People and Technology in the Workplace (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Integrating New Tools into Information Work: Technology Transfer as a Framework for Understanding Success
Integrating New Tools into Information Work: Technology Transfer as a Framework for Understanding Success
Pages 229-252
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 229... ...
Then we describe the technology transfer framework in more detail, reviewing research results that have helped to corroborate and refine it, and identify implementation process variables predictive of successful outcomes; namely, people effectively using new computer tools in the office setting.
|
From page 230... ...
230 PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORKPLACE FOCUS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS The study of technological innovation has a Tong history of its own and has been the subject of a number of critical reviews (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; Bikson and Eveland, 1986; Bikson et al., 1981; Rogers, 1983; Tornatzky et al., 1983; Tornatzky and FIeischer, 1990; Yin et al., 1977~. Traditionally innovation has been seen as a process that occurs in the stages depicted in Figure 1.
|
From page 231... ...
In contrast, research suggests that there is no end to implementation processes while the technological state of the art is rapidly advancing ~ see Bikson, 1987; Bikson et al., 19851. Successful transfer of flexible interactive tools is associated with continued and reciprocal changes in tasks and their supporting technologies, as demonstrated by the four case studies in this volume, while unchanging routines are more likely to signal failure.
|
From page 232... ...
Unlike computer technologies that are heavily bound up with specific pieces of equipment (for example, industrial robots or chips embedded in automobile controls d, information technology is generally characterized by a high degree of flexibility, modularity, and adaptability. These very properties, however, make it difficult to test and predict successful imple
|
From page 233... ...
. The environment for new computer-based information tools has proved to be too rich, variable, and uncontrolled for the technology to be deployed uniformly.
|
From page 234... ...
Thus the effective use of information tools typically requires more creativity and more introspection into the user context—than many other types of technology. Scope, Testing, and ScaJe The scope, testability, and scale of a new technology are interrelatec3 features that have to do with how broadly a technology will be applied, how much of the user organization it could potentially affect, over what time frame, and how one might go about finding out.
|
From page 235... ...
is inherently a process of mutual adaptation of the technology to its environment. To the degree that the burden of all changes must be borne by the organization E.g., by changing tasks to fit the tools or by training or replacing former employees to obtain new skills)
|
From page 236... ...
~ . ~ That is, the developer of a new microprocessor or a new data base manager undoubtec3ly takes it for granted that those who buy the product will use it in widely differing ways and for widely differing purposes, by users with strong stylistic preferences for how a given information task should be carried out.
|
From page 237... ...
Users can scan the marketplace and make their decisions to go with one package or another. This strategy floes not work nearly so well with more complex technologies including most information tools where significant amounts of organizational and social change are likely to accom.
|
From page 238... ...
Organizational Level The great variety of properties potentially affecting technology transfer operate at one or another of two major levels. · Firm level: Organizational structure and process characteristics include the pattern or arrangement of jobs, authority, work flow, and communications over an organization.
|
From page 239... ...
are quite clearly process characteristics. But it is not uncommon for de facto processes to take on shapes and patterns not clefined by official organization charts E.g., a highly centralized structure with a lot of lateral interaction)
|
From page 240... ...
Where users are able to interact creatively with technology developers in the early stages of development, both sicles benefit ;von Hippel, 1988~. Generally in technology transfer, the users seek information
|
From page 241... ...
These include direct sales, technology licensing or leasing, partnerships and cooperative arrangements of varied types, ant] other exchange processes.5 From the perspective of this review, it is sufficient to note that the boundary crossing floes not necessarily end when the acquisition decision is made.
|
From page 242... ...
PROPERTIES OF IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES Implementation refers to the transition from a workable technology idea to its manifestation in (lay-to-day work. The study of organizational change suggests that when adopte(l, most innovations are not new per se but rather are new to a particular user organization ;Tornatzky et al., 19831.
|
From page 243... ...
A second planning variable found to be important in prior innovation research is the thoroughness of the effort. For instance, the existence of organization-wide policy documents directing the move toward electronic information tools would!
|
From page 244... ...
However, organizations tend to focus their planning efforts on computer hardware, software, and networks, leaving critical social and behavioral questions unaddressed. On the other hand, a mutual adaptation model of successful implementation suggests that both social and technical factors should be given equal attention in the implementation process; their interTinkage means that if change processes address only half the relevant factors, a number of unplanned, unmanaged, and potentially deleterious consequences may well develop in the other half.
|
From page 245... ...
Current research on computer-based information tools has further reinforced the value of user participation in design and decision processes {Bikson et al., 1987J. Whether using or not using a computer-based tool for a particular task is a voluntary decision is one way of looking at the user participation theme [evidencecI, for example, in RAND research as well as research by Lucas, 1978, and others d.
|
From page 246... ...
However, as we have explained above, variables associated with adoption of computers for information work have not typically been able to predict successful implementation. On the other hand, attitudinal variables representing the nature of a work group's commitment to the change process itself have turned out to be more closely linked to implementation outcomes.
|
From page 247... ...
information tools, this attitude was a highly significant predictor of success ;Bikson et al., 19871. It is important to inclucle here because of the wiclely shared belief that people are naturally resistant to change.
|
From page 248... ...
it should structure ways of doing so that put the least possible pressure on those inside March and Simon, 1958; Thompson, 19671. Finally, the technology transfer framework includes the implementation process.
|
From page 249... ...
Rather, there is increasing evidence that the more important factors are properties of the implementation process itself: thorough planning that focuses on people as well as tools, user participation and training, and commitment to change on the part of managers and employees. A key element iclentified in implementation analyses is the role of "mutual adaptation" of tools and use settings.
|
From page 250... ...
3. User organizations as well often package technologies by creating highly complex procurements on which vendors are asked to supply specified mixes of products and services.
|
From page 251... ...
Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, R-3077-NSF. Bikson, T
|
From page 252... ...
Forest Service: An Assessment of Late Stage Implementation. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation, R-3908-USDAFS.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.