Designing the Context
Case Study of an Information System
Implementation
Abstract
This paper attempts to develop our understanding of project implementations. The present research was conducted to investigate contextual conditions regarding an information system implementation. Ten employees from an airline company were interviewed to gain qualitative insights. In addition, target employees were observed during the information system implementation. The importance of contextual mechanisms that provide support to target employees during an implementation have been amplified. Further, a distinction is made between formal and informal structures to explicitly present coherence and facilitation. Findings indicate that management involvement positively influences organizational members’ belief and attitude towards an information system implementation. The study also points to the crucial role of interaction among employees during an information system implementation. Further, management should be aware of the target population’s characteristics when implementing an information system and designing a supportive environment. Finally, strategic implications for management and possible future research avenues are provided.
13-7-2014
Orçun Çakar – 10379193
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School
Master Thesis
Content
1. Introduction
2
2. Literature Review
4
2.1 Strategic Innovation 5
2.2 Innovating Dynamic Capabilities 6
2.3 Context as Catalyst Between Employee and System 8
2.4 Context and the Technology Acceptance Model 9
2.5 Formal Contextual Conditions 11
2.6 Informal Contextual Conditions 13
3. Research Design and Methodology
16
3.1 Case Context 16
3.1 Data Collection 17
3.3 Data Analysis 18
4. Results
20
4.1 Results on Formal Context 25
4.2 Results on Informal Context 31
4.3 Summary on Results 35
5. Discussion
36
5.1 Strategy 36
5.2 Organizational Support 38
5.3 Social Influences 41
6. Conclusion: Managerial Implications
456.1 Limitations and Future Research 46
References
Appendixes
1. Introduction
Having competitive advantage over competitors is considered crucial in competitive strategy (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996; Peteraf, 1993; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). This advantage can be gained through several paths (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). An important path is to incorporate an information system (IS) into the business. Implementing IS could demand high investments and efforts, but is fruitful due to new ways of organizing, communicating and operating (Heath, Knoblauch & Luff, 2000). Further, these technological solutions are broadly meant to improve business operations (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Davis, 1993; Easterby-‐‑Smith & Prieto, 2008; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Hendricks, Singhal, & Stratman, 2007), providing the opportunity to, for example, increase productivity, improve performance, lower overall costs, improve manageability or achieve harmonization across business-units.
IS became a highly important research area in management during the years. Although high rewarding outcomes are known, the academic debate on technology implementation also shows that organizational failures are still relatively high (Hung, Ho, Jou, & Kung, 2012; Jeng & Dunk, 2013; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009). Then, what is causing this difference? The decision to implement IS comes from top management. This calls the need for a supportive environment during implementation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). Top management can only expect to reap the benefits of the technology implemented when employees are motivated and supported to an appropriate use of the given technology (Mitchell, Gagné, Beaudry, & Dyer, 2012).
Extant research investigated the challenges of technology implementation and tried to explain technology usage through a cognitive-based perspective. Examples are the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1993), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) and the social cognitive theory (Compeau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999). Others found these models to be incomplete and complemented with research through an emotions-based point of view (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010). These theories captured to some degree management support and other contextual factors in relation to technology usage with labels such as facilitating conditions or management involvement (Choi, Sung, Lee, & Cho, 2011; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Few elaborated on the influence of an implementation environment (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). Moreover, McFarland and Hamilton (2006) added contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model and they found that organizational support strongly influences system usage. However, they used
a mail survey in a voluntary system usage context and not in the setting of an implementation. As Moon and Kim (2001) mention, factors contributing to the acceptance of an IS are likely to vary with the technology, target users, and context meaning that even the same research but in a mandatory usage context could yield other results.
Further, it is not the technology on its own that constitutes an improvement, but the way in which the technology is used and interpreted by its users (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Kingma, 2012). Eventually, firm performance depends not only on the resources, but also on the motivation of employees to leverage these resources (Bridoux, Coeurderoy, & Durand, 2011). This requires a supportive design mostly from management. It is clear that the implementation environment plays a crucial role in designing the context of technology implementation (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2012; Sykes, Venkatesh, & Gosain, 2009). Contextual factors that influence target employees during a technology implementation are crucial as they may shape a supportive environment to accelerate and enhance the collective learning during the implementation era (Choi et al., 2011; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to improve our understanding of environmental conditions, specifically how and why these affect employees.
In the next section mainstream IS literature will be reviewed and I will extensively discuss and reflect on what effects contextual factors may have on information system implementation processes. In doing this, I will be using an interdisciplinary method to seek for notable conversations. The review will end with the research question and the conceptual model. After the review, research design will be presented followed by the results. Next, results will be discussed and suggestions will be provided for future research avenues. Finally, references and appendixes can be found.
2. Literature Review
In this section I will discuss the essence of implementing new information systems to enhance strategic renewals. First strategic complexities and their relationship with innovation will be discussed. Second, I will delve into system implementation issues and provide more detail about the context concerning an implementation.
Technological advancements nowadays are relatively high and firms need to make use of technological solutions to be innovative in order to be effective or even to survive (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). As Miller, Fern and Cardinal (2007) state, innovation is needed to succeed, survive and renew organizations, especially in fast-paced or highly competitive markets. Technological business solutions, such as ERP or CRM, give the possibility to address challenges, create value or generate profit in unconventional ways (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000). However some firms simply adopt innovations while others are more able to cope with innovations as they undergo a strategic change. Scholars have investigated why this occurs. Although these studies did not clearly give reasons that lead to the differences, practitioners found that environmental influences were playing an important role (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). It seems that the degree of success in implementing a technology depends on people themselves. Hence, a personal computer will not do anything until the user starts using it. The people who use the system are the cause of outputs of that same system. It means that these two parties need an integration. Most systems do the same, but they differ in how they translate, manage and present the knowledge to users (Kingma, 2012). This means that target employees should be assisted and well-supported during an implementation, because the employees represent the firm and systems are their tools to operate.
Further, it is also important to note that different phases construct an innovation-adoption or technology implementation (Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Nah, Lau, & Kuang, 2001). During pre-implementation it is about the initial management decisions, which give direction to the whole implementation era (Porter, 1991). These managerial decisions and initial conditions influence the attitude of employees towards a new IS to be implemented which is considered as a determinant of the actual system usage (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Davis, 1993; Sykes et al., 2009). However, managerial interventions are not only important in the pre-implementation but they also retain their important role during and after the implementation. Therefore, the implementation and its context should be managed continuously.
2.1 Strategic Innovation
There are challenges waiting for management after deciding to implement an IS. More important is how firms decide to implement an IS. Is such a decision the result of seizing the opportunity? Or are there other forces that necessitate a firm to implement an IS? Both questions reveal that firms need to take into account strategic innovations as they may shape their future and lead to value creation (Stoelhorst & Bridoux, 2008). It seems that besides price competition, there is an opportunity to seize within the market (Conner, 1991). This opportunity, when seized, creates or adopts innovation that makes rivals’ positions obsolete. In doing so, a firm can solve a longitudinal problem by creating a durable path. This means that the firm’s innovation can bring sustainable competitive advantage with it (Porter, 1991).
According to Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) path dependency is highly important when innovating as a firm’s future lies within bounds that were set earlier. Hence, sustainable competitive advantage lies in processes that are shaped by the firm’s asset position and the paths available to the firm (Teece et al., 1997). The dynamic part of the organizational process is learning. Organizational learning should be orchestrated by multiple managers. In addition, the authors argue that easy-to-replicate and difficult-to-imitate resources are needed to sustain competitive advantage. For innovative firms this means that they can provide their idiosyncratic service or product at the same standards anywhere and anytime. By replication, the authors mean transferring tacit knowledge in the form of codified knowledge. As one may feel it, this is barely possible in complete terms. As Grant (1996) names it, there occurs knowledge loss in this process. The replication part of resources confers value to customers and this strengthens a firm’s bargaining position within its market.
In support to the above, Dierickx and Cool (1989) pronounce the importance of a firm’s past. The authors argue that assets needed to implement strategies are also accumulated internally. These are more firm-specific like the organizational culture. Learning by doing is again an important part of their theory as some assets needed for the strategy are simply not appropriable (Dierickx & Cool, 1989). They explain the accumulation of organizational assets with a bath-tub metaphor. The critical point is that flows can be adjusted instantaneously, but stocks not. Therefore, appropriate time paths of relevant flow is essential. In this sense, Dierickx and Cool (1989) also support Porter’s (1979) experience curve, stating that established firms face lower costs through experience. This means that IS implementations should bring efficiencies as accumulated asset stocks and past experiences contribute to the strategic renewal. Eventually, this experience curve also functions as a barrier to competition.
The accumulated asset stocks are most useful when they are co-specialized (Teece, 2007). In a firm that implements an IS, this means a seamless integration across units or departments is required. All information should be in real-time and up-to-date within that IS integration. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) call this integration process harmonizing streams of technology. It is the collective learning in an organization. When implementing an IS the organization will start learning and this should contribute to the core competence of that organization (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Practically, it means that the IS should support the core competence of the organization. This requires the building of collective intuition to strengthen the decisions of management (Eisenhardt, 1999). Collective learning enhances the resources needed to strategize. The resources, accumulated asset stocks or collective learning all inhibit path dependency and their purpose is to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Teece, 2007). However, according to Grant (1996) the integration of knowledge is the essential part of achieving this.
The most strategically-significant resource of the firm is knowledge (Grant, 1996). Knowledge emerges when you test resources whether they are hard to transfer and hard to replicate. This is in contrast to Teece et al. (1997). Perhaps replication should be substituted with imitation as imitation is replication by a competitor. If we put Grant’s theory in the context of an IS implementation, will the accumulated and integrated knowledge still be valuable for the new IS? This is a point to think about as a new IS could include a new policy with a totally different way of working. In such a case the knowledge of employees will become obsolete for the bigger part, because the capabilities of an organization are derived from superior access to and integration of specialized knowledge (Grant, 1996). If existing knowledge should not become obsolete with an IS implementation, then an architectural innovation is possible by reconfiguring existing knowledge (Grant, 1996). Finally, long-term competitive advantage lies in resource configuration (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
2.2 Innovating Dynamic Capabilities
Implementing an IS could have several reasons. First, technological opportunities or changing customer wants could require such a new system (Teece, 2007). Second, firms seek to achieve synergies, hence cost reduction (Goold & Luchs, 1993). Both cases should contain the drive to evolve in terms of dynamic capabilities (Zollo & Winter, 2002). In the contemporary world, firms need to adapt to changing environments by showing decent innovative performance (Ahuja & Katila, 2004; Teece, 2007), but how firms start to innovate remains a difficult practice.
According to Teece (2007) reconfiguration of resources is needed to maintain evolutionary fitness. This fitness is not only important in relation to the external environment, but also internal as cospecialization across internal units enhance the strategy to be pursued as a firm. An example is the marketing team and the sales team working together and using the integrated same IS as a tool. This cospecialization involves transfer of knowledge too. Rothaermel and Hess (2007) suggest that antecedents to dynamic capabilities are processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain and to release resources. In addition, Teece (2007, 1335) argues that the key to sustainable profitable growth is the ability to recombine and to reconfigure assets and organizational structures. This all means that firms need to execute local and nonlocal search in order to achieve innovative performance (Ahuja & Katila, 2004). Ahuja and Katila (2004) explain in their article why firms vary in their resource search and the impact of such variations on firm innovative performance. Local search seems to be a deepening search as they return to their core competences and nonlocal search seems a path-creating search resulting from technological exhaustion and market expansion. Both search methods are contributing to the evolvement of dynamic capabilities.
To possess dynamic capabilities as a firm, you need to sense, seize and manage threats (O’Reilly III & Tushman, 2008;; Teece, 2007). The search methods described before are corresponding to sensing opportunities. By sensing the environment, access to information is crucial. In this stage, individuals’ capabilities could be determinant. What is going on in the business ecosystem? There are several analytical tools to sense the environment. One example is Porter’s five forces model to sense opportunities and threats (Teece, 2007). After sensing, seizing is the next stage. This means capturing opportunities. In this stage the innovation is going to be implemented. It might happen that with the innovation the firm is actually shaping the business ecosystem, rather than adapting to its environment. This is parallel to Schumpeterian shocks which gets the market out of equilibrium. In the final stage Teece (2007) argues in order to maintain competitiveness, enhancing, combining, protecting and, when necessary, reconfiguring the firm’s tangible and intangible assets are required. In its simplest form, this means that a continuous improvement and learning process should assist the implementation or the innovation. Mistakes in terms of small losses could contribute to effective learning (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). With an IS, malfunctions and other dysfunctional features should be seen as important to some extent, because success makes managers blind for spots that can be improved.
In the next paragraphs I will elucidate IS implementations and several formal and informal contextual conditions will be discussed.
2.3 Context as Catalyst Between Employee and System
An example of a major reason why the implementation context should be considered as important is that employees on their own will not be integrated with the system. It will take a lot more time for an employee to acquire the knowledge for an appropriate use of the new system. This is important to achieve higher levels of intended use. Hence, not integrating will not lead to an appropriate system use. Unless there is support from the environment. This environment becomes crucial when employees come in touch with the new IS. At this time several clashes can take place (Leidner & Kayworth, 2006). For example, danger zones arise when technologies are taken into the firm, also known as innovation-adoptions (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002), and employees are forced to use it in daily operations in order to achieve the above mentioned improvements. That is why employees should have a positive attitude towards the new information system, especially in the pre-implementation era. The importance of the context in this sense can be assessed from the social embeddedness view (Sykes et al., 2009). This concept tells us that favorable colleague opinion could reduce user resistance and switching costs for the user (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009). For future research the authors propose a study in how favorable colleague opinion is shaped meaning that a better understanding of contextual mechanisms are needed. This missing piece could be found in the present research, because the environment is partially shaping the attitude of employees. If the more skilled and resourceful employees are known, it will become easier to provide significant support to those who need help and create the positive shared belief (Sykes et al., 2009).
Additionally, the pre-implementation is also the era of warming up employees for the new IS, which will become an essential part of the daily operating routines. Surmounting the barriers will result in developing operating routines (Zollo & Winter, 2002). With implementing an IS employees need to acquire new relevant knowledge required to operate. This knowledge should be transferred to target employees in order to accelerate the learning process. It is known that codified knowledge is easier to transfer (Easterby-‐‑Smith & Prieto, 2008; Grant, 1996; Lee & Lee, 2000). Codified knowledge transfer means disseminating explicit information regarding the new information system among target employees. In the broad sense, this should result in explicit communication of management to employees, hence project communication (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). Research on how the firm supports its employees during the implementation of a new IS will show us what environment employees value the most.
2.4 Context and the Technology Acceptance Model
Davis (1993) did research on the perceptions and beliefs that determine, influence and predict someone’s actual system use. In this framework he shows what factors are explaining the user acceptance of an IS and calls this the technology acceptance model (TAM). The model is useful given the fact that a higher system use depicts a higher level of successfulness in implementing an IS. This is partly true, because in a mandatory usage there are other mechanisms that determine the actual usage of the system, such as managerial pressure. According to TAM the behavioral intention to use a system is a major determinant of the actual system use. In turn, this intention is affected by the attitude towards the IS. The attitude towards a system is shaped by two belief constructs, which are perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Perceived ease of use is defined as “the degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free of physical and mental effort” (Davis, 1993, 477). When the ease of use of a new IS is perceived as high, the same procedure to complete a task would be easier than with the previous system. This improvement, perception of the ease of use, is also affecting the second belief construct, which is perceived usefulness. The latter is defined as “the degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1993). This means that perceived usefulness is of more importance to the firm as it is increasing the productivity which is the main organizational goal (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000; Davis, 1993). In the end these two perceptions increase or decrease the intention to use an IS meaning that perceptions and expectations need to be considered.
The mentioned two belief constructs show us that employees have certain expectations about the system and that they frame perceptions. Likewise, Venkatesh et al. (2003) clearly show in their unified model that expectations, defined as performance and effort expectancy, are the main building blocks in explaining user acceptance of an IS. These expectations can be managed by the implementers. It means that managers should manage the expectations of employees favorably towards the new IS. Managing the implementation could be done by an external IT consultancy firm, the internal managerial interventions or with support from other departments within the firm implying that the context could interfere. Thus, organizational support seems to be important during an implementation. Contrary to these implications, Reid, Riemenschneider, Allen & Armstrong (2008) found that psychosocial mentoring is not significant in explaining perceived organizational support meaning that managing the beliefs and expectations of employees would not contribute to more perceived organizational support. Still, it is up to management to manage and shape the expectations of employees
towards a new IS in a positive manner. A supportive environment should be created in which the implementation is improved and enhanced (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). With respect to the attitude and its two core constructs, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) reconsidered the TAM.
The extended model, also known as TAM2, included the causal antecedents of one of the TAM’s core belief constructs, namely perceived usefulness. The antecedents consist of the subjective norm (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The authors did four longitudinal studies in which two were voluntary usage and two mandatory usage to cover and explain more variance. More specifically, they looked at the determinants of perceived usefulness that increase the user acceptance and the intention to use a new IS. Contrary to the results of Reid et. al. (2008), Venkatesh and Davis’ (2000) contribution is that they found social influences to be significant on what management wants to accomplish with the change. For example, management could use demonstrable results from the use of this new IS to be implemented. This is a way of promoting and communicating about the project. Finally, the authors called upon more research on other determinants which influence the intention to use the system next to perceived usefulness, ease of use and the subjective norm.
Building on extensions like the TAM2 and others, Venkatesh et al. (2003) validated the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The UTAUT is the result of reviewing, synthesizing and testing eight models with their roots in information systems, psychology and sociology and its cornerstones are performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. Facilitating conditions are defined as “the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). These conditions have the goal to reduce barriers for the user. In this sense, they found that facilitating conditions overlapped and were similar to effort expectancy as both covers the ease with which that tool can be applied. However, effort expectancy is found to be a direct determinant of the behavioral intention to use and facilitating conditions are determining one’s system use. This founding implies that support from the organization has a positive impact on system use, but the theory does not explain how this affects the behavioral intention to use the system. Lastly, it is known that UTAUT explains 40 percent of the variance in system use (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
2.5 Formal Contextual Conditions
An interesting study investigated both belief constructs of the TAM (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). This work is built upon the TAM2 theory. According to Amoako-Gyampah & Salam (2004) project communication, training and the belief in benefits of the IS improve the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. They even called these the information technology implementation success factors (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). In this study the researchers tested the TAM variables in a complex IS setting. The authors found significant support that both project communication and training affect the belief in the benefits of the IS (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004).
The reason that Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004) call these factors the success factors is because of a comprehensive review of the IS literature by Nah, Lau and Kuang (2001) in which they found eleven critical success factors to implementation processes. Amoako-Gyampah and Salam’s (2004) project communication and training are derived from their work. Nah, Lau and Kuang (2001) found that teamwork and composition of the relationship between implementer, vendor and consultant is a key factor influencing a new IS implementation success. The key questions here is what effects do internal and external training have? Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg and Cavaye (1997) found that internal training has significant effect on perceived usefulness while external training has significant effect on perceived ease of use. This means that the contribution of training might depend on its nature and source (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). In the context of this study, it might be useful to investigate the effect of internal training as this would create a stronger shared belief and identification with the firm (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004, 735) argue that training is essential since it allows employees to interact with the IS, develop and test varieties of inferences about the IS and acquire useful and pertinent information about the new IS. Training means setting up a learning process in which knowledge is shared among organizational members. The reinforcing factor in these training sessions are the type of language that is used by the employees. Because it is the same type of language, knowledge will be shared more easily (Sykes et al., 2009). Thus, training is provided as part of the implementation process and this training will affect the shared beliefs on the benefits of the IS. For example, training employees with the new IS using situations where the regular operation can be done with less time or effort could positively influence the belief of employees. The more positive these shared beliefs are, the higher the level of actual usage of the new information system will be.
employees. These managerial interventions are crucial given the impact of managers in the process of innovation-adoption (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Therefore, a study on employees’ expectations and perceived organizational support during an implementation could provide managers more practical solutions. The higher the degree of meeting these expectations, the more successful an IS implementation is. Without communication there would be no training, therefore project communication will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Project communication includes the explicit knowledge transfer about the new IS. Communication is crucial when running a project. Moreover, many project failures are linked to miscommunication or lack of communication (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). So, considering project communication as a critical factor is necessary. Project communication plays a role in providing and obtaining information and creating the common understanding among employees that leads to the formation of shared beliefs. Project communication should also be given attention because it brings personnel from different functional areas together resulting in sharing knowledge crucial to the implementation of the new IS (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Wang & Noe, 2010). In this case it is fruitful to use a knowledge sharing view as well as a social network perspective.
The formal structure mostly consist of management’s training and communication and change agents that possess expertise. At the firm level, this means that complementary organizational conditions are needed to eventually achieve the competitive advantage and to maintain the development of knowledge needed for the new technology (Sykes et al., 2009; Teece, 2007). Such a change calls for a supportive management that encourages the employees to attain and develop the required knowledge (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). Furthermore, Sykes et al. (2009) say that facilitating conditions will positively influence the change in system use. For all levels of analysis sequenced steps are essential, which means that you have to learn A in order to learn B (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Both project communication and training affect the shared belief which in turn affects the intention to use the information system (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). The authors explained contextual factors, from an employee point of view, which affect the way employees look at IS implementations. Further, their shared belief can be related to Davis’ (1993) attitude towards system use. Both consist of the thoughts about the system. Still, the explanation is incomplete. Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004) proposed future research on more variables that affect behavioral intentions to use a new system. Such a study is done by Sykes et. al. (2009) and will be elaborated on in the next paragraph.
2.6 Informal Contextual Conditions
It is known that users face knowledge barriers even after a system’s formal organizational adoption (Fichman & Kemerer, 1999). This means that they need to overcome these barriers in a supportive environment in order to fully utilize the system to its full functional potential (Sykes et. al., 2009). Their social embeddedness can motivate and enhance their knowledge, because dynamics of workplace interactions are complementary to official project communication and training sessions (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Sykes et al., 2009). Sykes et al. (2009) call this support from organizational peers critical given that formal support mechanisms, such as IT desks, in most cases lack business domain expertise. This results in unresolved problems of employees. Employee support can, for example, bring tips and tricks, shortcuts or other know-hows. So researching the balance of formal and informal structures will eventually contribute to our understanding of how contextual conditions affect employees during a system implementation.
Sykes et al. (2009) presume a social network perspective as a useful guide when looking at shared beliefs and they advocate a social network approach in future work to study behaviors in case of technological changes within firms. With respect to change, shared beliefs play a major role in accepting the technology (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Sykes et al., 2009). Shared beliefs on the benefits of the new IS also have an impact on the intention to use the system, hence lowering switching costs for the adopter (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009). Shared beliefs reinforce the prevailing belief on the benefits of the new system and that the implementation will lead to an increased business performance.
According to Sykes et al. (2009) studying an individual’s social embeddedness could contribute to our understanding of IS use. Building on previous work, this social embeddedness in one’s business unit can enhance organizational learning to a higher level. This is achieved through network density and network centrality (Sykes et al., 2009). The authors use these two concepts to explain the relationship between an individual’s embeddedness in the social network of the organizational unit implementing the new IS and the behavioral intention to use that system.
Network density is defined as the actual number of ties in an individual’s network as a proportion of the maximum possible number of ties (Sykes et al., 2009). This concept describes the degree to which a network is connected. The higher an individual’s connectedness, the more support is predicted from others (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987). Sykes et al. (2009) conceptualized network density egocentrically. This means that when an
employee has more interactions with others in the same unit, it increases the possibility to obtain help from coworkers. Given the fact that new IS implementation implies a learning process, getting support from peers is of at least equal importance to getting support from formal structures, such as manuals.
Next to network density, the concept of network centrality represents in some way the same idea of network density. The difference lies in the fact that network centrality is concentrating on providing help instead of obtaining help. So the number of ties an individual has with other business unit members to provide help. However, Sykes et al. (2009) present a richer conceptualizing of network density, adding the control of resources related to the new information system by an individual. They call this the valued network centrality. It refers to ‘peers’ perceptions of the level of system-related resources controlled by a focal employee’ (Sykes et al., 2009). In this conceptualizing, the focal employee becomes a valued peer. It becomes the access to information, but can also serve to positively change employees’ attitudes and beliefs towards the new IS. This is practical to managers as they can make use of such ‘change agents’.
In short, I have discussed recent studies in relation to information systems, their adoption into an organization, the challenges that come with IS implementations and the importance of the context. By now, it is possible to assume that contextual conditions, consisting of formal and informal mechanisms as discussed, are strongly related to a successful IS implementation. Therefore, the mentioned concepts in the review can be accommodated with the label contextual conditions. However, our understanding of these conditions still lack the main pieces. The mentioned findings in the literature review also call the need for more understanding of these contextual conditions. In this sense, there has barely been any research that described and explored the nature of these contextual conditions in relation to an IS implementation. By understanding how expectations and perceptions are salient for a new IS implementation, managers could design a supportive environment for target employees more effectively. Therefore, studying the evaluation of user’s implementation process experiences could give a more complete view of how contextual conditions affect target employees, how they develop their attitude and belief and what they mostly value during an IS implementation.
A better understanding of how target employees value contextual conditions and how they perceive such an environment, could also guide us in determining the factors which do support, do not support or even counteract, an IS implementation. In order to take advantage of the informal mechanisms, management needs to provide supportive formal mechanisms.
This is also another reason of the distinction between formal and informal mechanisms. Managers’ decision-making plays an important role here as their decisions will eventually construct the formal context. In turn, informal mechanisms will increase or decrease the effectiveness of formal mechanisms because target employees’ belief in the IS and perceived organizational support depends on these formal mechanisms. The message here is that these mechanisms influence, complement and reinforce each other. To probe these mechanisms the next research question will guide us in the quest of contextual conditions; ‘How do contextual
conditions affect target employees during an information system implementation?’. In
addition, by asking the how question and shedding light on contextual conditions we can assess the possible relationships and effects in order to implement technology in future more effectively towards predefined outcomes. This means that we could acquire guidance on what should be stimulated or avoided. In order to visualize and present the main thought for this study, a conceptual model is presented below in figure 1;
Formal Mechanisms
Contextual Conditions
Informal Mechanisms
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
3. Research Design and Methodology
It was important to find a suitable design and to select appropriate methods to conduct this research in order to find answers for the research question ‘How do contextual conditions
affect target employees during an implementation process?’. Therefore, choices had to be
made considering feasibility and achievability within the given timeframe of five months (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007, 148). Taking the research question in account I approached the case qualitatively as my research aim was to better understand how target employees experience contextual conditions and how they perceive such an environment by describing and exploring the case (Saunders et al., 2007, 101). Furthermore, few scholars used qualitative methods on this topic. Some even called for more qualitative work (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004). This means that IS implementation still remains a challenging practice.
Considering the purpose of this study, I sought for drivers of contextual conditions in the process of IS implementation. A transition to a new IS was studied to understand underlying factors concerning contextual conditions, because the context of the phenomenon would inform more about the characteristics of IS implementation. This took me to a descriptive and exploratory single case study by observing and conducting semi-structured interviews which consisted of open-ended questions (Saunders et al., 2007).
A better understanding could guide us in improving implementation processes towards a success. As mentioned in the introduction, another contribution likely to occur could be the factors which do not support, or even counteract, a new IS implementation. In the next paragraphs I will describe the case, give a detailed view of my data collection method, the codes for analyzing and justifications for my choices.
3.1 Case Context
The case represents a department of a large airline company that is implementing a new IS, Fox Departure System (FDS), to be more effective at passenger services, to create synergies across partners and to harmonize different organizational units like ticketing and baggage handling. FDS captures check-in, boarding, rebook and inventory facilities. This means that the new IS consists of different parts that are integrated to and communicate with each other. In the desired state all organizational units will be using the same IS, but their environment will be different. In other words, the firm will be able to provide service to a certain customer with one single IS from booking till boarding.
The latter is also a main difference with the previous IS where organizational units and partner airlines used to have different information systems. This often resulted in errors. Examples are time-outs, a seat change or an upgrade bought by the customer that is not shown in the boarding system or employees that are unable to help a customer due to limited integration between the different information systems used by, for example, baggage handling and ticketing. With the implementation of FDS, the firm will eventually replace the former IS in daily terms. In this sense the case concerns a mandatory usage setting.
Within the unit there are approximately 350 employees and most of the employees started the transition about October 2013. In this period I worked for the department and therefore observations will be provided too. However, I worked on a part time basis and therefore I did not experience the full implementation trajectory which fulltime personnel did. From May 2013 onwards training sessions and support teams have been active too. Guides and small books were provided as quick search tools. But, it remains a question whether these support facilities were effective, accessible and helped employees to overcome learning barriers. Furthermore, the case is interesting to research, because it is contemporary and ongoing in academic literature as well.
Additionally, it is important to note that the system went live since October 1st 2013. Every month a patch of flights have been added to the operation with FDS. Employees were selected to assist colleagues during transition. These employees were called experts and they were formally equal to their peers. However experts received training as first and they supported colleagues at the gate. In doing so, management tried to provide more support across fellow employees. As mentioned, FDS needs to replace previous systems to reach simplicity and harmonization across its strategic alliance partners and own units. Therefore, the implementation could also be seen as upgrading resources.
3.2 Data Collection
Access to the organization was established through my own relations within the department. First I sent an email to the human resources officers of the organizational unit stating my intention to research complexities regarding the implementation. After I was told that I could start my investigation, it was only a matter of selecting the appropriate fulltime employees which could provide me high quality information. Therefore employees of the business-unit became the population and they were subject to purposefully sampling considering quality (Saunders et. al., 2007, 208). Furthermore, I managed to access and interview employees all across the hierarchy. This allowed me to better understand why certain choices were made. In
order to gain a more complete snapshot every layer of the hierarchy within the department was captured.
The ten interviewees consist of target employees, experts, a manager and a team leader as can be found in appendix 2. By capturing every part of the hierarchy I also aimed to avoid low reliability and to enable multiple viewpoints. A manager was interviewed to gain insight into why the company decided to implement a new system, how management intended to manage the implementation and what environment they wanted to facilitate. As one can imagine, some questions differed to suit the role of the respondent. This could help us understand the experience of organizational members from multiple perspectives and whether certain mechanisms provided support properly during the transition.
All respondents were formally emailed, with an informed consent form, to mainly inform that they would be anonymized and electronically recorded, and asked whether they want to become part of the study. Thus, all interviewees’ inputs are anonymized and all interviewees were presented and asked to sign the informed consent form considering ethical research (Saunders et. al., 2007, 178). The consent form can be found in appendix 1. Before and after the interview, interviewees were also explained what would follow after their input and they were given the possibility to ask questions.
Respondents were selected carefully on the basis of their role during the IS implementation to reach valuable data as these employees experienced and perceived contextual conditions and they could provide their opinions and facts about the context in relation to the implementation. Their data could help to provide answers to the research question. The interviews were taken at the office and specifically in a small meeting room. An example question from the interview was, “After you were informed about the transition to the new IS, what were your expectations and why did you have these expectations?”
As mentioned earlier, data collection concerned semi-structured interviews as this allowed for adding topics during research (Saunders et al., 2007, 314). This could be valuable in terms of contribution to theory afterwards. Further, the interviews lasted each thirty till forty minutes on average and they are electronically recorded with permission. In addition, notes were written during interviews and the recorded interviews were thereafter transcribed in a verbatim form (Saunders et. al., 2007).
3.3 Data Analysis
The sequence of questions was dependent on the role of the respondent and on the course of the interview, but all interview questions captured the concepts as discussed in the literature
review. For example questions about the formal communication or organizational support were asked and whether these mechanisms contributed to their learning. In turn, management was asked how they structured training sessions and what they intended to reach. This means that different perspectives were enabled as a manager’s view may differ from that of a target employee.
To analyze these views, thoroughly reading the interviews was required. The transcriptions contained interesting findings. Grouping these findings in a systematic way by using codes resulted in an overview. By coding one can group the most relevant themes in order to pronounce the relationships and emerging patterns. These codes, as fully presented in appendix 3, were deductively derived from the literature. This categorization into codes allowed to analyze thoroughly, because data became organized. Within the transcriptions highly relevant answers were highlighted and these passages were then copied and assigned to codes in a separate document. Data reduction, selecting only relevant parts of transcriptions to categorize, helped to present the best quotes in the final report through a structured analysis.
From the individual documents per code, best quotes are selected and used in the report. These selected quotes were then translated from Dutch into English. However, while transcribing, relevant answers and emerging patterns were already marked. As it is clear, analysis started in some sense already during data collection. In the next section results will be presented.
4. Results
In this section I will first present results in a chronological order to give a better understanding of how the transition was structured. Next, I will present results specifically concerning the formal and informal context.
Although the interviews were taken among members of different layers of the hierarchy, there were interesting similarities between these interviewees. Appendix 2 shows the employees’ characteristics. As mentioned before, there were ten employees and three were experts. The three experts were enthusiastic in general, but they became less enthusiastic after the new IS went live due to restricted functionalities. However, these experts also suggested that some parts of the lead-up before going live should have been different, especially the training sessions meant for target employees. A manager supported as follows:
R1: The reason is that, I think, that we saw a more rosy picture than it actually was. A rosy picture was delineated in terms of the functionalities we would have in Fox. In reality, we see that these functionalities are not proper or they are even not delivered yet.
As one can imagine, these missing or not properly working functionalities could lead to irritation and unsatisfied employees. To understand what target employees have encountered before and during the transition, one must know what stages these employees have run through. Additionally, I will provide my observations from the time I worked in the organizational unit, but quotes from the interviews will explain more.
The first time I heard about Fox was through an email. Employees were given the opportunity to have a first look at the system in a specially set up room where agents could walk in. First this was not compulsory, but later on it became part of the day. Then, a presentation became a so-called lead-in session where screenshots were provided and the reasons for the new IS were explained. At this one hour lasting session employees could also ask their questions. In this session employees received a small quick guide and they were told and given instructions about the training sessions. The next quotes give a view of the lead-in session and how they perceived the session;
R9: …It was an introduction to, we are now changing to Fox, you will start with the e-learning and when you have finished the e-learning you will attend a wrap-up
session etc etc. It was some kind of preparation. That was the lead-in, after the lead in we had the e-learning modules which ended with a wrap-up session in class. The wrap-up was only once and it was an extension to the e-learning, a recap, going in detail of some aspects of the e-learning and how that works in reality. If we had to do it again, attending a wrap-up now would be very welcome.
Although employees were given the possibility to have a first hands-on with the new system before the lead-in, respondent 10 argued that it was the first time during the lead-in session.
R10: It was a presentation about the content of the new system. The lead-in was the first time we saw Fox in a real state and what it was going to be. Before, we only saw it on paper and emails. After the lead-in one could practice with Fox behind ticket office, but that was too limited. First, you could practice when you had some free time for it, but later on they planned it in our schedule. It was possible to click different things in the system, but the system was taking control of the session rather than you trying out the system. It was not possible to check out different things or to take another route. It just stopped at that point. So in my opinion it was still too limited what we have had that time. Too static.
During lead-in employees enthusiasm lowered as the following agent explains:
R7: No after the lead-in I became less enthusiastic about the new system, because they clearly said to agents that it could be really tough. The decisions we could take 10 minutes before departure, changes in the system, it would not be possible anymore. So more system-wise. When the system closes the flight, you would not be able anymore to do any changes to for example passengers or baggage. At that point it became less pleasant, because those minutes are the toughest 10 minutes of the flight. It basically means that you are limited. So you need to offer a no to passengers more often. More stress. Angry passengers. That was indeed a negative moment in the lead-in session.
I attended the lead-in session in a classroom, along with twenty others, where a manager gave the presentation and used slides to visualize the IS. Employees were sitting next to each other in four rows and they were allowed to ask questions. As mentioned, after the lead-in session employees started with the e-learning. They did this at home as you could login with your credentials provided for the home study. The e-learning consisted of several modules which
had to be completed to take a test in the end. However one could retake the test by writing down the answers and then guaranteeing a pass. It was a requirement to finish the e-learning modules before you could take part in the wrap-up session. So the organization was actively monitoring all target employees. It meant that employees had to plan this home study package aside their work. The next employee gives her opinion about the e-learning:
R6:I don’t think it was a good idea. They made a big mistake. They admitted that. It was a brand new system. It was training in summer. So first of all you had employees going on holiday and second the e-learning did not clearly show what you were doing. You know, like you were doing things and clicking on in the system, but actually you didn’t understand what you were doing.
When I asked why this occurred, the next answers followed:
R6: Because you actually understand it when you start working with it. It was the same problem with skilling, you started with skilling and just followed the instructions. So the manual said put passenger A on flight B. You were only allowed to do things that was said in the manual. I think when you start working with the system in reality, then you will understand certain things. At that point it will be like, oh that is the result of doing this, then you really understand what happens with certain inputs.
R3: Well, that was…uhm…Actually I cannot remember anymore what I did at that time and what I’m using right now during work. No, you know, we didn’t see Fox in real yet, so you needed to start a module and then you saw the system. What I’ve also heard from colleagues was like, I really don’t know what I’m doing right now. R5: To be honest, I just clicked on till I had a pass for the module, because it was totally Chinese for me. I had no idea, and I think no one, what it was all about. I feel not home with theory, so I thought just click on and I’ll see what happens. I was convinced about what we received during the modules, half of that we would not need to use in reality.
After employees finished all of the modules, they needed to attend a wrap-up session. This was mainly an eight hours lasting course to recap everything. The wrap-up was given by two instructors which were experts, so everyone in the room were direct colleagues. The room
was designed like a normal classroom, but each participant had a PC available to follow the instructions and exercise with the system. During this session employees could ask their big questions about what they encountered. The instructors, or the experts, provided information and showed on a large projector how to do simple tasks. Table 1 presents the wrap-up setting as experienced by employees;
Table 1
Training and Perceived Organizational Support
After the wrap-up session, employees needed to skill with simulated flights, also known as fake flights. This implied exercising with flights that were created by the project to train employees. Skilling could be done during a break and employees could use the computers which were specifically organized for skilling. It was a quiet room which was used as a communication room. Employees were given manuals in which there were different flights and situations, so that different cases were experienced. Before starting the cases, employees needed to call the Fox Support Desk (FSD) which assisted the employees to getting started and to get a specific flight number. The FSD was always available to call whenever you were confronted with problems related to the IS. So how did respondents experience the simulated flights?
Description Exemplary Quotations
R3: … It was a day of the most important things agents could encounter during work. We were seeing the onload of passengers, but there were colleagues which didn’t see an onload months after that day. So when you had a flight later on, you simply can’t remember those things.
R5: Well that session was pretty useful, because you could also experience the complexities which your colleagues encountered and the experts were available …
R6: … Then, we had a wrap-up session. We were attending a presentation and that made it more realistic and live. At that point, it was more like, so that happens when you do this.
R10: With the wrap-up things became more clear. You could ask questions and discuss about things. I found that to be very pleasant, but still you were following instructions. Incomplete Training/Need for repetition Importance interaction during training Perceived organizational support Importance interaction during training
R8: I don’t think that was good, because when you could not solve it, the answers were in the back of the manual. So everyone checked it. That is not training and most of my colleagues did it that way. Colleagues are saying it all the time.
R10: … Also with those fake flights, you could simulate a real flight but there were so many restrictions in it. It didn’t let you feel as if you were doing a real flight.
On the first of October the system went live and the first flight operated by Fox departed. Below are some snapshots from agents and their experience during their first flights with the new IS.
R5: haha … well there was an expert at the gate, I think during my first three flights and that was extremely useful.
R8: It was early October, but it wasn’t a dramatically tough flight. It was a flight to Japan and it wasn’t a full flight. There was an expert at the gate and actually, these experts were still training you. It all went ok, but it was hard to realize certain things because the experts explained and did everything. You were watching but it was simply too fast in those early days. After a couple of flights you start to remember and to recognize some inputs.
The foregoing gives a clear view of the main building blocks in relation to the transition. Before I present findings specific to the formal and informal context, there are remarkable findings to present subject to the question how employees felt and thought after they were informed about the training period.
R4: Well that was a shock. We expected, like usually, when you started here, that we would get training collectively in a classroom. When they said there is no choice, you have to do it yourself, most people were dissatisfied. There are lots of colleagues who have a family and they can’t find the time to study at home. Besides, not everyone owns a computer. I also heard that the e-learning didn’t work on Apple computers.
R5: Well, first of all I had an Ipad at home which was not supported. So it was not possible for me to get into the e-learning. I could have done it at my neighbor, but that was not possible anymore, because he passed away. Another option was a library or at the airport, but I would not go for that. I will not go to work an hour
earlier and neither an hour after work, because you will end up during the module without finishing it and that will give some stress. So I decided not to do that. In addition, eight hours working plus two hours traveling is more than enough for me. So I thought no, that’s not an option.
On top of the above, respondents also gave a difference between younger and older employees.
R5: … when you are not employed for a long period, I think, it is easier to change and also when you are relatively young, then you are flexible too. So the fifty plus employees, the group I include myself to, are more reluctant to it.
R3: They have more experience with computers, because in our time there were no computers. …
R6: … Yes, some of them. Yesterday I was in the back-office with a very kind female colleague, but she simply doesn’t get it. Age definitely makes a distinction. R8: Yes and no. That’s only a part of the problem. I can understand that older colleagues have difficult times, but there are enough younger colleagues who also complain about everything. Then I start thinking, the system is there, so you should start learning it.
The manager reacted as follows:
R1: Indeed, we encountered the fact that our population is generally older and that they used to have the (name airline) way of training in a classroom together. We chose a new way of training. Afterwards, you could think about whether it was suitable for such a big event…you could ask the question whether this was suitable.
4.1 Results on Formal Context
In this paragraph I will present findings related to the formal context. These contain the training, the e-learning, the communication and other formal mechanisms. I will also provide more in-depth explanations about the transition.
During the interview a couple of reasons appeared for the technological strategic change. Below are findings on why the transition occurred;
R1: … synergies across all the systems, easiness, the interface which now…imagine the old system with so many subsystems which simply don’t correspond with each other, which were not corresponding timely. As a result all data were not up to date. So the things system a stated, were not seen in system b. Of course, it was also cost reduction…
R1: … There was a need to jointly use the same system within (name alliance). So that is only one part of the story.
R1: The purpose of this story is to get our employees out of the desk, in order to let them focus more on CRM and hospitality and to communicate more with passengers. That’s the route we want to take.
When the same question was asked to target employees, the next answers followed;
R3: … .I think it was because we cooperated with (name airline) and that we had to work with one system.
R5: The reason why they changed? Because the system became too old and therefore it was better to bundle everything. The reservations, the check-in and everything that was operating separately.
R8: Yes, what I understood is that the former system was outdated. That was the main reason. With collaborative systems and other airlines, we could achieve more.
As can be seen, target employees understood the main message well on why they were changing a system. On the continuation of the so-called new way of training, the manager gives a detailed explanation for their choice;
R1: Yeah, well. The delay to October resulted in… The main principle was to have just-in-time trained employees. We wanted to have all the employees trained just before the implementation. Well, if you want to go live in October, then you have summer prior to it. Normally, you would not decide to do it in summer, basically because that’s a period we need the most of our employees. That’s the period we all are waiting for. So eventually that was the reason for the choice to train employees in a new way which we are not used to have at ground services. We gave the employees the responsibility to finish the e-learning on time. That was
