Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

2.1 Appropriation
Ronny Gey
From a social constructivist point <strong>of</strong> view research on technology, its implementation and its affects on
organisations, can be classified into five different perspectives whereas appropriation is <strong>the</strong> one <strong>of</strong> interest
in this study. The appropriation perspective on technologies is engaged after <strong>the</strong> decision to adopt
<strong>the</strong> technology is made and asks “[...] whe<strong>the</strong>r people use <strong>the</strong> technology as its designers or adopters
intended” (Leonardi and Barley 2010, p. 15). This category goes back to <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Poole and
DeSanctis (Poole and DeSanctis 1990; DeSanctis and Poole 1994) who based <strong>the</strong>ir Adaptive Structuration
Theory on <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Giddens (1984) on structuration. Social structures provided by technology
are described by <strong>the</strong>ir structural features, <strong>the</strong> “rules and resources, or capabilities, <strong>of</strong>fered by <strong>the</strong>
system” and by <strong>the</strong>ir spirit, namely <strong>the</strong> values and goals which are connected to <strong>the</strong> structural features
(DeSanctis and Poole 1994, p. 126). The user can deviate from <strong>the</strong> spirit <strong>of</strong> a technology as it
was originally intended by <strong>the</strong> designer and use <strong>the</strong> structural features in a different way. While doing
so Poole and DeSanctis (1990) speak about unfaithful appropriation, when <strong>the</strong> user's intentions doesn't
match <strong>the</strong> designers' and faithful appropriation, when <strong>the</strong> intentions are reflected.
Parallel to this, Orlikowski also based her work on <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> structuration and hence brought similar
ideas to technology research in organisations (Orlikowski and Robey 1991; Orlikowski 1992). She
spoke about <strong>the</strong> design and use mode, as <strong>of</strong> what is intended by those who design a technology and
those who use it afterwards. Technology to her is enabling and constraining human actions (Orlikowski
1992, p. 416) and she applies less normative lenses on <strong>the</strong> matter than Poole and DeSanctis
which favoured faithful to unfaithful appropriation. We henceforth support her articulation <strong>of</strong> appropriation.
As appropriation is <strong>the</strong> only constructivist perspective that considers explicitly <strong>the</strong> designers images <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> way a technology should be (Leonardi and Barley 2010, p. 15) we decided to choose this viewpoint.
Also we were arguing about <strong>the</strong> enactment perspective subsequently and mainly developed by
Orlikowski and Yates (e.g. Orlikowski and Yates 1995; Orlikowski and Barley 2001). But as we are
only equipped with <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> a short term research so far we dropped <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> applying <strong>the</strong> enactment
approach which favours longitudinal studies (cp. fur<strong>the</strong>r research topics in chapter 5).
As our perspective on <strong>the</strong> subject is set we now need to define standards as <strong>the</strong> specific technology
<strong>of</strong> interest in this study.
2.2 Standards and s<strong>of</strong>tware process improvement
In this study we are concentrating on process standards as opposed to product standards. Process
standards set rules about how an organisation should design its processes (Brunsson and Jacobson
2000) and <strong>the</strong>refore define <strong>the</strong> organisational behaviour. The process which produces <strong>the</strong>se rules is
specified as standardisation and standards can thus be distinguished from social norms because <strong>the</strong>
designer can be identified as <strong>the</strong> organisational arrangement who executes <strong>the</strong> standardisation.
We are fur<strong>the</strong>r following <strong>the</strong> distinction <strong>of</strong> Nielsen and Kautz (2008) who speak about standards, processes
and practices as three different items in <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> standards in an organisation
(Nielsen and Kautz 2008, p. 30). First, a standard is external to a specific organisation in terms <strong>of</strong>
where <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rule set takes place, like <strong>the</strong> different ISO standards or CMMI which are all
designed by a single standardisation body. Second, a process is what <strong>the</strong> specific organisation sets
as <strong>the</strong>ir specific organisational process. They can comply or not to what is written in <strong>the</strong> standard process.
And third, <strong>the</strong> concrete practice is what is actually being executed in <strong>the</strong> organisation. Their
members can in practice also deviate or comply to <strong>the</strong> organisational processes. Barley and Tolbert
(1997, p. 98) support this distinction by referring to practices as scripts through which institutions are
enacted. In conclusion, organisations decide whe<strong>the</strong>r and to what extent standards change <strong>the</strong>ir processes
as well as <strong>the</strong>ir existing practices. They socially construct it and reflect <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> creator
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard or not. As already mentioned, Orlikowski (1992) referred to it as design and use
mode whereas Poole and DeSanctis (1990) called it spirit and structural feature <strong>of</strong> a technology. So
human action can occur before and after <strong>the</strong> concrete enactment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organisational processes.
The use mode is <strong>of</strong> specific interest for us since it is <strong>the</strong> observable one and since it provides <strong>the</strong> evidence
<strong>of</strong> how appropriation <strong>of</strong> standards takes place in an organisation. The social reproduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
standard into <strong>the</strong> organisation is a two folded process. First, it occurs in <strong>the</strong> reproduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stan-
183