Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) MWAIS 2016 Proceedings Midwest (MWAIS) Spring 5-19-2016 Towards an Emancipatory Systems Approach for IT Adoption in Organizations Osden Jokonya North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa, osden.jokonya@nwu.ac.za Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/mwais2016 Recommended Citation Jokonya, Osden, "Towards an " (2016). MWAIS 2016 Proceedings. Paper 17. http://aisel.aisnet.org/mwais2016/17 This material is brought to you by the Midwest (MWAIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in MWAIS 2016 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.
Towards an Emancipatory Systems Approach for IT Adoption in Organizations Osden Jokonya North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa Osden.jokonya@nwu.ac.za ABSTRACT This paper discusses emancipatory systems approaches with regard to IT adoption in organizations. Emancipatory systems approaches emphasis is on IT adoption problem situations which are perceived to be associated with issues of power relations that affect decision-making in organizations. This paper explores user perceptions on emancipatory systems approaches during IT adoption in organizations. The paper is based on two case studies. The study was guided by the following questions: What are the users perceptions of emancipatory systems approach during IT adoption in organizations? What are the perceived users expected benefits of emancipatory systems approach during IT adoption in organizations? The results indicate that emancipatory systems approaches may be useful during IT adoption in organizations. The results suggest that emancipatory systems approaches may have a potential to improve IT adoption success in organizations through emancipating and empowering discriminated stakeholders. Keywords (Required) Critical systems heuristics (CSH), team syntegrity, emancipatory systems approach, stakeholders, case study, INTRODUCTION Information Technology adoption is important for all organizations, be they Government, private businesses or even Non- Governmental Organizations big or small. Systems approaches have enormous scope to guide the IT adoption processes even where there is a conflict, power relation, inequality, coercion, alienation, oppression and discrimination. Reynolds (2011) says that emancipatory systems approaches are focused on improving real-world problem situations by revealing all forms of alienation and oppression in organizations. Emancipatory systems approaches provide democratic IT adoption which can be affected by the organizational power structures (Ulrich, 2005). The assumption of emancipatory systems approaches is that during IT adoption there is discrimination of certain stakeholder groups in organizations (Jackson, 2010). The emancipatory systems approaches help to reduce discrimination of stakeholders during IT adoption in organizations as they empower oppressed stakeholders to achieve the emancipatory objective (Reynolds, 2011). The emancipatory systems approaches are suitable for coercive and political IT adoption problem contexts (Reynolds, 2011). Emancipatory systems approaches focus on addressing issues of discrimination by empowering the marginalized stakeholders (Ulrich & Reynolds, 2010). Emancipatory systems approaches regard organizations and society as full of conflict and coercion that affects proper participation of the affected stakeholders (Boltanski, 2011). The most two popular examples of emancipatory systems approaches are Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) and Team Syntegrity. These are discussed in the ensuing section. CRITICAL SYSTEMS HEURISTICS Critical systems heuristics questions the beneficiary of IT adoption in organizations and seeks to empower those affected by a decision and to embrace them. Critical systems heuristics (CSH) challenges the existence of unfairness in organizations by promoting the participation of those affected by the IT adoption decision (Reynolds, 2011). Critical systems heuristics major emphasis is that decision on IT adoption in organizations should emanate from those affected by the changes. Critical systems heuristics has been credited for being able to interrogate other issues that were not revealed by other systems approaches. Churchman (1971) argues that system interventions need to sweep-in different stakeholder perceptions as part of drawing boundaries. This implies that inclusion invokes a sense of fairness and promotes participation which is an important ingredient for IT adoption success. Critics have challenged critical systems heuristics for including materialist persuasions that give rise to particular beliefs and Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 1
values as stakeholders social positions in organizations have an influence on the ideas, beliefs and values that they hold (Jackson, 2010). Other critics question why the involved would bother about interests of the affected but not involved. Therefore CSH s success depends on the existence of an environment for debate between the different stakeholders (Reynolds, 2011). The weakness of critical systems heuristics has been cited as its lack of developed social theory to enforce genuine emancipation in organizations and society (Reynolds, 2014). Team Syntegrity Team syntegrity s emphasis is on democratizing the decision making process in social systems by debating and getting commitment from different stakeholders on action to be taken on problem situations (Espinosa & Harnden, 2007). Team syntegrity supports and promotes inclusiveness through democracy and decentralization of power, flatter structures and selfmanagement. Beer (1994) contends that organizational structures are a major constraint to democratic IT adoption because of associated power structures. Team syntegrity is important to develop and accommodate divergent and conflicting viewpoints among different stakeholders in order to reach a shared social consciousness based on a variety of viewpoints (Jackson, 2003). Critics argue that team syntegrity s success in democratic IT adoption does not guarantee that good intentions will be implemented successfully as they may be affected by structures and power relationships in organizations (Jackson, 2003). This shortcoming may be addressed by combining it with hard systems approaches. Espinosa et al. (2007) highlight that while team syntegrity promotes democratic IT adoption it does not have a hand in the conversation content that takes place, therefore does not guarantee the recognition of emancipatory concerns which are endemic in organizations during IT adoption (Mingers & White, 2010). The next section discusses the research methodology. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study is based on a case study. A case study research strategy in information systems research is accepted because of its suitability to provide the necessary understanding of the relationship between organizations and technology (Oates, 2009) and its in-depth approach. It also provides an opportunity for the researcher to understand IT adoption in a normally inaccessible phenomenon (Oates, 2009). Case study research may adopt a single case or multiple case designs depending on the research objectives (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This research used two case studies, which were sufficient for the research objectives. Case Study Selection The researcher used purposive sampling in order to select data collection units that yielded the most relevant and broad range of perspective and information of the research area (Yin, 2009). Two companies agreed to participate in the study from six that were approached by the researcher. The basis for selecting the two organizations for the research was the diversity and appropriateness of cases. Data Collection The study used a questionnaire which was pre-tested with a few participants to refine the questions. A five point Likert scale was used to develop the questionnaire. About two hundred questionnaires were distributed to employees of the two companies. The questionnaire variables were tested using Cronbach s alpha values and were reliable and acceptable. Sample Data Quantitative research offers guidelines on sample sizes needed for different statistical procedures, unlike qualitative research which does not have an agreed sample size (Nunnally, 1978). About ninety valid questionnaires were returned from the two companies. The returned questionnaires represented a percent response rate. Quantitative data from the questionnaires was captured and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) version 21.The sample size of 90 cases was found adequate for the required statistical procedures. The descriptive statistics used include frequency tables, means, T-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to provide summarized data which enabled discovering trends, patterns and ease of communication and understanding. The next section presents the research results. RESULTS The selected participants were previously involved in IT adoption in their organizations. Of interest to the study was their perceptions based on previous experience in IT adoption in their organizations. The variables were adapted from the Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 2
literature. This section is organized as follows: section 4.1 presents the demographic data, section 4.2 presents the frequencies of the variables, section 4.3 presents t-test results, section 4.4 presents the analysis of variance results and finally section 4.5 presents the correlation results. Demographic Characteristics Table 1 presents the respondents demographic characteristics which include: company type, age, gender, departments, position, education, and involvement in IT adoption, number of years in the organization and member status. Variable Categories Count % Comp Type Manufacturing Retail Age 30yrs & below 31-40 years 41-51 and over 27 33 23 7 30 37 26 8 Gender Male 49 54 Department Position Education Involvement No of Years Co Member Frequencies of Variables Female Finance IT Other Other Clerical Managers Supervisors Matriculates 1st Degree 2nd Degree Involved Not involved 2 years & below 3-5 years 6-10 years Greater than 10 years 41 22 18 60 25 8 24 33 38 32 20 38 52 31 23 20 16 Members Non Members Table 1. Sample Demographics (n=90) The frequency of responses on the emancipatory systems thinking construct variables is presented in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 shows that a majority of the respondents agreed on most variables. Most respondents disagreed that there is always fairness during IT adoption in organizations, which justifies the need for emancipatory systems approaches. T-Tests Results The T-test was used to assess significant differences between demographic variables with two categories (Table 1).T-test conducted reflect significant differences in perceptions between demographic variables and emancipatory systems approaches variables as shown in Table 2 below. There was difference in perception based on company, gender and committee member. 46 24 20 66 28 8 27 37 42 36 22 42 58 34 26 22 18 Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 3
Figure 1. Frequencies of Variables Independent Dependent Variable F Value Sig. Categories Variable Company May issues of inequalities affect IT adoption in an 7.836.006* Retail or Manufacturing Company May coercion affect IT adoption in an 4.847.030** Retail or Manufacturing Company Must affected stakeholders concerns be addressed 6.539.012* Retail or Manufacturing before IT adoption in an Gender Are affected stakeholders important in IT adoption in 4.356.040* Male or Female an Gender Is representation of affected stakeholders important in 14.631.000 Male or Female an Committee Is stakeholders empowerment important in IT adoption in an 543.7.000 Yes or No Table 2. T-Tests Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, (n=90) Analysis of Variances Results The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess significant differences between demographic variables with more than two categories and emancipatory systems approaches variables (Table 3).The analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted showed that there are significant differences in perceptions between demographic variables and emancipatory systems approaches variables as shown in Table 3 below. Anova Dependent Variable F Value Age Is stakeholders empowerment important in IT adoption in an 2.855.042 Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 4
No. of Years May power relations affect IT adoption in an 3.086 0.031 No. of Years No. of Years Correlation Results Is representation of affected stakeholders important in an Is stakeholders empowerment important in IT adoption in an Table 3. ANOVA Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, (n=90) 2.735.049 3.172 0.028 Correlation analysis conducted showed that there are significant relationship between demographic variables (Age and no. of years) and emancipatory systems approaches variables as shown in Table 4 below. Varia ble Age No of yrs Power relations affect IT adoption in an.274**.009.290**.006 Table 4. Correlation Is representation of affected stakeholders important in an Is stakeholders Empowerment important in IT adoption in an.268*.011.287**.006.253*.016 Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, (n=90) Emancipatory Total Score DISCUSSION Most respondents agreed that conflict; power relations, inequalities and coercion affect IT adoption in organizations. In addition, most respondents agreed that stakeholders must be empowered, involved and represented during IT adoption decision making in organizations. Many respondents disagreed that there is always fairness during IT adoption in organizations which justifies the need of emancipatory systems approaches. The t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicate significant difference between demographic variables and other variables. The results therefore suggest that there are significant differences in terms of the perceptions of respondents based on their demographics characteristics. Some of the demographic variables such as age and number of years in the organization showed significantly correlation with some of the emancipatory systems approaches variables. This suggests emancipatory systems approaches may encourage a democratic process of IT adoption in organizations. CONCLUSION The study suggests that it may be worthwhile to consider emancipatory systems approaches during IT adoption in organizations to improve the democratic adoption process through the participation of the affected stakeholders. The study therefore contributes to the understanding of the importance of emancipatory systems approaches during IT adoption in organizations to address issues of conflicts, power relations, inequalities and coercion. In addition, the study adds to the understanding of IT adoption challenges in organizations. Although the study contributed to the understanding of the importance of emancipatory systems approaches during IT adoption in organizations, one of its major limitations is that it is based on case study research which makes it difficult to generalize the results. However, the limitation provides an opportunity for further research using a survey which can allow the results to be generalized to a large population. In addition, there is a possibility to employ other advanced statistical methods such as factor analysis and structural equation modeling. This study therefore acts as a stimulus and provides avenues for several areas of further research on this topic. REFERENCES 1. Boltanski, L. (2011). On Critique. A Sociology of Emancipation. Translated by Gregory Elliott. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2. Churchman, C.W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books. 3. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and challenges, Academic of Management Journal,,1, 25-32, Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 5
4. Espinosa, A. and Harnden, R. (2007). Team Syntegrity and Democratic Group Decision Making: Theory and Practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 8, 1056-1064. 5. Espinosa, A.; Harnden, R. and Walker, J. (2008). A Complexity Approach to Sustainability - Stafford Beer Revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, 2, 636-651. 6. Espinosa, A. and Mejia, D. (2003). Team Syntegrity as a Learning Process: Some Considerations about its Capacity to Develop Critical Active Learners. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the ISSS (International Society for the Systems Sciences, Crete, Greece. 7. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 8. Jackson, M. C. (2010). Reflections on the Development and Contributions of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27 9. Mingers, J. and White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207, 3, 1147-1161. 10. Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (2 nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill 11. Oates, B. J. (2009) Researching Information Systems and Computing, London: Sage 12. Reynolds, M. (2011). Critical Thinking and Systems Thinking. Critical Thinking. (pp. 37-68). C. P. Horvath and J. M. Forte. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 13. Reynolds, M. (2014). Equity-Focused Developmental Evaluation using Critical Systems Thinking. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 20, 1, 75-95. 14. Van Voorhis, R. W. C. and Morgan, L. B. (2007) Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for determining Sample sizes, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3, 2, pp. 43-. 15. Ulrich, W. (2005). A Brief Introduction to Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Website of the ECOSENSUS project, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. 16. Ulrich, W. and Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical Systems Heuristics. In: Reynolds, Martin and Holwell, Sue (eds). Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. (pp. 243 292), London: Springer. 17. Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research, Design and methods. 4th. ed. London: Sage Proceedings of the Eleventh Midwest Association for Information Systems Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 19-20, 2016 6