The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1
Version 3 / 21 November 2007
11 Gaps in <strong>Technology</strong> <strong>Insertion</strong> Capabilities
11.1 Gaps in Understanding, Methods and Tools
This scoping study has shown that there are a great many risks to technology insertion
programmes. Despite the developments in risk assessment tools and techniques, research
has found that the rate <strong>of</strong> technology project failure has not reduced. <strong>The</strong> case study
evidence suggests that risk assessment tools are sometimes applied to these projects, but
assessors <strong>of</strong>ten take a narrow view <strong>of</strong> the risks. This narrow view <strong>of</strong> risk can be the result
<strong>of</strong> organisational culture. NHS technology projects for example, have been found to focus
on avoiding litigation and financial risk at the expense <strong>of</strong> the consideration <strong>of</strong> other
potential risks.
In the context <strong>of</strong> technology insertion it is clear that the number <strong>of</strong> risks, at
organisational, technical and systems levels, coupled with the <strong>of</strong>ten overly optimistic
expectations <strong>of</strong> project backers, can mean these programmes become very challenging
and stressful to manage.
<strong>The</strong>re is strong evidence indicating that a technocentric viewpoint exists within many
programmes, where new technology is given a high value, and its introduction seen as a
suitable end in itself. This view can mean that individual technical issues are well
examined and understood, whereas contextual factors surrounding technology use end up
being ignored. Technocentric culture can mean that important factors such as the
organisational, contextual, political and the human may be less well understood and
therefore either not considered at all, or not well managed.
Even when technical issues are well understood there is a risk that the impacts <strong>of</strong>
technology insertion on the established system may not have been fully considered. In
isolation the insertion <strong>of</strong> new components, such as an air conditioning unit in a ground
vehicle, seems like it provides substantial benefits. It is clear however that changes such
as this can affect the performance <strong>of</strong> the system in unexpected ways. In this example the
air conditioning unit may take up more space in the vehicle, leaving less space for
personnel. Additionally, the unit may require greater power, and add weight to the
system, which will inevitably lead to a reduced speed capability and increased fuel
consumption.
It is precisely because <strong>of</strong> this prediction problem that so many practitioners struggle with
the challenge <strong>of</strong> introducing new technologies into a platform, system or organisation. As
we have seen there are a great many academic theories surrounding technology and its
impacts, however there is very little practical guidance for the practitioner. For those
decision makers who do not have access to outside expertise there is little in the any <strong>of</strong>
tools or guidance to provide support. As we have seen, knowledge management resources
may provide information about other practitioners’ experiences, however this does not
guarantee that these experiences will be applicable to the practitioner’s current needs.
<strong>The</strong>re is a good chance that ‘knowledge’ in these resources will be based on individual
experiences <strong>of</strong> technical problems rather than on insights into the socio-technical or
human factors issues that surrounded these events. Alternative approaches may prove to
be a valuable investment <strong>of</strong> effort if we are to better support decision makers and
practitioners.
62