|
COPYRIGHT 1999 Academy of Management
They did not anticipate that the steel ax would lead to more sleep, prostitution, and a breakdown of social relationships and customs. Change agents frequently do not sense or understand the social meaning of the innovations that they introduce (Rogers, 1995: 423, quoting from Sharp, 1952: 69 -92).
The preceding quotation illustrates the possible consequences when implementers do not anticipate user sensemaking regarding a change. The implementers of the steel ax did not foresee the consequences of their introduction of a relatively simple technology. These missionaries believed that the aborigines would use steel axes as they had their stone ones (Rogers, 1995), and they did not anticipate that this new technology would evoke sensemaking and, ultimately, new understandings of the technology. Today, given the complex systems within which new technologies are implemented, it is even more difficult for implementers of modern technologies (e.g., flexible manufacturing systems, customizable voice and electronic mail systems, biotechnology) to anticipate users' sensemaking and its effects (e.g., Weick, 1990).
Modern examples of instances in which user responses to technology are unanticipated and/or extreme are plentiful and vivid. For instance, the responses of the European Union and Greenpeace to Roundup Ready[R] soybeans(1) resulted in the recall of some 500 tons of Toblerone chocolates containing lecithin derived from the genetically engineered beans (Associated Press, 1997). Members of Greenpeace were concerned about unanticipated effects of genetically engineered soybeans in the food chain, as well as about the possible evolution of superweeds that are immune to standard eradication processes (Greenpeace, 1996). Traditional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),(2) which requires a patient to stay in a 30-inch-diameter tube for close to an hour, provides another example. Many patients have found this procedure to be impossible, or at least uncomfortable, to tolerate (Majeski, 1995). As a result, open-sided MRIs (using a table, rather than a tube) have become increasingly popular. Proponents of traditional MRIs say that claustrophobia related to the size of the tube is "not a big deal," even though as early as 1995 they began fielding an increasing number of concerns from patients (Majeski, 1995). Similarly, Intel was slow to react to user concerns when an error on its Pentium chip was made public. Apparently, the company perception was that an error that would occur, on average, only once every 27,000 years was not something a logical consumer would worry about (MacMillan & McGrath, 1996). Intel's perception contrasted sharply with that of the users of its technology. From approximately October to December 1994, Intel was the target of worldwide attention as it struggled to come to grips with users' perceptions of the error (Uzumeri & Snyder, 1996). Intel stock fell 8 points in the 7 trading days after the flaw became known (Kessler, 1995). In each of these cases, user and implementer perceptions of a technology were dramatically different. Each scenario also illustrates the possible cost of such disparate perceptions.
Prior research in which scholars have examined the dynamics and outcomes of differing user and implementer perceptions (Griffith & Northcraft, 1993; Lind & Zmud, 1991; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994; Robey, Farrow, & Franz, 1989) has benefited from other work related to the social construction of technology (e.g., Barley, 1986) and adaptive structuration theory (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Social construction and adaptive structuration theory both address the dynamics that lead people to express and enact their realities (e.g., Weick, 1979). That is, there is a cycle of individual-level sensemaking to mutual/social sensemaking to understanding, followed by actions, and then a new cycle beginning with individual-level sensemaking.
Technology has been the focus of critical research in the literature of both social construction (e.g., CT scanners and organizational structuration; Barley, 1986) and adaptive structuration theory (use of group support systems; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). However, little research seems to focus on the initial development of user sensemaking, either specifically related to technology or more generally. Initial sensemaking is a critical input to later-stage models. Starbuck and Milliken (1988), for example, note the importance of this first step but do not provide a detailed model of the process. Similarly, Fiske and Taylor (1991) outline a process of how stimuli become represented in the mind - but linking this process to specific features of technology was not their intention.
As illustrated by the above three examples of unanticipated user reactions to new technologies, the benefits of users and implementers having convergent understandings of technology, and the costs when user and implementer understandings differ, can be great (e.g., Lind & Zmud, 1991; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994; Robey et al., 1989). My goal here is to supply some of the missing links between those understandings. How do users initially make sense of a technology? What role do the features of a technology play in this process? This goal is consistent with Orlikowski and Gash's (1994) call for research focusing on how and when technological understandings change. We do not seem to have theory of how users initially comprehend the capabilities of a technology.
The features-based theory of sensemaking triggers (FBST) I present here attempts to fill this gap. Features of technology (or "technology features" for ease of presentation) are the building blocks or components of a technology (e.g., Griffith & Northcraft, 1994; Nass & Mason, 1990). In this article I link dimensions of technology features with extant research on sensemaking triggers and place the triggering process in context with later-stage models of technology understanding and use (e.g., adaptive structuration theory).
Any technology can be characterized by its features, which result from choices during the design process (e.g., "We will use laser measuring tools to test the dimensional quality of our truck body production. There will be five different statistical reports available to summarize the laser measurements.") and decisions about use (e.g., "I will only use the X-Bar chart statistical report because it is the only one I believe I understand"). Figure 1 provides an illustration of the relationships between designer and user perceptions and technology features. Design and use decisions serve to both filter features out of the system (as depicted by the screens in [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]) and to make new features available over time (Garud & Rappa, 1994).
Linking technology features to the process of sensemaking and understanding is central to my argument. This connection is made at the point where user sensemaking is triggered. I have attempted to make this presentation of the FBST comprehensive. The next section provides term definitions, boundaries, and links between the developing theory and extant work. I define technology, relevant agents (users versus implementers), and timing to provide a context for the new concepts. The body of the presentation includes the constructs and dynamics of the FBST. Finally, I tie individual sensemaking to the adaptive structuration and social construction processes that lead to technology understanding.
I anticipate that the long-term result of this model will be an increased ability to predict the form and process of understanding about technology. Organizations where implementers are able to determine which features users mentally bring to the social construction process should ultimately be able to improve technology design, implementation, use, and redesign. Without such knowledge, technology implementation (indeed, any organizational change) proceeds on limited information, and organizations, thus, can less proactively manage the implementation process. The FBST provides a model for anticipating users' understanding of the technology and should therefore provide a background for organizations to change the technology design so that needed features are recognized as a matter of course; to change the implementation based on a need to emphasize certain features; or to take early advantage of features recognized by users, but perhaps overlooked by implementers and designers. Overall, the FBST should increase our ability to anticipate the particular inputs to broader processes of sensemaking. I describe this connection in greater detail below.
FOUNDATION AND BOUNDARIES
Building on the work of Barley (1990) and Rogers (1995), I define technology in broad terms - an approach that allows me to take advantage of research in several areas. "Technology" here includes specific tools, machines, and/or techniques for instrumental action. This definition also allows for the acknowledgment that a technology may have two components: (1) a hardware component, consisting of material or physical objects, and/or (2) a software component, made up of information (Rogers, 1995). Clearly, the proportion of these components varies greatly across technologies; I discuss the impact of these differences below.
The FBST is relevant during the knowledge stage of technology introduction - a stage that begins when a technology user is exposed to the technology's existence and gains some knowledge of its meaning and use (Rogers, 1995). (Later stages of Rogers' model include persuasion, decision/adoption, implementation, and confirmation.) The knowledge focus maintains the model's relevance for technologies both inside and outside organizations. It also allows for an examination of technology change.
Most technologies go through adaptation (customization, addition of new features, and so on) over their life cycles (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Orlikowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995; Rogers, 1995). Whereas Rogers argues that such adaptations generally occur during the implementation stage (where the innovation is put into actual use), others suggest that adaptation occurs in cycles (e.g., Leonard-Barton, 1988; Orlikowski et al., 1995). As a result, I conceptualize such changes here as returning to the knowledge stage for the change's own initial exposure to users. Thus, the FBST is tied to initial introductions of either completely new technologies or their adaptations.
The FBST focuses on users of a technology, although other stakeholders are also important. Isabella's survey of the change literature suggests that managers are key to cognitive shifts related to organizational change (1990). Other researchers have noted the role played by...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
