The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1
Version 3 / 21 November 2007
include socio-technical systems [166], social shaping [169] and social construction <strong>of</strong>
technology [157].
A number <strong>of</strong> researchers and authors have found that both technology and the decisions
made in organisations bring about change. In large scale study <strong>of</strong> the introduction <strong>of</strong>
computers into different industries, Buchanan and Boddy [131] found that both
management goals and technological factors caused changes to the organisation.
Similarly, the impact on jobs will vary within any organisation. Some will be deskilled
and others enriched. <strong>The</strong>y found that different conditions will produce different changes
and interactions, making it very difficult to predict the outcome <strong>of</strong> introducing new
systems or organisational structures.
Eason [170] found that technology is very flexible and does not have deterministic effects
on organisations. <strong>The</strong> technology is best regarded as a contributory or facilitating factor
in the organisational outcomes that have been found. Three other sets <strong>of</strong> factors also
contribute:
Types <strong>of</strong> technology and application. <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> technology may make
a difference. Mainframe and dumb terminals might lead to centralised control whilst the
use <strong>of</strong> networked personal computers might lead to decentralisation. Management control
applications should lead to tighter control whereas computer aided design, decision
support systems, etc . . . should ‘augment human intellect’. . .
<strong>The</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> the user organisation. A major determinant <strong>of</strong> impact is the set <strong>of</strong> goals to
which the user organisation aspires when it invests in the technology. If the intention is to
use the technology to replace jobs, that may be the outcome. If the intention is to create a
monitoring system to control employee behaviour, the same technology might lead to this
outcome. As the early socio-technical systems theorists put it, there is ‘organisational
choice’ [164]; the same technology can be used to produce different organisational
outcomes.
<strong>The</strong> response <strong>of</strong> the user community. Even the intentions <strong>of</strong> those investing in the
technology are, however, not sufficient to predict the outcomes. Many outcomes are
unplanned and unintentional. High failure rates and low utilisation levels are certainly not
planned and most staff reduction levels are not actually achieved. <strong>The</strong> new technical
system has to engage with the complex world <strong>of</strong> tasks, procedures and culture within the
organisation; it has to be part <strong>of</strong> a working socio-technical system. <strong>The</strong> many
stakeholders at the receiving end <strong>of</strong> the new system will be active in responding to the
technical system to avoid negative consequences for themselves and where possible to
achieve benefits. This is most <strong>of</strong>ten perceived as resistance to change as stakeholders
defend against that which is not in their best interests. However, the response to the
technology may be positive as stakeholders find interesting ways to exploit the new
functionality. Many companies, for example, are currently groaning under the unplanned
weight <strong>of</strong> the e-mail traffic <strong>of</strong> their employees and are looking for ways <strong>of</strong> restricting it.
<strong>The</strong>re is still considerable debate in the literature regarding the type and extent <strong>of</strong>
influence that humans and technologies exert on organisational systems [171]. This issue
has been described as the ‘problem <strong>of</strong> agency’ and has been subject to considerable
debate as to whether humans and technologies should both be considered ‘agents’. This is
described by Orlikowski and Iacano [171] as one <strong>of</strong> the ‘key unresolved issues for our
field’.
36