of its inherentlyhuman element, personalization cannot be reduced to a technical undertaking.When one realizes that personalization does not necessarily have to be solely profitdriven and that personalization is not merely a technical issue, one can free theirimagination to make personalization richer, more meaningful, and more relevant.As Brooks [77] pointed out, “we can use the softer elements of our humanity to de-sign the harder mechanisms of our technology” (p. 15). On Brooks’s view, true bal-ance is achieved through “pas de deux” of social science and engineering, the sameinteraction that underlies the frameworks advanced here.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Both authors contributed to this article equally. An earlier version of this article waspresented at the American Conference on Information Systems in Tampa, Florida,in August 2003.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Davenport and J. Beck, The Attention Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001.[2] B. J. Pine and J. H. Gilmore, The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.


[3] J. Ledford and R. Lawler. Content Personalization Market Trends. Pennsauken, NJ: Faulkner Infor-mation Services, 2002.

[4] B. Wellman, “Designing the internet for a networked society,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp.91–96, 2002.

[5] J. Cummings, B. Butler, and R. Kraut, “The quality of online social relationships,” Comm. of theACM, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 103–107, 2002.

[6] J. Blom, “Personalization—A taxonomy,” presented at CHI 2000 Conf. on Human Factors in Com-puting Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2000.

[7] C. Wachob. (2002). What are personalization and customization? [Online]. Available: http://workz.com/content/viewcontent.html?sectionid=482&contentid=5200

[8] J. Nielson. (1998, October 4). “Personalization is over-rated” [Online]. Jakob Nielsen’s AlertboxAvailable: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/981004.html

[9] U. Manber, A. Patel, and J. Robison, “Experience with personalization on Yahoo!,” Comm. of theACM, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 35–39, 2000.

[10] B. Ives and G. Piccoli, “Custom made apparel and individualized service at Lands’ End,” Comm. ofthe AIS, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–26, 2003.

[11] M. Schneider-Hufschmidt, T. Kuhme, and U. Malinowski, Adaptive User Interface: Principles andPractice. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993.

[12] Vignette Corp., Personalization Strategies-Fit Technology to Business White Paper. Austin, TX: Author,2002.

[13] K. Instone, Information Architecture and Personalization. Ann Arbor, MI: Argus Assoc., Inc., 2000.[14] J. Nejezchieb, Personalization: A View of the Current Landscape. San Francisco: Vertebrae, 2001.[15] D. Rubini, “Overcoming the paradox of personalization: Building adoption, loyalty and trust in

digital markets,” Design Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 49–54, 2001.[16] C. M. Karat, C. Brodie, J. Karat, J. Vergo, and S. R. Alpert, “Personalizing the user experience on

ibm.com,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 686–701, 2003.[17] J. Blom and A. Monk, “One-to-one e-Commerce: Who’s the one?,” presented at CHI Conf. on Hu-

man Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, WA, 2001.[18] B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,

1996.[19] E. Andre and T. Rist, “Presenting through performing: On the use of multiple lifelike characters in

knowledge-based presentation systems,” Intelligent User Interface, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 147–165, 2000.[20] D. C. Dryer, C. Eisbach, and W. S. Ark, “At what cost pervasive? A social computing view of mobile

computing systems,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 652–676, 1999.[21] H. Hirsh, C. Basu, and B. Davison, “Learning to personalize,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 8, pp.

102–106, 2000.[22] A. K. Dey, “Understanding and using context,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Journal, vol. 5,

no. 1, pp. 4–7, 2001.[23] G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin, “An architecture of e-butler—A consumer-centric online person-

alization system,” International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp.313–327, 2002.

[24] P. Maes, R. Guttman, and A. Moukas, “Agents that buy and sell,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 3,pp. 81–91, 1999.

[25] O. Tomarchio, A. Calvagna, and G. DiModica, “Virtual Home Environment for Multimedia Ser-vices in 3rd Generation Networks,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Tech. Report, 2002.

[26] G. Rossi, D. Schwabe, and R. Guimaraes, “Designing personalized web applications,” presented atthe 10th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web, Hong Kong, 2001.

[27] D. Wu, I. Im, M. Tremaine, K. Instone, and M. Turoff, “A framework for classifying personalizationscheme used on e-commerce web sites,” presented at 36th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences,Big Island, Hawaii, 2003.

[28] R. Spears and M. Lea, “Panacea or panopticon?: The hidden power in computer-mediatedcommunication,” Communication Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 427–459, 1994.

[29] M. A. Hogg and D. Abrams, Social Identifications. London: Routledge, 1992.[30] D. Amoroso and B. Reinig, “Personalization management systems,” presented at 36th Hawaii Int.

Conf. on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, 2003.

200 FAN AND POOLE

[31] M. Lewis and A. Grimes, “Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms,” Academyof Management Review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 672–690, 1999.

[32] G. Burrell and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann, 1979.

[33] R. Rogers, Max Weber’s Ideal Type Theory. New York: Philosophical Library Co., 1969.[34] B. Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer-

Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993.[35] R. Kling, “Assimilating social values in computer-based technologies,” Telecommunications Policy,

vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 127–147, 1984.[36] A. S. Lee, “Architecture as a reference discipline for MIS,” in Information Systems Research: Contem-

porary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, and R. Hirschheim,Eds. North-Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science, 1991.

[37] J. Kim, J. Lee, K. Han, and M. Lee, “Business as buildings: Metrics for the architectural quality of in-ternet business,” Information Systems Research, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 239–254, 2002.

[38] F. Becker, “User participation, personalization, and environmental meaning: Three field studies,”in Program in Urban and Regional Studies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1977.

[39] M. Bonnes and G. Secchiaroli, Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-Social Introduction. London:Sage, 1995.

[40] I. Altman, The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Terminality andCrowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1975.

[41] D. Canter, Psychology for Architects. London: Applied Science Publication, 1974.[42] F. Hendricks and M. MacNair, Concepts of environmental quality standards based on life styles. Pitts-

burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, 1969.[43] C. J. Holahan, Environment and Behavior: A Dynamic Perspective. New York: Plenum, 1978.[44] Novak, D. Hoffman, and Y.-F. Yung, “Measuring the customer experience in online environment:

A structural modeling approach,” Marketing Science, vol. 19, pp. 22–42, 2000.[45] R. Maxwell, Contexts of Behavior: Anthropological Dimensions. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1983.[46] L. Barfield, The User Interface: Concepts and Design. Workingham, England: Addison-Wesley,

1993.[47] S. Van der Ryn and M. Silverstein, “Dorms in Berkeley: An environmental analysis,” Center for

Planning and Developmental Research, University of California, Berkeley, 1967.[48] W. R. Rosengren and S. Devault, “The sociology of time and space in an obstetrical hospital,” in En-

vironmental Psychology, W. H. I. H. M. Proshansky and L. G. Rivilin, Eds. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

[49] H. Osmond, “The Relationship between architect and psychiatrist,” in Psychiatric Architecture, C.Goshen, Ed. New York: Doubleday-Anchor Press, 1959.

[50] I. Graham, A Pattern Language for Web Usability. London: Addison-Wesley, 2003.[51] N. Sgouros, G. Papakonstantinou, and P. Tsanakas, “Dynamic dramatization of multimedia story

presentation,” presented at 2nd Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces, Orlando, FL, 1997.[52] E. Andre and T. Rist, “From adaptive hypertext to personalized web companions,” Comm. of the

ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 43–46, 2002.[53] N. Sadeh, M-Commerce: Technologies, Services, and Business Models. New York: Wiley Computer

Publishing, 2002.[54] I. Clarke, “Emerging value propositions for m-commerce,” Journal of Business Strategies, vol. 18, no.

2, pp. 133–148, 2001.[55] K. Cheverst, K. Mitchell, and N. Davies, “The role of adaptive hypermedia in a context-aware tour-

ist guide,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 47–51, 2002.[56] L. Ardissonon, A. Goy, G. Petrone, and M. Segnan, “Personalization in business-to-customer inter-

action,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 52–53, 2002.[57] D. Rose, “Experience architecture: A Framework for designing personalized customer interac-

tions,” Design Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 68–77, Spring 2001.[58] L. Suchman, Plans and Situated Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.[59] P. Dourish, “A foundational framework for situated computing: Position paper,” presented at the

CHI 2000 Workshop on Situated Computing: A Research Agenda, The Hague, The Netherlands,2000.


[60] J. Preece, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester, England:Wiley, 2000.

[61] I. Toru, “Digital city Kyoto,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 76–81, 2002.[62] C. Alexander, A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.[63] D. Riecken, “Personalized views of personalization,” Comm. of ACM, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 26–28, 2000.[64] D. Peppers and M. Rogers, The One To One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a

Time. New York: Currency and Doubleday, 1993.[65] M. Douglas and B. Isherwood, The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books, 1979.[66] S. Larsen and S. Tutterow,” Developing the personalization-centric enterprise through collabora-

tive filtering and rules-based technologies,” CRM Project, vol. 1, 1999.[67] M. Bayler and D. Stoughton, “Design challenges in multi-channel digital markets,” Design Manage-

ment Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 29–36, 2001.[68] R. J. Pagulayan, K. Keeker, D. Wixon, R. L. Romero, and T. Fuller, “User-centered design in

games,” in The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies andEmerging Applications, A. Sears, Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003, pp.883–906.

[69] D. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday, 1988.[70] D. Norman and S. Draper, User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human–Computer Inter-

action. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1986.[71] B. Shneiderman, Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press, 2003.[72] P. R. Hagen, Smart Personalization. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research, Inc., July 1999.[73] S. S. Srinivasan, R. Anderson, and K. Pnnocolu, “Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An exploration

of its antecedents and consequences,” Journal of Retailing, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2002.[74] J. Palmer, “Web site usability, design, and performance metrics,” Information Systems Research, vol.

13, no. 2, pp. 151–167, 2002.[75] P. Chen and L. Hitt, “Measuring switching costs and the determinants of customer retention in in-

ternet-enabled business: A study of the online brokerage industry,” Information Systems Research,vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 255–274, 2002.

[76] S. Zuboff and J. Maxmin, The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and The NextEpisode of Capitalism. New York: Viking, 2002.

[77] K. Brooks, “Pas de deux—The dance of digital design,” Design Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 2,pp. 10–16, 2001.

[78] Personalization Consortium (2003), “What is personalization,” Personalization Consortium, [On-line]. Available: http://www.personalization.org

[79] B. Kasanoff, Making It Personal. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2001.[80] C. Surprenant and M. Solomon, “Predictability and personalization in the service encounter,”

Journal of Marketing, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 86–96, 1987.[81] A. Kobsa, “User modeling as a key factor in system personalization,” presented at CHI 2000, The

Hague, The Netherlands, 2000.[82] P. Brusilovsky and M. T. Maybury, “From adaptive hypermedia to the adaptive web,” Comm. of the

ACM, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 30–33, 2002.[83] J. Karat, C. Marat, and J. Ukelson, “Affordances, motivations, and the design of user interfaces,”

Comm. of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 49–51, 2000.[84] J. Kramer, S. Noronha, and J. Vergo, “A user-centered design approach to personalization,” ACM

Computing Surveys, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 44–48, 2000.[85] D. Riechen, “Personalized communication networks,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 41–42,

2000.[86] W. Bender, “Twenty years of personalization: All about the ‘daily me’,” EDUCAUSE Review, vol.

37, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2002.[87] W. Kim, “Personalization: Definition, status, and challenges ahead,” Journal of Object Technology,

vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 2002.

202 FAN AND POOLE

Documents

What Is Personalization? Perspectives on the Design and