Information Technology embeddedness and the structural becoming of
Young Enterprises
Tirza S. Martens
S3230112
University of Groningen
Master Thesis BA-CM
Supervisor: Dhr. Mueller
Co-assessor: Mr. Surroca
June 25, 2018
Abstract
This research investigated the role of IT in YE, with the purpose of explaining how IT shapes YE. To accomplish this goal, we conducted analysis of misfits, resolution strategies and contributing aspects using a case study approach.
Our findings suggest that the role of IT in YE can be explain through social interaction and the preexisting structural properties embedded in the technology and that the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE is twofold. First, IT can shape YE through social interaction which may lead to structural elaboration/reproduction of the ostensive understanding of users regarding routines, data, representation, and communication channels. Second, IT can indirectly shape YE through social interaction. In that the interaction leads to misfits which, in turn, can cause users to engage in resolution strategies.
Introduction
It becomes harder to imagine organizations without information technology. One article in the Harvard Business Review even suggested that investing in information technology (hereafter IT) makes the competitive difference (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2008). For example, Xerox uses IT to give manufacturing data to its suppliers to help them deliver materials, which speed up the order entry. Nevertheless, IT is not only important for competitive advantage (Porter & Millar, 1985), IT is also interwoven with most processes throughout companies and many researchers agree that effective use of IT is beneficial for organizations (e.g. Bharadwaj, 2000; Liu, Lu & Hu, 2008; Ray, Xue & Barney, 2013; Tippins & Sohi, 2003). To that end, organizations adopt technological systems in order to become more effective and efficient.
However, the adoption of IT is influence by a variety of organizational factors, among which the organizational life cycle and maturity (Nguyen, 2009). This would imply that adoption of IT within ‘start-ups’, ‘scale-ups’, ‘entrepreneurs’ or, in general, Young Enterprises’ (hereafter YE) differs from more mature organizations. According to research, the importance of IT in YE lies especially in lowering costs, improving, quality, enabling communication, and driving growth (Janson & Wrycza, 1999).
However, organizations that implement new IT are often unaware of the assumptions and structures that are embedded in the technology which they implement, and how those assumptions and structures can differ from their own (Soh & Sia, 2005). Which in turn, may influences organizational structures (Volkoff, Strong & Elmes, 2007).
While the embedded structures in technology can influence organizational structure and adoption of IT is influenced by organizational factors, the impacts of the interaction between organizations and technology in YE is widely unknown, since most studies on the benefits and problems with IT are conducted within large and more matured corporations (e.g. Bharadwaj, 2000; Tippins & Sohi, 2003; Volkoff et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2008; Volkoff & Strong, 2010; Ray et al., 2013). However, YE perform under different conditions since they differ from more mature organizations in several ways, like strategy, structure, size, environments and technology (e.g. Greiner, 1972; Lester, Parnell & Carraher, 2003).
In founding and establishing a new organization the focus of an organization is mostly on survival and growth (Greiner, 1972). During that time, organizations implement IT to, among other things, improve quality, lower costs and drive their growth. As a response to the literature gap, this paper aims to describe how IT shapes YE by answering the question “What is the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE?”. In particular, we identify the misfits YE experience when interacting with IT and the resolution strategies YE execute to resolve these misfits, in order to explain the impact of IT on the structural becoming of YE. Moreover, we will focus on the role of IT in structuring the enterprise.
and more enhanced technology, we provide insight in the actual role of IT in YE. This has two important implications. First, to our understanding this will be one of the first studies that focus on the role of IT in the becoming of YE. This allows us to compare the role of IT in more mature organizations with the role of IT in YE. Hence, our study will contribute to a better understanding of the differences between YE and more matured organizations. Second, the outcomes of this research are practically relevant since they give managers and founders of YE insight in possible misfits and resolution strategies that could influence the organizational becoming (Beijsterveld & Groenendaal, 2016). Moreover, since previous research indicated the important role of IT within organizations, this research could contribute to the prevention of inefficient use of IT within YE by explain the occurring misfits.
Therefore, this study will focus on the shaping role of IT in YE by focusing on misfits, resolution strategies, and the structuring role of IT. In doing so we will build upon pervious research which will give us the opportunity to identify the differences between misfits within YE and more matured organizations. Furthermore, this research will look into the different resolution strategies to cope with misfits. Based on those aspects we aim to explain how IT shapes YE.
The next section begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of this research. Starting with structural becoming of organizations, followed by describing the concept of fit. Thereafter we will discuss misfits and reactions to misfits. Next, we will explain the methods used to answer our research question, including descriptions of our case sites and our data analysis approach. The Results chapter is concerned with a description of our findings based on our data analysis. Finally, the Discussion chapter will provide an interpretation of the results, contextualization of these finding in the field, and an overview of limitations.
Theoretical background
In this section we will provide some theoretical background on our subject of research. We will start introducing the structural becoming of enterprises. Second, we will focus on technology, organization-technology fit and misfits. Furthermore, we will introduce resolution strategies. Lastly, we will finish this section with a conceptual model which we used as a guideline during this research.
Structural becoming of YE
concerned with organizational design aspects like decision making structures, process design, and allocation of work roles, which is in line with Child’s (1972) definition of organizational structure. Furthermore, structure includes aspects like level of formality, level of centralization, functional differentiation and specialization, means of control, and level and span of control (Lyyntinen & Newman, 2008).
In their research, Miller and Friesen (1984) found five common stages of organizational becoming. The first phase, the birth phase refers a period in which a new company is established. Entrepreneurs start businesses with a particular idea in their minds of what to sell, make or provide. During this phase the organization is young and owner-dominated. In the birth phase, organizations are growing through creativity (e.g. Greiner, 1972; Quinn & Cameron, 1983). Structure in this phase is mostly of informal nature, processing and decision making is done impromptu, and allocation of work roles is crude. The second phase, the growth phase, refers to medium-sized organizations that focus on growth and diversification. The information processing and administrative task of the organization enlarge, which will lead to more complex structures (Miller & Friesen, 1984). Furthermore, organizations in the growth phase will become less centralized and decision making becomes more analytical and advised. The third phase Miller and Friesen (1984) describe is the maturity phase. The maturity phase entails organizations that are more conservative and focused on efficiency and profitability of the organization. The structures of the organization are quite similar to the those in the growth phase, hence, more divided into departments due to increased information processing and administrative tasks. In terms of decision making, the organization becomes less proactive more conservative. The last two phases, the revival phase and decline phase, are out of scope of this research since they refer to more mature organizations.
Organizations will process more information, which requires more complex information systems and formal processes. Furthermore, in most cases, growth will require more decentralized decision making. Finally, in order to be efficient, allocation of work roles and job descriptions often become more specified. As a consequence, organizations become more differentiated in terms of departments.
The idea of critical events and structural complexity are important since they represent the structural becoming of an organization. Whenever organizations have to deal with critical events they have to take actions that resolve the event, these actions have impact on the structure of the organization. Furthermore, when organization grow they need to adapt their structures to the new situation in order to remain effective and efficient, which may lead to more complex structures of the organization.
We have established an understanding of organizational becoming, the process YE go through during their life cycle. YE form the context in which our research will take place (figure 1). However, since we would like to understand how IT shapes YE, we have to understand how IT impact organizations. Therefore, in the remaining part of this section, we will look into organization-technology fit, misfits, and resolution strategies to misfits. Starting with explaining the concept of technology.
Technology
Before diving into the assumptions embedded in technological systems we start looking into the term ‘technology’ to narrow our focus. Technology in its broadest sense refers to things people use to execute activities. When thinking about technology we think, among other things, about tools, machinery, information systems, hardware, and software. However, technology is not limited to the physical object but also has a human aspect (Leonardi, 2012). Thus, technology is the combination of technology (the “what”), people (the “who”), and process (the “how”) that an organization uses to produce and manage information (Pearlson & Saunders, 2013). This paper will view technology as a material artifact which purpose is shaped by the human agency, hereby our focus will be on information, communication and application systems. Hence, IT. We will use the terms IT, (IT) systems, technology and technological systems interchangeably.
Both studies, Leonardi (2012) as well as Volkoff et al. (2007) imply that some form of human interaction with a system (as depicted in figure 1) has influence on the meaning of the system. This is important to our research for two reasons. First, it entails that organizations can use IT as it was designed, however, organizations can also bypass the initial meanings of designers and create their own meaning. In turn, this implies that embedded structures within IT only represent themselves through human action. Second, it entails that options embedded in the system are not fully open to organizations since there do exist limitations of the systems functional options. The latter point is also acknowledged by Orlikowski (2000) who states that the properties of technology ensures that there are always some boundary conditions that limit the options of use. Hence, while embedded structures might only represent themselves through human actions, the embedded structures can limit the organizational interaction with a system.
Organization-technology fit
Misfits
Based on our previous arguments, we can state that YE have a certain structure that differs from more mature organizations. The structure forms the context, whereas tasks executed by organizational members contribute to organizational goals. Technology can be beneficial for organizations in that it may support organizational members’ activities. However, the introduction of new technology can also trigger problems, since the dynamics between structure, tasks and organizational members may change. The inconsistencies between those different elements and the technology is what we refer to as misfits. This paper will draw upon the research of Strong and Volkoff (2010) to assess the misfits concerning IT within an organization. The researchers identified six categories of misfits (functionality, data, usability, role, control, and organizational culture) between technology and an organization. The notion of misfits is important to our research, since it helps us understand how IT might impact YE.
Reactions to misfits
Since misfits are inconsistencies between organizational elements and the technology at hand, users will attempt to resolve occurring misfits. In their research, Soh et al. (2000) propose four resolution strategies that organizations use to resolve their misfits. First, organizations could adopt new functionalities within their system that allows the organization to execute their processes through the new functionality. Second, an organization could accept the shortfall of the system and adapt to it by adapting its requirements of the system. In this case, the user, as it deals with the material aspect, will change the ostensive aspect. Volkoff et al. (2007), based on Archer (1995) refer to this process as structural elaboration or reproduction. This means that the ostensive aspects are redefined, thus the abstract and generalized idea of the routine has to change. The third resolution strategy refers to workarounds. Workarounds provide the organization with the needed functionality, but without actual use of the system. There are two main options two workaround the system (Soh et al., 2000), manual alternatives and system alternatives. The first refers to manual performance of tasks, the latter refers to using different functionalities within the system to conduct a task. Finally, the last resolution strategy is customization of the system, adding modules that fit the organization or customize the software. According to Volkoff et al. (2007), based on Archer (1995) changing the material aspect is a form of structural elaboration or reproduction. This means the structural properties of the material aspects will be elaborated on or reproduced.
(2016) with Soh et al.’s (2000) resolution strategies we see in essence the same resolution strategies because accepting misfits in the sense of Soh et al. (2000) also entails changing the process.
We explained the multiple options to resolve misfits, these strategies are meant to create fit between the organization and the technology. According to Strong and Volkoff (2010), organizations can resolve deficiency and imposition misfits in order to create fit. Deficiencies are gaps between the organization and the technology, missing features that are needed. Resolving deficiency misfits will lead to coverage fit. Coverage fit means that a technology meets the organization’s requirements (Strong & Volkoff, 2010:746). Resolving imposition misfits goes beyond meeting the organization’s requirements. Once an organization resolves imposition misfits, it will lead to more effective operations than without the technology. Strong and Volkoff (2010) refer to this as enablement fit.
Combining the resolution strategies of Soh et al. (2007) with Strong and Volkoff’s (2010) coverage and enablement fit, we propose four resolution strategies leading to two forms of fit (table 1).
Table 1. Resolution strategies
Fit Resolution strategy Definition
Coverage fit (the absence of deficiency misfits)
Adopt new features Adopt functionalities that allow the organization to perform within the system according organizational processes.
Workarounds Working around the system to conduct
tasks Accept shortfall (and adapting
processes)
When accepting the shortfall,
organizational members will adapt their ostensive aspect to the material aspect at hand.
Enablement fit Customization Fundamentally redesigning technology based on organization’s ostensive aspect.
will dive into the role of IT in structuring YE. As depicted in figure 1, we start with the assumption that organizational members of YE as they perform tasks and interact with technology may experience misfits. In order to stabilize the organization, YE will resolve misfits by means of resolution strategies, which, in turn, will shape either organizational elements or the technology. We use our conceptual model as a starting point for our analysis and aim to further explain how IT shapes YE.
Figure 1. Conceptual model: Shaping role of IT
Methods
(e.g. reactions to misfits, resolution strategies), in a particular context (i.e. YE) in order to reach empirical corroboration (Wynn & Williams, 2012).
When conducting case studies, selection of the case is an important aspect of building theory (Eisenhardt, 1989:536), because the selection criteria determine whether the case is theoretically useful. Criteria for selecting the case were as follows: (1) it is possible to collect narratives about an organization’s younger years (<10, (Miller & Friesen, 1984)), (2) YE that use administrative IT (e.g. accounting systems, CRM systems, ERP systems), (3) enterprises whose business activities encompass product IT are excluded (e.g. app-developer companies, website developers), (4) it is possible to conduct interviews among founders, directors or IT specialists, and (5) it is possible to gain additional data through observation and work or process descriptions.
Data collection
For this study we will use different sources of data. We collected data through formal interviews, informal conversation, observations and gathering additional data documents.
We conducted interviews to gain deeper understanding on a variety of aspects. To begin with, we focused organizational becoming narratives including specific moments that were critical to the organization. Second, we aimed to gain insights in the systems. Here we mainly focus on the positive and negative experiences with the system(s). Thirdly, we focused on the role of IT in conducting tasks and identified fit and misfits. Furthermore, if shortcomings were identified, we tried to discover how organizations dealt with these shortcomings. Finally, we would like to know how YE perceive the impact of IT on their organization. The structure of the semi-structured interview is presented in the interview protocol (appendix 1). With consent of the respondent, the interviews were recorded. In addition, records are stored on an external drive to make sure that a breach of devices will not lead to leaking the recordings. Moreover, the names of organizations and respondents, exact locations, and names of IT systems that may reveal the organization will not be used in this study nor were they used in the transcriptions. Furthermore, the transcriptions were send to the respondents to get a final consent.
In addition to interviews, we also engage in observation to obtain information. When systematically planned and executed, observation allows us to gather information independent of reports by others, which will reduce the respondent bias (Blumberg et al., 2014). We acted as observer-as-participant (Gold, 1958), which entails observations for a shorter amount of time. Observing-as-participant entails less risk of ‘going native’ as compared to other forms of observation (Gold, 1958:221). However, because of the brief characteristic of the observation it is more likely to misunderstand the object of observation. In our consideration we decided to go with observing-as-participant given our time scope.
interviews, observations and additional documents we establish a comprehensive view of the YE and the way it deals with IT.
Case descriptions
The interviews and observations took place among three different case sites. These companies are all involved in recruitment and secondment1. Therefore, the core process of all companies is recruiting, matching and placing of candidates. Furthermore, they deal with the same kind of administrative processes which allows us to compare both the core and administrative processes of the case sites. Due to the size of the YE, we choose different case sites that allowed us to get more insight in how several YE deal with IT within their organizations and compare the outcomes.
Case site 1: CAP. CAP was founded in 2011 as a result of a splitting of the HR-department of a larger company that was held by one of the current board members. The company has two locations in the west of the Netherlands and has approximately 100 temporary workers on the job every day. CAP focuses mainly on recruiting, matching and placing logistic temporary workers. Internally there are approximately 8 employees working for CAP. Within CAP we had the opportunity to interview the IT Specialist (CAP1) and two of the Recruiters (CAP2). Furthermore, they showed us the systems that they use, namely HelloFlex, Flexservice and Rostar CAS.
Case site 2: CAE. CAE was established in 2005 and started as a taxi-service company. During those years they recruited private drivers for businessman. Over the years they managed to expand their business towards recruitment of temporary workers and secondment in Health Care, Government, and Corporate. By now CAE has approximately 2000 temporary workers on the job every day, which they manage from three different locations divided over the Netherlands. Internally there are approximately 200 employees working for CAE. Within CAE we had the opportunity to interview a Business Unit Manager (CAE1). Furthermore, we had the opportunity to interview an Account Manager (CAE2) and one of the Recruiters (CAE3). Besides Baese, CAE uses a customized system which we will refer to as MCAE. Moreover, a fourth CAE employee showed us the currently used systems.
Case site 3: CFP. CFP was founded in 2014 as a result by its two founders. Both of the founders had worked for another recruitment organization and decided to start for themselves. In 2014 they established CFP which is located in the North of the Netherlands and focuses mainly on financial secondment. By now CFP has approximately 18 employees on the job every day. Internally there are approximately 4 employees working for CFP. At CFP we interviewed one of the founders (CFP1) and one of the Financial Consultants (CFP2).
The case sites are appropriate for our research for several reasons. First, since the case sites are similar based on several organizational characteristics (Yin, 2009), such as core business processes and administrative tasks. Second, they can be looked at as separate entities, from which patterns can emerge which, in turn, can be generalized across cases. Furthermore, the cases allow for identifying differences and similarities among them (Chetty, 1996). Lastly, the multiple-case designs are desirable when we want to describe and provide new theory (Benbasat et al., 1987), which is the intention of our research.
Data analysis
Table 2. Coding examples
Before starting the observations, an observation form was drawn up (appendix 3). During observation this form was filled in systematically in order to provide a clear overview of the observations. We use data gathered from observation to cross reference information obtained from interviews.
Finally, in addition to the formal interviews and observations, we engaged in some informal conversations before and after the meetings. While these conversations did not constitute a major data source, we did collect notes in order to be able to refer to them when necessary.
An overview of data is given in appendix 4.
First-order Second-order Core meaning
CAP2 (Translated): The small comments that I would indicate are 'hey, this is just a click too much'. Or this is just another action that could be better. As in, for some time now we want to gain more insight into how many profiles are good, so we give everyone an assessment. So as soon as we have people on call or reject, we have recently given everyone an assessment. There is an analytics tool for doing that, but that is again in another screen. So then you give that assessment later, then you have to go back, then you will write to the person, and then reject. So, then you are re-loading, picking up another website, just another action too much. These are minor adjustments that I think 'that could make more sense'.
Unnecessary steps Usability misfit
Usability misfits are reflected by situations that lead to unnecessary steps users have to take in order to conduct a task or in situations in which users feel confused by the system
Workaround Link between systems Experiences with system
Unnecessary steps
Misfit Usability misfit
Workaround Resolution strategy
Input misfit Data misfit
System workaround Resolution strategy
CAP1: Well, not like that. The previous example really focusses on one of our critical processes that we have automated. So, influences like that… no. We mainly experienced negative influence. We have tried for three years to create a link between the planning system and Flexservice, the payment system. Which means that for the last three years we copy all data, manual. That is a negative effect of the
implementation of the process. Even though, it was one of the requirements, before we purchased the system, that such a link would be possible. Almost four years later, it still doesn’t work. So, regarding those systems, Flexservice and Rostar CAS our planning system, which are two larger but also old-fashioned systems, where we notice a lot of limitations. In terms of IT, for most of my time I am concerned with trouble-shooting, really ad hoc resolving problems, inventing workarounds to realize certain things that now arise because we have more possibilities in terms of IT. So, since we implemented HelloFlex we experience more limitations of Flexservice. While it is the same company but two components, two systems, that do collaborate, but it is not seamless.
Resolution strategy usability misfit
Comparing the statement about workarounds to other statements during the interview we see that the missing links between systems of the same supplier lead to unnessecary steps that are perceived as unfriendly to the user. Workarounds are invented to resolve the problem.
CAE1: Furthermore, a situation has occurred that I had to create fictitious locations in the system because the rate was different. Because the processing of the rates, as it is embedded in the system.... For instance, you can link a rate to certain activities, but you can’t say this client has two different rates for the same activities. That is something the system can’t do, because we have not taken it into account in the beginning. I have clients with those kinds of situations. How do you resolve that? Are you going to create two clients [in the system], even when it is just one [in reality]? That are all kinds of examples.
Findings
The case sites we studied provide insight in YE and their interaction with IT. In this section we will present the findings that result from this research. First, we will give an overview of the main misfits YE experience and connect these misfits to frequently exercised resolution strategies. Furthermore, we will focus on how the IT has shaped YE’ structural becoming. In the second part of this section we will start theorizing our findings and explain the role of IT in shaping YE.
Field site observations
The three cases disclose several important events that are critical to the enterprises. The YE deal with several growth-related issues. We found that growth led to hiring new employees, geographical diversified organizations, and new tasks. In turn, this led to more complex structures and communication issues
The enterprises introduced IT into their organizations to support administrative tasks. With the introduction of IT two aspects came to light. On the one hand, the enterprises perceive misfits between the organization and the systems. On the other hand, YE perceive contribution of the IT within the organization. We will introduce both aspects using specific information obtained from the data analysis.
Misfits. Our research revealed that organizational members of the YE experienced mainly two forms of misfits. On the one hand they were confronted with data misfits. Those misfits can be explained as having no functionalities to register certain data, inconsistent representation and inappropriateness for users’ context, or not being able to store data on the level or according to certain characteristics that fit the organization. An example of inappropriate representation of data was given by one of the respondents (CFP 1, May 15, 2018) who stated that the data was not arranged by weeks or dates, moreover, important aspects like lunchbreaks in the hours registration were not reflected by the system. This is an issue for the enterprise since it led to mistakes in payments to the temporary workers. Another example reflects difficulties with registering data according to the characteristics that fit the organization:
“For instance, you can link a rate to certain activities, but you can’t say this client has two different rates for the same activities. That is something the system can’t do.” (CAE1, May 2, 2018).2
On the other hand, our analysis revealed usability misfits. Usability misfits are reflected by situations that lead to unnecessary steps users have to take in order to conduct a task, by situations in
which users feel the system does not provide optimal support or by situations in which users feel confused by the system. A few statements that reflect usability misfits are the following:
“Except Flexservice […] It is a very complex system with a lot of rules, very cumbrous, old fashioned.” CAP1 (May 3, 2018).3
“If you search for a client, you have to choose the client or the department or choose Noord-Holland. Than you get Noord-Holland as a whole, and you can search through that. But it would be helpful if
that should be filtered.” CAE2 (May 2, 2018).4
Since the usability and data misfits represent inconsistencies between organizational elements and the technology at hand, users will attempt to resolve occurring misfits.
Resolution strategies. In order to overcome the perceived misfits YE execute resolutions strategies, we found two strategies in particular. YE tend to either accept the shortfall or work around the system. First, one of the examples of accepting usability misfits relates to the possibilities to make notes about a candidate in the system. In order to make notes users have to take several actions in different screens in the system, while it would be preferred to have it all on one screen. While this is confusing to the user, it is not something that can be changed by the enterprise itself. Thus, the organization decided to accept the shortfall, although other options could be to replace or customize the system as a whole.
Additionally, in case of data misfits, the main response is to work around the problems by the use of other tools like Excel (i.e. manual workarounds) or by using specific IT-functionalities for different purposes than they are actually meant for (i.e. system workarounds). In one specific case one of the respondents (CAE 3, May 23, 2018) gave an example about a system functionality that is actually meant to pass potential leads or candidates to each other. However, the enterprise uses the application as an internal communication channel which allows for communication about figures like turnover and billable hours. Here, the enterprise needed to store data on turnover and billable hours, however, the system did not allow for storing data the way the organization needed. Therefore, the enterprise invented a workaround to meet their needs.
Interestingly, we found a third resolution strategy. One of the enterprises experienced several usability and data misfits and decided to break with the system. Hence, instead of the system, they are now back to Excel sheets and Google Drive.
The use of resolution strategies, specifically the use of workarounds and accepting shortfalls imply that the organizational aspects differ from the premediated processes embedded in the technology (Volkoff et al., 2007). The data showed how the interaction between YE and IT systems led to perceived misfits that result in changes captured by the organization. Additionally, our data revealed a third resolution strategy which differs from the ones discussed in previous literature (i.e. Soh et al., 2000; Groenendaal & Beijsterveld, 2016). Along with these findings, we found that the use of IT support YE in standardize their processes and increase the possibility to collect data. This has several implications for the structure of YE, which will be introduced in the next paragraph.
Contribution of IT on structural becoming. Besides the existence of misfits, YE come across contributing structural impacts of the IT on the organization.
First, IT allow the enterprises to shift from direct contact with candidates and clients to more indirect communication via the portals of their systems. This shift has structural influence in that it changes communication processes and shifts focus. One of the respondents (CAP1, May 3, 2018)5 explained:
“Before, we did a lot through phone calls and personal contact. Now, if people have questions about expenses claims, reservations they have, we try to steer them towards the system. Because those answers are all in there. And by reducing those questions you can be busy with
what you have to do. Doing good for a candidate.”.
Furthermore, the IT takes over some of the administrative tasks of organizational members, which allows them to focus more on the core business. The changes in communication and administrative activities may change the roles of organizational members. First, it routinizes tasks since the IT standardizes processes through fixed task sequences. For instance, during observations it became clear how the system proposed specific sequences of steps to the users. On the one hand, there were situations in which the users needed to finish one step before they were allowed to engage in the following steps. On the other hand, there were situations in which the user could follow a proposed sequence of steps, however, they also could divert from the proposed sequence. Second, it shifts focus from a role in which administrative activities are important, to a role in which the core concern is the selection and placements of temporary workers on an assignment.
Second, the increased possibility to collect data led to an increase in the means of control. We found that the YE use the information to steer on, which increases the effectivity of business activities. For CAE and CAP, the increase in data gave the enterprises insight in where their candidates came from. This information improves the search for candidates for other assignments. Whereas at CFP the means
of control were used to track how their own employees performed. In both ways the IT increases the ability to control business activities.
Third, by means of IT and the shift in organizational members’ tasks the span of control may change. For instance, at CAP the reduction of administrative tasks allowed the organization to move on with fewer employees. Whereas at CAE the reduction of administrative tasks increased the focus on core business which supported their growth.
To conclude, we found that IT in YE standardizes processes which increases the level of formality and changes organizational members’ tasks. Furthermore, IT generates an increase in means of control, this provides the YE with more information about their business activities which may increase efficiency.
Embedded organizational elements
Our data collection allowed us to analyze the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE in two ways, namely by means of misfits and by means of contributing aspects of IT. As a result of the analysis, we found various instances that represent embedded organizational elements.
To begin with, misfits occur when some form of interaction takes place between the users and the IT. Hence, the social interaction during which users engage with the IT: when users perform certain tasks with use of the IT in place, their ostensive understanding may differ from the material aspect (Volkoff et al., 2007), which leads to misfits. This implies that whenever data and usability misfits occur there exists a difference between the material aspect and the ostensive understanding of a user.
Looking into data misfits, it became clear that the organizational element ‘data’ embedded in the system deviated from the ostensive understanding of the users. Besides data misfits, usability misfits also represent embedded organizational elements. The analysis showed that usability misfits occurred when users had to engage in perceived unnecessary steps in order to conduct a task, when users feel the system does not provide optimal support or when situations occur in which users feel confused by the system. When users have to engage in perceived unnecessary steps the IT (i.e. material aspect) imposes a specific routine on the user, which implies embedded routines in the technology. Additionally, the analysis showed misfits that occur due to users feeling confused by the system. The confusion is caused by the differences in the representation expected by the user and the actual representation of the system. Therefore, we refer to this as embedded representation.
and telephone. With the introduction of the IT and embedded communication channels, the organizational members changed the way they communicated.
To conclude, we found four organizational elements embedded in the technology used by YE. Embedded data and routines are in line with the findings of Volkoff et al. (2007), whereas embedded representation and embedded communication channels are additional to the work of Volkoff et al. (2007).
Dealing with misfits and embedded structures
Our data showed that embedded structures become visible when some interaction between the user and technology takes place. However, our focus on misfits and resolution strategies revealed that the users of the system have several options to deal with the embedded structures. In response to misfits the YE either choose to work around the systems or accept the shortfalls they experience. Moreover, we found that there exist a third resolution strategy YE use to overcome misfits, that is to say, ‘break with the current system’ and go back to the use of other tools like Excel and Google Drive. In addition, we found that the YE that tend to resolve experienced misfits through either accepting the shortfall of the system or by means of workaround experience the importance or need for standardization and professionalization of the processes. This clearly reflected by the following statement:
“I: Do you feel that systems help you formalize and standardize your processes? R: Absolutely, that was the idea behind it all.” (CAE3, May 2, 2018)6.
On the other hand, the YE that decided to break with the current system turned out to be still in an entrepreneurial stage in which they still need to structure the organization:
“So, my role here is to manage the 'feeling' and 'entrepreneurship' in the right direction. To record that, to structure it.” (CFP2, May 15, 2018)7.
Comparing our findings with the paper of Volkoff et al. (2007), we found that users and the IT exist independently from each other (i.e. the material aspect and ostensive aspect of the user). However, when they interact (i.e. social interaction) misfits may occur between the material aspect and users’ ostensive aspect. The gap that becomes evident when users execute task (i.e. performative aspect) with use of the system may lead to reproduction or elaboration of users’ routines. We found users either accept the shortfall, come up with a workaround or break with the system. In case of first resolution strategy, users accept the constraints of the material aspect when performing a task. This will eventually elaborate or reproduce the user’s routine. However, in case of the second resolution strategy, to some
6 Translated: “I = Denk je ook, dat juist doordat je systemen implementeert, dat je processen sneller formaliseert en standaardiseert? R =
Absoluut. Dat is het hele idee er ook achter geweest.”.
extent the workarounds need to conform to the material aspect, since the system is not altered and remains static. In essence, this means that the IT restricts the options for workaround. Also, working around the material aspect implies that the interaction between the user and system stops for a while (i.e. manual workarounds). We would like to illustrate this with an example. A user needs specific data to make a decision. All data is stored in a system, but the data needed to make the decision does not come directly from the system. That is why the user decides to use Excel to mutate the data so that it fits the needs. This example reflects the social interaction between a user and the material aspect, a misfit and a workaround. As soon as the user works around the system, the social interaction between the user and material aspects stops, even though, the data retracted from the system influences the activity in that the input for the Excel analysis comes from the system. On the other hand, in case of a system workaround a user can decide to use certain system functionalities for different purposes than intended for. Which means there is still interaction between the user and IT, even though, the structural properties remain the same. Lastly, the latter resolution strategy, break with the system, ensures that there is no longer any interaction between the material aspect and the user.
These findings suggest that accepting a shortfall is related to structural elaboration/reproduction, while workarounds and breaking with a system do not specifically mean that there is some form of modifications of structural properties. Hence, the latter two suggest a break in the social interaction between a user and the material aspects and its embedded preexisting structural conditions.
Contributions and embedded structures
The previous section on the contribution of IT on the structural becoming of IT implies that IT, through its embedded structures (i.e. communication channels and routines), shapes YE in that it allows for structuring and effective arrangement of the enlarging task of information processing and administrative tasks (Miller & Friesen, 1984). For instance, one of the respondents (CAP3, May 31, 2018) stated:
“During my time at CAP, a third system was implemented, Helloflex. This is a subsystem of Flexservice and this system has helped us to digitize all processes. Every employee has his own account in this system. Here they can fill in their own hours, post comments, view their contracts, ask
questions etc.”.8
This can be further explained by Orlikowski’s (2000) explanation of technologies that embody social structures. According to the study of Orlikowski it is only when technological elements (e.g. stored data, screens, procedures) are routinely mobilized in use that we can say that they structure human action
8 Translated: Gedurende mijn tijd bij CAP is er een derde systeem bij gekomen, Helloflex. Dit is een broertje van Flexservice en dit systeem
(Orlikowski, 2000:406). When the IT systems are used in order to create standardization and effective arrangement of administrative tasks, the systems become routinely mobilized in user’s actions, which in turn shapes how they act and perform tasks. The organizational users have the potential and power to behave in such a way that the relation between users and the systems helps creating more standardized processes when conducting tasks. This means that the employees of YE and the IT may exist independently, however, when they are woven together the interaction may lead to valuable outcomes. Additionally, following our reasoning on social interaction, this also emphasizes the importance of this interaction. When organizational members decide to work around the IT or break with the system, the social interaction stops. In that case, the technology is not used and, therefore, won’t have a role in the standardization of that specific structural aspect within the organization.
Discussion
This research investigated the role of IT in YE, with the purpose of explaining how IT shapes YE. To accomplish this goal, we conducted analysis of misfits, resolution strategies and contributing aspects using a case study approach.
Our analysis revealed that the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE be explained by means of the embedded organizational elements in technology, namely routines, representation, data, and communication channels. Furthermore, we found IT can only shape organizational structures when there exists a form of social interaction. At the same time, we found that when users experience some form of misfits, they tend to resolve these misfits by means of resolution strategies, specifically accepting shortfalls, workarounds, and break with the system. This entails that organizational members have the power to show behavior that deviates from the embedded structures. Moreover, the specific resolution strategies also show that organizations do not engage in changes in the material aspects.
Our findings suggest that the role of IT in YE can be explain through social interaction and the preexisting structural properties embedded in the technology and that the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE is twofold. First, IT can shape YE through social interaction which may lead to structural elaboration/reproduction of the ostensive understanding of users regarding routines, data, representation, and communication channels. Second, IT can indirectly shape YE through social interaction. In that the interaction leads to misfits which, in turn, can cause users to engage in resolution strategies.
Our researched focused on YE since they differ from more mature organizations. In relation to previous studies that focused on the role of IT in organizations we found some differences and similarities.
how IT shapes YE. In that it provides us insight about which ontological structures have most severe impact on organization.
Additionally, in contrast to the research of Strong and Volkoff (2010) our research revealed only two of their six proposed misfits. Interestingly, our research had almost no indications of misfits related to the latent structures. Latent structures refer to a second-order structure that arises from the physical, deep and surface structures (Strong & Volkoff, 2010). Latent structures do not take material forms, but they are an integral part of the technology artifact. This means that the latent structure become apparent when ‘the system’ interacts with a certain environment, like an organization. The latent structure could explain characteristics of the IT that enable and constrain how roles are designed, control can be exercised and the organizational culture. We could explain the absence of misfits related to latent structures by the concept of organizational maturity. YE are typically more flexible organizations (Quinn & Cameron, 1983) where control and structures (i.e. roles) do not play a large role. Even though the latent structure might be present in the IT, the related organizational elements like roles, control and organizational culture might not be part of the ostensive understanding of a user. Thus, when social interaction takes place, the two structures and the embedded organizational elements will not be interacting since the structures are not clearly present in the ostensive understanding as understood by the user.
Third, our research showed that IT within YE can either result in misfits or can be complementary to the organization. These findings are in line with the Technology Affordances and Constraints Theory (TACT) (Majchrzak & Markus, 2013). The TACT framework presumes that affordances and constraints become visible when human and organizational attributes interact with functionalities that are built into the system by design or by accident.
Lastly, our research indicates that YE use IT to standardize and increase means of control. In relation to organizational life cycle theories, this again indicates that the role of IT is twofold. On the one hand, IT contribute to the structural becoming of YE in that it provides structure. This can also support YE in further growth, which is one of the reasons for YE to implement IT (Janson & Wrycza, 1999), since it contributes to the reduction of the enlarging administrative tasks (Miller & Friesen, 1984). On the other hand, the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE, can lead to the organization having to adapt its way of working to the embedded organizational elements of IT.
Limitations and contributions
Several limitations may affect our results. First, we studied only one specific industry in which YE operate which may limit the generalization to other industries. Also, we only focused on organizations that use administrative IT. However, we studied three different organizations. We argue that the three different case studies provided us with the opportunity to find general patterns and important differences. Nonetheless, YE operating in other industries that primarily use IT to support administrative processes may experience the same misfits since they go through the same life-cycle stages (Greiner, 1972).
Second, in gathering data we engaged in observation as observer-as-participant (Gold, 1958), which might lead to misunderstanding of the object of observations since the observations are characterized by a shorter amount of time. However, we argue that the combination of interviews, observations and informal conversations reduced the risks of misunderstanding.
Despite these limitation, this research contributes to literature by explaining the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE. To our knowledge, our study is one of the first studies to combine results on misfits, resolution strategies and the shaping role of IT in YE. To this extent, this research contributes to the field of research in that it provides useful insights for other researchers that are interested in the field of YE and IT.
As a second contribution, we presented the possibility to theorize embedded structures in technology through the use of misfits and contributions.
Additionally, this research revealed common organization-technology misfits that occur in YE. Our findings can be useful to YE, since these misfits occur to be important characteristics to consider when selecting and implementing.
2000; Liu et al., 2008; Ray et al., 2013; Tippins & Sohi, 2003). Even though our findings indicate that IT can be beneficial in terms of standardization, implementing IT can also have downsides. IT has embedded assumptions and structures (Soh & Sia, 2005) that can, while users interact with it, lead to misfits. Which in turn, influences organizational structures (Volkoff et al., 2007). Therefore, YE need to consider both sides of the medal when introducing new IT into the organization.
Conclusion
In this study the role of IT in shaping YE was researched. It was found that the shaping role of IT is twofold. First, we researched the role of IT by means of misfits and resolution strategies. We found that YE mainly experience data and usability misfits which they tend to resolve by use of workarounds or they accept the shortfalls. Second, we researched the contributions of IT within YE and found that YE mainly YE use IT to standardize and increase means of control.
Further analysis revealed that the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE be explained by means of the embedded organizational elements in technology, namely representations, routines, data, and communication channels. The first structure referring to surface structure of the IT, the latter structures referring to the deep structures of the IT. Moreover, our research indicated the importance of users’ power to behave accordingly to these embedded structures or deviate from them. However, the specific resolution strategies also show that organizations do not engage in changes in the material aspects. This suggest that the role of IT in YE can be explain through social interaction and the preexisting structural properties embedded in the technology and that the role of IT in the structural becoming of YE is twofold. First, IT can shape YE through social interaction which may lead to structural elaboration/reproduction of the ostensive understanding of users regarding routines, data, representation, and communication channels. Second, IT can indirectly shape YE through social interaction. In that the interaction leads to misfits which, in turn, can cause users to engage in resolution strategies.
Further research
References
Adizes, I. (1979). Organizational passages—diagnosing and treating lifecycle problems of organizations. Organizational dynamics, 8(1), 3-25.
Alter, S. (2014). Theory of workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(55), 1041-1066.
Archer, M. S., & Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge university press.
Beijsterveld, J. A., & Groenendaal, W. J. (2016). Solving misfits in ERP implementations by SMEs. Information Systems Journal, 26(4), 369-393.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS quarterly, 369-386.
Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169-196.
Blandford, A., Connell, I., & Green, T. (2004). Concept-based analysis of surface and structural misfits (CASSM) tutorial notes. Retrieved on June 17, 2018 from http://www.uclic.ucl.ac.uk/annb/CASSM.html
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2005). Business research methods. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Boudreau, M.C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organizational Science, 16(1), 3-18.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2012). From use to effective use: a representation theory perspective. Information systems research, 24(3), 632-658.
Bygstad, B., Munkvold, B. E., & Volkoff, O. (2016). Identifying generative mechanisms through affordances: a framework for critical realist data analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 31(1), 83-96.
Chandler Jr, A. D. (1962). 1998, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chetty, S. (1996). The case study method for research in small-and medium-sized firms. International small business journal, 15(1), 73-85.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. sociology, 6(1), 1-22.
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial marketing management, 39(1), 118-128.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Entrepreneur (2017). Infographic: The Growth Of Entrepreneurship Around The Globe. Retrieved on June 3, 2018 from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/288286
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217-223
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37-46
Hong, K. K., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Information & management, 40(1), 25-40.
Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world, 25.
Liu, Y., Lu, H., & Hu, J. (2008). IT capability as moderator between IT investment and firm performance. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 329-336.
Lyden, F. J. (1975). Using Parsons' functional analysis in the study of public organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 59-70.
Lyytinen, K., and Newman, M. 2008. "Explaining Information Systems Change: A Punctuated Socio-Technical Change Model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589-613.
Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2013). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). In Kessler, E.H. (Eds.),Encyclopedia of management theory(pp. 831-834). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
ManagementSite (2017). Explosieve groei aantal startups tot miljoenenbedrijf. Retrieved on June 3, 2018 from https://www.managementsite.nl/explosieve-groei-startups-tot-miljoenenbedrijf
McAfee, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2008). Investing in the IT that makes a Competitive Difference. Retrieved on June 3, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2008/07/investing-in-the-it-that-makes-a-competitive-difference
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management science, 30(10), 1161-1183.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications.
Pearlson, K., & Saunders, C. S. (2009). Strategic management of information systems. John Wiley and Sons. 18-19.
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Retrieved on June 3, 2018 from https://hbr.org/1985/07/how-information-gives-you-competitive-advantage
Quiescenti, M., Bruccoleri, M., La Commare, U., Noto La Diega, S., & Perrone, G. (2006). Business process-oriented design of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems for small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 44(18-19), 3797-3811.
Ray, G., Xue, L., and Barney, J. B. 2013. Impact of information technology capital on firm scope and performance: The role of asset characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1125-1147.
Smith, A., & Graetz, F. M. (2011). Philosophies of organizational change. Edward Elgar Publishing. 74-86
Soh, C., and Sia, S.K. 2005. The Challenges of Implementing ‘Vanilla’ Versions of Enterprise Systems. MIS Quartely Executive 4(3), 373-384.
Soh, C., Kien, S. S., & Tay-Yap, J. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 47-51.
Strong, D.M., and Volkoff, O. 2010. Understanding Organization-Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information Technology Artifact. MIS Quarterly 34(4), 731-756.
Tippins, M. J., and Sohi, R. S. 2003. IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745- 761.
Tsang, E. W. (2014). Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(2), 174-186.
Tsoukas, H. (1989). The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of management review, 14(4), 551-561.
Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J. C., & Oldach, S. (1993). Continuous strategic alignment: Exploiting information technology capabilities for competitive success. European Management Journal, 11(2), 139-149.
Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC Press. 131-140.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-associated Organizational Change Processes. Mis Quarterly, 37(3).
Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223.
Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of management information systems, 12(4), 5-33.
Wynn Jr, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 787-810.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.
Appendix 1 Interview protocol
Topic 1 – Organizational becoming
Main question: How did your organization come to where it is today? What were important moments to the organization?
Do you remember any specific moments that were critical to the establishment of the organization? And why were they critical to the organization?
Topic 2 - Experience with the system(s)
Main question: Can you tell me something about your experiences with the systems and how it complements or influence your tasks?
Probes:
1. Do(es) the system(s) meet your expectations? Why, why not? 2. Do you believe the system(s) improved efficiency and effectivity?
a. Examples
3. Did the systems had any influence on your organization? (e.g. different way of working, reorganizing processes, not be able to execute certain tasks)
a. Examples
Topic 3 – (Mis)fits
Main question: To what extent do(es) the system(s) allow you to execute the tasks the way you want?
Probes:
1. Do you feel the system(s) fit the organization? Why?
2. Do you feel the system(s) miss features that you need in order to execute tasks? Why? 3. Do you feel the system(s) consists of features that standardize/formalize procedures? If so, in
the way that you want them to be or did you have an initial different expectation? 4. Do you feel control is well regulated within the system? (e.g. monitoring options) Why? 5. Are you flexible in adjusting the controls?
6. Can you store data within your system? How does this work?
7. Can you store data the way you prefer? Is it flexible? (e.g. based on level, specific characteristics)
9. Do you ever feel like the system asks you to execute certain steps that add no value to the completion of you task?
10. Do you need specific skill in order to be able to deal with the system(s)? a. If so, do your employees/colleagues have them?
11. Do responsibility and authority correspond? (e.g. can you, based on roles, define who can see what?)
12. Do you feel the system reflects your organization and what you stand for?
Topic 4 – Resolution strategies
How do you deal with shortcomings of the system(s)?
Probes:
1. Do you have any tactics to execute your tasks faster (e.g. working in office, on paper, making own reports instead of using systems)?
2. If you have no shortcomings, why? Why does it fit exactly to the organization?
Topic 5 – Organizational becoming and the role of IT
Main question: In the beginning of this interview we talked about critical events, to what extent do you feel IT had an impact on these events (positive/negative)?
Appendix 2 Table 3. Codebook
Code Theme Definition of code Example codes
Depending on IT Contributions of IT
Depending on IT to execute certain tasks or activities
CAP1: What I want to demonstrate here, before, we adapted completely to Flexservice. But that was before we had HelloFlex. Now we have HelloFlex, a newer and more modern system which allows us to do more things. And then, if you run into limitations because the system does not actually work well in combination with Flexservice… Those are big frustrations to us. Experiences Contributions
of IT
Experiences with IT CAE3: I think, with what [new CRM-system] we have now, we are very much helped. Especially if you compare it with a few months ago. You do not want to know how many spreadsheet files were circulating Impact of workarounds on data reports Contributions of IT
CAE1: And it has impact on the reports that are
available. Those export files, for instance. Because, normally you plan ten activities for an employee every month, and for these people it’s almost thirty. That is not correct.
IT systems Contributions of IT
Explanation of IT systems
CFP2: If we focus on the systems we use now, it is mainly Excel, Google Drive, etc.
Org-IT misfit Misfit Misfit between the organization and the IT. This can have different
consequences. (See other coded misfits)
Control misfit Misfit Too much or too little control
Data misfit Misfit having no functionalities to register certain data, inconsistent
representation and inappropriateness for users’ context, or not being able to store data on the level or according to certain characteristics that fit the organization.
CAE1: For instance, you can link a rate to certain activities, but you can’t say this client has two different rates for the same activities. That is something the system can’t do.”.
Functionality misfit Misfit Processes executed using the IT leads to reduced efficiency or effictiveness
CAE3: The only point is, it does not actually synchronize between BAESE and Google, but that is a snapshot. You make an appointment in your calendar. Then you indicate that you want to link this to the contact person in BAESE. Then the system links that, but the system makes a picture of the appointment. It records the time. It also places this in the task list. But if you change something in Gmail or your calendar, it does not automatically change to BAESE. Lack of skills Misfit Organizational
members don't have the skills required to execute tasks with use of IT at hand
CAP1: Especially, because our organization does not have a lot of knowledge about the capacity and possibilities of IT. That is not the case, there is no one around here who knows a lot about new techniques.
Link between systems
Misfit Link between different systems leads to issues
Missing features Misfit Deficiencies (will also be coded as either control, data, functionality, skills, organizational culture, usability misfit)
CAE1: On behalf of the recruiter, we experience that the system has no functionalities. And for the account managers, I mean, a client is registered in the system, but to keep it really workable…. You cannot easily draw up report from your meetings, there is no sales
information. Organizational
culture misfit
Misfit IT requires ways of operating that contradict wiht organizational norms
-
Unnessecary steps Misfit situations that lead to unnecessary steps users have to take in order to conduct a task
CAE2:If you search for a client, you have to choose the client or the department or choose Noord-Holland. Than you get Noord-Holland as a whole, and you can search through that. But it would be helpful if that should be filtered Usability misfit Misfit situations in which
users feel the system does not provide optimal support or by situations in which users feel confused by the system.
CAE2: If you search for a client, you have to choose the client or the department or choose Noord-Holland. Than you get Noord-Holland as a whole, and you can search through that. But it would be helpful if that should be filtered.
Role misfit Mismatches between
responsiblity and authority
CAP1: Roster CAS doesn’t have that. They do have an embedded rights structure, but it does not work well. So, we don’t use that, which means everyone has access to everything. Critical events Organizational
Development
Critical events are those events that influence the organizational becoming.
CFP1: In 2016 we had almost everyone on contract for half a year or a year…in 2017 we had to assign everyone to new assignments, which means that you need to arrange new assignments for your employees. First, we recruited assignments that fit the candidate, and now it changes form candidate to assignments. Formalizing organization Organizational Development Standardizing procedures
