Framework of Analysis of the Impact of Technologies in Organisations

The adoption of an IS by different organisations does not always give rise to the same changes. These depend on the interaction between the characteristics of the organisation, together with those of the system adopted. The context where the IS is implemented and used will act as an enabler or a constrainer of the changes that will arise. In the following sections some models already in existence, and used to study the impact of IS on organisations, are presented as well as a critical analysis of them. The section is completed by presenting a framework of analysis that aims to fill in the gaps of these models.

Models Already in Existence

The search of the literature revealed the existence of models for further analysis. Leavitt (1965) explained the relation between technology and organisation using four variables: technology, people, structure and tasks. These variables are interdependent, so if one changes, the others change too. This model is considered to be too simple and abstract (Shimada, 1991) and, as the variables are interdependent, the model does not assume a beginning or an end and does not focus on change but on equilibrium. Scott Morton (1986) presents another model based on the Leavitt's but instead of people he uses "individuals and roles" and instead of structure he uses "structure and organizational culture." He also adds other variables such as process management, planning, budgeting and rewarding. Also, as with Leavitt's, this is an abstract model.

In 1986, Danziger and Kraemer used a model, which considered only three variables: organizational environment (organisation and environmental issues related to the use of the technology in the organisation), technology (technology's characteristics, hardware and software, people and organizational arrangements) and user's characteristics (education, training, motivation, roles, tasks) (Danziger & Kraemer, 1986).

Shimada (1991) proposes another model in which the organisation recognises its external environment and designs its business strategy to adapt to this environment. As a result, technology becomes an absorbed factor, affecting its strategy, organizational behaviour and organizational culture. When the organisation adopts technologies, its organizational performance changes according to the technology used, with the kind of attitude taken — active/leading or passive/following — and the methods of integration of business systems and information systems attempted.

In 1998, Laudon and Laudon (1998) proposed a model with three variables: structures, tasks and people. This model has been used by Kueng (1998) to study the impact of WS.

Critical Analysis of the Models Above

All these models seem to be valid. However, they seem to ignore the power relations and the organizational culture. Scott Morton (1986) considers culture at the same level as structure. According to them, structure and culture act in the same way. Schein (1993, 1996) disagrees with this point of view, stating that culture can act as an inhibitor or facilitator in the adoption of a technology; as such, it should be considered independently. Shimada (1991) considers culture as a contingency factor but he does not see power as a conditioning factor regarding impact. The results of Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993, 1997) assert power should be taken as a contingency factor as well as the others.

Framework Proposed

As we have seen, in the previous section, the models already used to study the impact of IS on organizations have strengths and weaknesses. None of them simultaneously consider, technology, structure, people, politics, and culture. They focus in some of these factors, but none considers them all. An analysis of the impact of IS on an organization considering only some of these factors would always be incomplete. Furthermore, taking into consideration the outcomes of the research of Bertrand and Guillemet (1988) and Bolman and Deal (1997), the organizational factors able to influence the use of a WS, are:

1. Technological factors, including the characteristics of the technology to be adopted and the technology already existing in the organisation.

2. Structural factors, meaning the organizational design, the complexity, the number of hierarchical levels, the number of departments, the centralisation or decentralisation of power and decision-making, the coordination of tasks, the formalisation of procedures, the design of tasks and jobs and the degree of specialisation.

3. Social and individual factors, embracing the multidisciplinary work teams, their distribution in time and space, their education, training, work satisfaction, skills and individual characteristics.

4. Political factors, meaning that decides on the kind of technology to adopt, its design and implementation, who is going to use it, its purposes and objectives.

5. Cultural factors, referring to culture, norms, rules and the reaction to change as well as knowledge and organizational learning capacity.

Figure 1 presents the relationship that can be settled among these factors. They cannot be analysed in isolation. They interact with each other, influencing the effects of the adoption and use of new IT. Furthermore, it is not possible to say that one factor is more important than the other because the result of an interaction depends on the relation established among them, over a period of time. For example, if people, in the organization feel that the adoption of new IT will cause them to lose power, they will create obstacles to its use. Furthermore, in an organisation with a proactive culture that stimulates change, the adoption and use of new IT will be easier.

Figure 1: Framework of Analysis