Conventional System - Techno-Centric - Coursework Example

Conventional Systems are more Techno-Centric Introduction Doherty et al. (2005, p. 2) propose that conventional approaches to systems designs are considered to be techno-centric; This statement can be supported by a fact given by Voogt et al. (2008, p. 235) that conventional approaches were more focused on structural elements and the design of the system concentrated on the technologies that could be used to automate work. Techno-centric design promotes such designs which have a high degree mechanization of automated operations. In the process of developing these organizational systems that are equipped with the best technologies, it is often ignored as to what the real organizational needs are. Techno-centric Conventional Approach In the current times, information technology has provided many benefits to the society. One of the most successful areas of information technology is the implementation of the ERP solutions. These solutions are made in accordance with the organizational needs to automate work their and to facilitate better management of files and data. However, it has been noticed that at times the information technology systems within an organization are not as successful as one would predict and would desire. There are number of reasons to their probable failure; they range from the human incapability of adapting to sudden changes to non-conformance to organizational needs. Doherty et al. (1998) states that a technical change gives way to a fast organizational change. Markus (2004) proposes that in this change, there can be a significant alteration in the business processes, structure of the organization, culture as well as the motivation and performance of the employees. Grint et al. (1997) explains that information technology is not a deterministic artifact as it tends to bear different results in different organizations and situations. Since the success factor of an ERP also depends on the perception and acceptance of the employees in an organization that is why the success of it cannot be termed deterministically. Doherty et al. (2005, p. 3) state that the challenge that is faced by the developer and the system sponsor is that the success of a system cannot be predicted and can only be found once it is deployed and run by the end-users. Another problem which is faced by the developer and the stakeholders of the success of the system are the organizational impacts from the non-conformance to the requirements of the organization. As discussed in the introduction; it is often noticed that the developers of the system put most of their efforts in the technological aspects of the system that would be able to automate the work of the customer to a great extent. In the process of doing so, they tend to ignore the basic organizational needs of the system and thus the users. In this way the system design is termed techno-centric. In such cases, the rigidity of the human’s nature becomes apparent and the fact that most humans don’t appreciate too many changes in life. For example; in this scenario the employees would wish the new system to offer the same functions and features in the same mechanism as done by the old system; even if the new system offers the features in a better manner. Martinsons et al. (1999) explains that in some cases, the IT-induced organizational change results in the recession of employee’s performance and motivation and hence at times rejection to the new system. Doherty et al. (2005, p. 3) term this kind of a change as only a technical change for the organization which causes no betterment in general structure and culture of the organization. It can be termed as a technical change rather than a socio-technical change. A socio-technical change would mean that the organizational requirements are given priority and technology is used to facilitate the smooth operation of the organization in accordance with their core requirements. Clegg (2000) states “most investments in IT are technology-led, reflecting too technical an emphasis”. This is why the conventional approach of having techno-centric designs of a system can be very dangerous. Doherty et al. (2005, p. 4) states “it can be argued that many organizational impacts only remain unanticipated, because systems developers are reluctant to tackle the human and organizational aspects of IT projects”. They simply adopt a techno-centric approach in which the developers are encouraged to implement and deploy the information system without worrying about it adapting to the organizational context. Conclusion The arguments stated above indicate that an organization can never be equipped with a successful information system unless it is in conformance with the key requirements of the organization and thus the end-users i.e. the employees of the company. It can also be stated that technological aspect of a system is not of much relevance if it not in accordance with the context of the organization. It can be concluded that socio-technical approach is gaining its name as compared to the techno-centric conventional approach. References Clegg CW, 2000, Socio-technical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 463-477. Doherty NF, King M, 1998, The consideration of organizational issues during the systems development process: an empirical analysis. Behavior & Information Technology 17(1), 41-51. Doherty NF, King M, 2005, From technical to socio-technical change: tackling the human and organizational aspects of systems development projects, European Journal of Information Systems (2005), 14, 1-5. Grint K, Woolgar S, 1997, The Machine at Work. Polity Press, Cambridge. Markus M, 2004, Techno-change management: using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology 19(10), 4-20. Martinsons M, Chong P, 1999, The Influence of Human Factors and Specialist Involvement on Informations Systems Success. Human Relations 52(1), 123-152. Orlikowskiw J, Yates Jokamura K, Fujimoto M, 1995, Shaping electronic communication - the meta-structuring of technology, The context of use. Organization Science 6(4), 423-444. Voogt J , Knezek G, 2008,International Handbook of Information Technology, NY ISBN-13: 978-0-387-73314-2 http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=X2dIYc5PpTkC&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=technocentric+in+computer+systems+design&source=bl&ots=jwxcA3oBUh&sig=XjGY_CTVwvn_VE4JFs90n2yJE3M&hl=en&ei=b0UBS8rWG4KGkAX0iZ3zCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false Social Construction of Technology Keel (2006) explains that Social Construction of Technology can be defined as a theory; it argues that technology does not decide human action but on the contrary, human actions dictate the technology that can be used in a system. The term “design in use” refers to the design that is implemented for a system and being used in an organization. According to the theory it can be stated that the human actions can shape the way technology is implemented in an organization. All the functions and features in the information system should be according to the requirement of the actors involved. If the end-users of the system don’t benefit then the system will be considered futile and not accepted. The approach for a successful system should be to identify some key actors in different situations. These actors will be helpful for the system developer to identify the key factors and features that should become a part of the system. The Dependence of Information Systems on Social and Political Aspects Introduction The acceptance of a system by its users is a very critical step in an organization’s success. If the system is not perceived as a good system conforming to their requirements then all the efforts invested in the system will be wasted. It is argued that different users tend to have different perceptions about a system and make use of specific cognitive devices to make these judgments. Agarwal et al. (2000) states that these cognitive devices are very critical in making the user’s perception of the system in terms of its easiness of use and relevance of the technology used in the system. It has been researched that the perceptions of a user are influenced by social and political processes. Orlikowski et al. (1991) and (1994) concludes that the degree to which the perceptions are influenced is achieved by some researchers by technological frames analysis. Lin et al. (2005, p. 2). A frame can be defined as a cognitive device that people use to comprehend the world around them. It is also said that the perceptions of the system is a social and political process in which the user frames and reframes his opinion. Case Study Lin et al. (2005, p. 4) A case study is undertaken to explain this concept in a better manner. An organization is selected and it is proposed to change this bank’s old email system, Higgins. The bank had been using this system since 1988. All the other software in the company were up-to-date with technology. Another reason why Higgins was proposed to be replaced was that many complaints had started coming in regarding the old system. After a complete investigation, the IT department aimed to initiate the Group Work project and replace MS-DOS based Higgins with a new Windows based system. Three groups were involved in the transition; Management, project team and the end users. The project team made a system specification document for the new system on the basis of the features present in the old system and then convinced the different actors in the whole scenario about the deployment of the new system. Results show that different groups of actors had different interests and stakes related to the new system but similarity existed on the agreement that the system needs to be replaced. There existed dissimilarity in the way the project and the solution was understood by the different groups due to the incongruence in the technological frames. The similarity and difference in all the groups perception was dictated by their position in the project and thus in the bank. It was also influenced by their past experiences with the systems and such technical changes. For example; the user group thought that a new system was a need of the organization because Higgins was now proving to be an unstable system and also incompatible with the prevailing updated structure in the organization. Whereas the same notion was perceived in a different manner by the management who thought that Higgins was being replaced because an updated system was required. Conclusion It can be concluded that the success of the project can be termed as the end product of good communication between the different groups. It can also be stated that the similarity or dissimilarity of the technological frames was achieved through framing and reframing of technological frames, which was achieved through social interaction. Lin et al. (2005) states “In terms of how social phenomena affect or influence technological frames, we found an interesting relationship with power and language.” The power possessed by the project team was greater than any of the other groups. They exercised their power of technical knowledge in influencing the ideas of the groups and finally accomplishing in their task of replacing the old system. References Agarawal R, Karahanna E, 2000, Time flies when youre having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24(4), 665-694. Keel R, 2006, The Social Construction of Technology, http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/280/soconstr.html Lin A, Silva L, 2005, The social and political construction of technological frames, European Journal of Information Systems (2005) 14, 49-59 Orlikowski W I, Gash DC, 1991, Changing frames: understanding technological changes in organizations. Working Paper 236, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Orlikowski W I, Gash DC, 1994, Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions an Information Systems 12(2), 174-207. Read More