Considering the Organisational Context of Technological Change

---

The contextual model described here emerged through the iterative process of observation, analysis of the observations, and a consideration of the literature in the area, particularly Kling's (1982, 1987, 1994) web model. Key elements include: the position of the organisation in the wider context, the technical/process infrastructure, roles, authority relationships, and culture. The supporting literature is consistent with the ontological and epistemological approach adopted.

Orlikowski (1988) predicted that, as organisations adopt information technology as their production technology, it would affect the nature of production tasks, the expertise associated with the production processes, the production strategy underlying the production process, and the organisation of people around the production (Orlikowski, 1988). Orlikowski illustrated the manner in which these predictions unfolded in relation to the implementation of CASE tools in a large accounting/consulting firm. The discussion below will examine the degree to which these predictions seem to be occurring in relation to the LSP, and so builds upon her work.

Relation to Wider Context

A parliamentary system created now would probably be quite different to ones created last century because the technology on which the system could be based would be quite different. Procedures for producing legislation that use computerised information technology could be quite different from ones that do not. Yet, would the implementation of a computerised information system greatly affect existing procedures for producing legislation?

There have been predictions that information technology will greatly change government (e.g., Brussard, 1988). Politicians could sit in front of workstations in parliament with access to electronic versions of principal bills and amendments in either a consolidated or unconsolidated form. Drafters could amend these bills on a real-time basis and the role of the government printer could be eliminated as drafters work directly in the system the members of parliament access.

Despite the opportunities presented by technology, political, legal and structural elements of government are likely to reduce the chance of short-term wider contextual changes. As Kraemer (1991) argues, information systems do not induce reform in organisations, but tend to reinforce existing organisational arrangements and power distributions.

Technical/Process Infrastructure

The technical and process infrastructure is what Kling (1987) termed the "production lattice". Processes are the networks of procedures and activities people complete while pursuing their organisation's goals. The technical infrastructure supports and enables the process structure. Thus, process and technical changes are often interlinked in both theory and practice. Identifying these processes and suggesting improvements utilising new technology is an integral part of systems development and is usually addressed at length in literature in the area (e.g., Hawryszkiewycz, 1994; Shelly, Cashman et al., 1995). With Business Process Reengineering (BPR) (e.g., Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer and Stanton, 1995) proclaiming the advantages of redesigning business processes and the role of technology as an enabler in this process, the importance of process has become generally recognised. However, often consideration of "organisational" or "non-technical" elements only focuses on process issues, and ignores the many other facets of organisations which impact on and are impacted by systems development.

Roles

Organisations consist of people and their roles in relation to each other. These roles are the "building blocks" of that organisation (Carnall, 1990). Together, a network of inter-related roles form a working organisation. Focusing on how these roles changes in a case study of the implementation of CAT scanners, Barley (1990) concluded that technical change could only be associated with social change if these ongoing relationships were influenced.

Authority Relationships

Within the network of social relationships created as people act out their roles, some individuals have more influence. Patterns of influence are authority relationships that are created and recreated through power. As Giddens terms it, power is the "capacity to achieve outcomes" (1984 in Walsham, 1993: p. 39). It can derive from one's position in the organisational hierarchy or by reference to expert knowledge. Individuals can gain authority due to their position within an organisation, with a supervisor obviously having more authority than her subordinates. This relationship between power and organisational hierarchical relationships is a fundamental aspect of bureaucracy and Weber's (1924) concept of rational legal authority. With the rise of professional groups and the greater degree of specialisation associated with technocracy, however, many roles in organisations are specialised ones for people with perceived expertise in a given area.

Technocracy refers to the legitimisation of actions by reference to scientific knowledge or expertise, or rule by experts, with Centeno (1993) terming it an ideology of methods, as opposed to an ideology of outcomes. Technocracy assumes that value assumptions can be ignored, with other perspectives being dismissed as uninformed, and that "one best way" is possible and achievable by technical experts (Burris, 1993). Technocratic trends had a large impact on the LSP.

Burris noted several characteristics of technocracy, including:

• an increased polarisation between expert and non-expert sectors;

• centralisation is combined with decentralisation in differing configurations. For example, control may be obtained via systemisation rather than personal control;

• skill restructuring;

• expertise as authority; and

• technocratic ideology, which is the assumption that technological imperatives have replaced traditional politics in organisational decision making and there is "one best" approach.

Burris (1993) observed that bureaucratic structures arose in conjunction with industrialisation and termed it a complementary control structure. She suggested that, as production work processes change with computerisation, there are likely to be corresponding changes from bureaucratic to technocratic control structures. These observations are echoed by Orlikowski (1988), who suggests that control need not just exist through social interactions, but can be embedded in the technological infrastructure through policies and so forth. In this way, IT is a medium as well as product of social interaction, and expert authority can become embedded in standard practices.

Culture

Culture greatly influences how an organisation responds to change and is a focus for many researchers (e.g., Cooper, 1994; Robey and Azevedo, 1994; Tibosch and Heng, 1994). The concept of culture is useful because it highlights the importance of social interpretations of cultural artefacts, such as information technology, and recognises that organisations are both enduring and able to change (Robey and Azevedo, 1994). In essence, culture can be viewed as a "negotiated reality" which people experience as an objective reality (Tibosch and Heng, 1994) as it becomes institutionalised and objectified as truths (Prasad, 1993).

Each of these organisational elements provides a lens through which to view certain aspects of change. Together, they assist the creation of a rich description of the research situation.

---