Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
An Exploratory Study of Alignment Issues of IT Acceptance with Professionals in a Project Setting Vernon Bachor Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary
[email protected]
Mike Chiasson Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary
[email protected] 1. Introduction
Abstract The information technology (IT) literature has demonstrated a link with business performance and effectiveness when IT and business objectives are aligned. However, project settings and joint-venture projects in particular, challenge the way alignment has been conceptualized, exposing other sources of alignment. Projects require a quick diffusion of IT to many different stakeholders with different individual and group interests representing many professions with different professional affiliations. Coordinating the diverse groups of individual expertise that often have short stays and weak allegiance to the project is quite difficult. These factors lead to many types of incentive problems in learning and using new IT necessary for project success. This potentially leads to individuals rejecting or bypassing the use of mandated information technology when the individual’s personal, group or professional interests do not coincide with project objectives. As a result, a joint venture project setting challenges the underlying assumptions of Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Technology Acceptance Model, thus providing an important contribution for theoretical development in the IT diffusion literature. Therefore, an important research question for IT diffusion, arising from project situations, is: How are individual professional and project incentives aligned in order to diffuse the necessary IT to achieve coordination and project success? The results of this exploratory study conclude that alignment issues affecting an individual’s IT acceptance on joint venture projects originates from many unexplored sources. These five alignment issues include objectives, work output, work value, technology expectations, and peers and are required by the individual, their originating company, the project, and the owner company. Each of these alignment issues reveals different aspects of a complex negotiated order to IT diffusion.
The Information Technology (IT) literature has studied the issues of alignment of business with IT objectives within the context of corporate planning for achieving competitive strategy advantage [8][21][25]. These empirical studies have consistently shown a significant link with business performance and effectiveness when IT and business objectives are aligned. However, project settings challenge some of the traditional assumptions about diffusion and the sources of alignment. Projects require a quick diffusion of IT to many different stakeholders with different individual and group interests, in order to coordinate diverse groups of individual expertise that often have short stays and weak allegiance to the project. This short stay and weak project allegiance leads to a lack of incentive in learning and using new IT in order to contribute to the data and coordination necessary for project success. Joint-venture projects in particular, provide an extreme environment for incentive alignment and IT diffusion. Most joint venture projects are composed of individual project members from four distinct groups: the owner company or companies, the prime contracting company or companies, the independent contractors, and the product and service vendors and suppliers. These individuals represent many professions with different professional affiliations. Alignment on a project needs to occur between the project objectives and the owner’s objectives, between team member’s personal interests (which includes professional goals) and project objectives, and between management tools and techniques and the project objectives [20]. As shown elsewhere, a poorly aligned project team leads to an increase in churn, rework, misunderstandings, opposition, antagonism, and other counterproductive emotions and behaviors [20]. Often individuals are working on the project for short periods of time, thus increasing the divergence of
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
allegiances and objectives from the project, the owner and even the originating company’s’ objectives. This potentially leads to individuals rejecting or minimizing the use of a project information technology that are essential and often mandated for project coordination and success. In many situations, incentive problems further exacerbate project outcomes by allowing individuals to easily bypass mandated IT functionality when the focus is on the observable content of a deliverable and not on the unobservable data from which the content is produced [15]. The verification of the data format does not occur until a later period when the deliverable is merged into the project systems, at which time the accountable individuals have most likely left the project. More advanced information technology increases the problems with verification thus opening the information system to more opportunistic behavior and information distortion. Joint venture project settings produce incentive-alignment issues that arise in situations where contributions are required from multiple sources, where information is not easily verifiable, and where personal goals may effect information representation [2]. A joint venture project is a situation that violates the underlying assumptions of the Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) Theory [27] and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [13] [18] thus providing an important setting for theoretical development of the IT diffusion literature. Researchers have proposed that incentive alignment be introduced as a third dimension to complement the dimensions of software engineering and technology acceptance when studying Information Systems design [2]. Therefore, an important research question for IT diffusion, arising particularly in project situations, is: How are individual professional and project incentives aligned in order to diffuse the necessary IT to achieve coordination and project success? Incentive alignment is a broader view of alignment than the definitions most often used in IT literature. The results of this study conclude that alignment issues affecting an individual’s IT acceptance decisionmaking on joint venture projects originates from many sources. Alignment of objectives, work output, work value, technology expectations, and peers are required by the individual, their profession, their peers, their originating company, the project, and the owner company. To understand the processes of IT diffusion and incentive alignment and misalignment in projects, an exploratory study was conducted. The next section provides an overview of the research design followed by a discussion of the findings and analysis. The article
concludes with limitations, contributions to research, and implications for management.
2. Research Design Our study examines how various forms of alignment influenced professional users’ acceptance of mandated information technology in a joint venture project setting. Joint venture projects are composed of individual project members that represent many professions with different professional affiliations. This exploratory case study involved qualitative data collected through participant observation combined with a series of semi-structured interviews with professional engineers involved in a large-scale joint venture project (LSP). The diffusing information technologies included project wide information technologies that allowed for corporate-wide and public information creation, storage, access, and communication. There were 13 different IT systems mandated by the project that formed the base of the observations and questions. These various systems are categorized as administrative, document management and control, project management, engineering support, construction support, and client-based systems. The selection of a joint venture large-scale project is an appropriate case providing a real-world setting with heteronomous professionals. Technology adoption and diffusion research should use working professionals and managers and professionals differ from other users in real-world settings [6][11]. From the initial conception of LSP, the joint venture included the mandated use of large-scale IT to support the collaboration and cooperation that would be required between the partners and the many geographic locations. As a result, LSP provides an important setting for examining underlying assumptions of much DoI and TAM research [18]. In the complex environments such as projects, there are other possible alignment conflicts that must be addressed through unique and unexplored mechanisms that are not readily accounted for in other theoretical views, such as agency theory [2]. In addition to those contextual issues already highlighted, the training and work of engineers often produces substantial IT skills. Thus, a higher probability of alignment issues during IT diffusion was possible in this case, providing a critical professional case to explore traditional diffusion theoretical ideas. The nature of a large-scale joint venture project involves professional users who have possibly conflicting allegiances with practices and information technologies from their originating company, their professional associations, their individual practice patterns, and the joint venture. This project
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
environment also contained technologies that were preselected by the joint venture management and whose usage was mandated [12][18][23][30]. The mandated use of these IT systems was required to facilitate and support the necessary communication and coordination of all of the participants. As a result, the adoption and infusion of a specific technology had to be broad and substantial across participants in order to achieve project outcomes [18]. The resulting environment created an opportunity for potential alignment conflict. The LSP provided a large sample population of individuals. Eleven interviews were conducted with selected professional engineers as they were the most likely to be exposed to the majority of the technologies, and therefore they would have the information needed to answer the questions [17]. Interviews ranged in length from 50 to 70 minutes and were audio recorded (except for two individuals who declined to be recorded). The interviewer’s observations and notes from the interview supplemented the interview recordings. The interview data provided assessments and experiences of IT acceptance. Interview questions were guided by alignment concepts identified in the literature [20][1][2][9][23]. (The interview protocol has been omitted to meet page length requirements.) The interviews were semi-structured in that the order the questions were asked and answered was open and unrestricted. Respondents were always given an opportunity to expand or add to previous comments, allowing for additional concepts to emerge. For observational purposes, the first author worked as an independent contractor for LSP as a Special Projects Lead dealing primarily in policy and procedural concerns and implications from electronic work processes. His participant observations over a twelve month period provided case-specific data of professional engineers’ experiences with IT, allowing him to observe professional work practices and norms invoked during IT acceptance. In order to minimize the effects of researcher influence on participants, interviews were conducted after the participant observation period. The researcher employed several methods to assist in minimizing researcher’s influence. One method was to have another researcher review the questions as a test of the possible bias that could result from the question construction [31]. A second method was to follow specific recommendations for listening to respondents [31], specifically, to probe without being directive [5]. The researcher has worked as a management consultant for over 25 years developing a style in conducting interviews that directly addresses this method. The third and last method handled participant questions by maintaining a consistent set of responses in order to
avoid researcher direction and response bias [16], such as avoiding providing an example [24]. This reassured the participants of the importance in recording an accurate answer [17]. Exploratory research is designed to find out what is happening, seek new insights, and assess phenomena from a new perspective [26]. The study purpose was to develop a further understanding of the factors and processes affecting diffusion of IT from affiliation with a profession, in particular engineering. Both observational and interview data involved a four-phase model (groundwork, data collection, data analysis, and theory building) in order to discover underlying assumptions of professional engineers, to gain insights into the technology acceptance decision process, and to address emerging themes and theories. Analysis of the data was completed using a fivestep process consistent with sequential analysis of qualitative data [22]. The first step was to transcribe the observations and interviews. The second step was to assess the background characteristics of the respondents based on responses to the structured questions. The third step was to code the transcribed data from the interview responses utilizing axial coding from predetermined concepts and using open coding for emergent concepts. The resultant coding structures have been omitted to meet page length requirements. The fourth step was to develop a description for each of the identified concepts. Finally, the fifth or theorybuilding step linked concepts to technology diffusion theories.
3. Discussion and Findings The findings are organized around particular themes identified in the literature, from interviews, and from participant observations. Five competing or cooperating alignment issues were developed from the literature and the findings [31] as being important in the diffusion of IT. Many of these themes extend the theoretical boundary beyond traditional incentive alignment issues to other social and individual factors. The five alignment issues included: 1) objectives alignment, 2) work output alignment, 3) work value alignment, 4) technology expectations alignment, and 5) peer alignment. Consideration of the project size and choice of project structure were identified as mitigating factors across all the alignment areas. Figure 1 is provided to help conceptualize what was revealed and guide the discussion of the findings. The figure incorporates a mix of variables at individual, project, organizational, and interorganizational levels. The choice of research setting of a project team in a joint venture comes with complicated relationships that are
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
¾
Objectives Alignment Project Objectives Owner Company Objectives Individual’s Originating Company Objectives Personal Objectives
¾ ¾ ¾
Work Output Alignment Job Description % Emphasis on Work Processes % Emphasis on Deliverables
¾ ¾ ¾
¾ ¾ ¾
Work Value Alignment Quantity of Work Quality of Work Employment Status
Technology Expectations Alignment Experience with Project Technology Computer Self-efficacy Individual’s Originating Company Technology Expectations ¾ Personal Technology Expectations ¾ ¾ ¾
¾ ¾ ¾
IT A c c e p t a n c e
¾ ¾
Project Factors Project Size Project Structure
Peer Alignment Project Peers Professional Peers Industry Peers
Figure 1. IT Acceptance Alignment Issues revealed by the mixture of variables and that these relationships span levels of analysis. First, the alignment between the objectives of the individual and their originating company, the owner company, and the project is important for IT diffusion. Incentive-alignment issues arise in situations where contributions are required from multiple sources, where information is not easily verifiable, and where personal goals may effect information representation. Major problems occur on projects from the misalignment of among these various objectives [20]. The problem of incentive alignment is increased by the size of these projects (in numbers of people, dollar value, and impact on the owner), and the high
uncertainty caused by a lack of clarity and predictability about business venture outcomes. Rapid changes in the business environment and substantial complexity in integrating a large number of groups and technologies increase the chances of incentive misalignment. The organizational fragmentation that occurs on large-scale engineering projects from interfirm staffing is dramatic [4]. The literature also suggests that an inability to hold individuals accountable on short-term tenures with the project increases the potential for “gaming” the system (i.e., misrepresenting information to meet schedule pressures or to just complete an assignment, especially for personal gain). An information system is incentive
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
aligned when an individual can freely choose how to use the system, but as a result of social and technical structures, choose actions that benefit organizational objectives [2]. The more advanced the information technology the less verification controls are in place and the more the system is open to gaming. Despite potential misalignment between personal and project objectives on this project that could result in system gaming [4], there were no instances of deliberate system gaming reported despite numerous opportunities to do so. None of the respondents reported knowing of anyone who gamed the system on this project. Three of the respondent’s suggested the opposite was the case -- that people ensure data is corrected at each point of IT use, even with information from areas that they are not responsible for. Six of the respondent’s commented that any evidence of information distortion was about information being stale dated, not being kept current, lack of training, or simple misunderstanding of what is required rather than deliberate gaming. This finding indicates alignment appears to have occurred with personal objectives and project objectives. Responses to our questions indicate that less understood influences assist in promoting incentive alignment with professional engineers. Particularly, respondents focused on the unique experience of their involvement with a large-scale project and a worldclass joint venture. In addition, respondents stated a desire to solve problems, deal with complex issues, develop routines, and apply project controls. Given these types of statements and the unique experience, it is not surprising the individual’s originating company objectives were consistent with their personal objectives. Thus, there appeared to be an alignment with personal objectives and their originating company objectives. A second alignment issue is the measurement of work; i.e., whether the emphasis is mostly on work processes or on deliverables. Agency theory focuses on outcome based incentives (i.e., deliverables), monitoring, and relative behavioral evaluation as the most relevant in situations where contracting problems are difficult because goal conflict exists between principals and agents, there is sufficient risk uncertainty to trigger risk implications, and behavioral evaluation of unprogrammed jobs is difficult [15][12]. Researchers looking at the literature on principal-agent theories found it primarily deals with agent monitoring efforts with optimal contracts linking agent behavior with rewards in order to avoid information hiding or misrepresentation by the agents [2]. However, this assumes the contractor has the information in the first place rather than to create or compile information. In addition, this created information used by others, and
therefore has important ripple effects that can mask the original error. A study of software development teams found that contractors tended to hold positions with low task variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback when compared to permanent professionals and thus tended to be measured by deliverables or output [1]. However, compared with the permanent staff managing contractors in this previous research, projects are composed mostly of short or fixed-term members and the owner is for the most part, absent [4]. The owner does not directly manage the project and the project is removed from the owner company’s offices increasing the potential for opportunistic behavior [4]. Our results show that various project structures, contracting and processes produced a balanced but necessarily non-optimal form of contracting. The contracted staff retained the compensation and benefits of their originating company and nearly all respondents were to return to their previous workplace once their term on the project is complete. Therefore, there was little influence of tight contracting on technology acceptance. Additionally, the respondents reported the jobs on the project tended to be a combination of deliverable driven and process oriented. Observations from meetings and in individual discussions contradicted this finding somewhat in that project team members tended to emphasize the deliverable and schedule over process. The LSP is an engineering design project where information is being created and compiled that will be used by others. All respondents reported they knew how their output is to be used later in the project and ultimately by the owner. However, some of the respondents did express concern about people on more short-term assignments and less senior people being unaware of the full extent of the use of the information the short-term and less senior people were providing. Project members were observed ignoring project processes to meet the deliverable requirements in the short term and either ignored or were not aware of the ripple effects. These findings indicate that alignment was pursued through a balance between work deliverables and processes. Full external alignment through contracting would have been difficult if not impossible to achieve in this setting. Instead, the project relied on professional practice to create and manage the additional incentive alignment. Whether it sufficiently achieved this objective was difficult to determine. A third alignment issue is work value; i.e., the quality or quantity of work performed and the individual’s employment status. Employment status was either as a permanent employee or as an independent contractor of the owner company, the prime contractor, a supplier, or an independent
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
contractor. Little published research exists on organizational behaviour issues relating to work attitudes, behaviors, and performance between permanent and contract professionals [1]. Utilizing social exchange and social comparison theories on software development teams, it has been found that contractors engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors, and that contractors are perceived by supervisors to be less loyal, obedient, and trustworthy [1]. In addition, contractors perceive higher levels of organizational support; that peers observe contractors to exhibit lower in-role and extra-role behaviors, and that supervisors consistently rate contractor performance lower than permanent staff [1]. Our findings showed that respondents had little awareness of the employment status and the originating company of their fellow workers. Those interviewed did not perceive any difference in work quantity or quality between a contractor and a permanent employee. In two cases the respondents explicitly stated they did not want to know the employment status of their fellow worker. Two of the respondents identified that a person’s employment status did set their expectations even though they worked as one team. This is similar to when a person begins work with a new firm and people want to know where you previously worked. Several of the respondents did feel that it is always the owner company employees that were the most likely to act in their own best interests, fulfill job responsibilities and meet quality standards, and go beyond minimum expectations. These findings suggest a mixed pattern; that a common bond was felt amongst all participants because everyone was a contractor to the project However, observations of interactions did reveal that the owner’s permanent employees often considered contractors as being self serving and that they produced lower quality work. These mixed results could result from several factors. A common response by participants was the rhetoric of “one team,” resulting from a strong project culture and independent identity. Posters, clothing with a project specific logo, and a requirement to prevent the disclosure of an individual’s originating company emphasized the one team view. Despite an individual’s administrative activities and incentives aligned to their originating company, including the submission of timesheets and performance reviews, the project was interesting enough and of sufficient scope to tie diverse individuals to the project. It appeared that the project contributed to their reputation and added significant expertise to their skillset. A rhetoric term as institutional language is common in a setting where professional discourse is part of their training or where the work requires discussion of institutional processes [14]. The term references a
discourse and a practice of knowledge that operates within that setting. However, “these terms are extraordinarily empty. They rely on you to fill out what they could be talking about. During the interview, you do that filling in while you listen, but when you look at the transcript afterwards, the description isn’t there.” [14: 768]. This institutional language of professional discourse was revealed in the coding of the interviews. In retrospect, the rhetoric is expected as interview participants are trained as professional engineers and most of the respondents are in management. In addition, the reputation of engineers carries from project-to-project, thus increasing incentive alignment through repeated engagements. The first author on this paper in his role as a management consultant has encountered many of the individuals on this project on other projects. This group migration of professional engineers from project to project and its effect on incentive alignment are discussed further in the Analysis section. The findings also suggest that professionals do perceive a difference in quality and quantity of work between permanent employees of the owner company and other staff. However, project size and structure does have a mitigating effect on this perception. The respondents have an average of 20.4 years of experience within their discipline and have experience working on many different sizes of projects with different project structures. Their responses indicated that larger projects are more likely to be staffed from a variety of companies. As a result, the project will look like a standalone entity with its own processes and culture. Also, the larger the project the more likely the structure will be some type of collaboration such as joint venture or alliance rather than a contracting scenario [19]. Projects with their own identity appear to align individual’s personal objectives with their originating company and the project’s objectives. Additionally, the larger the project the less staff employment status would be an influence. The smaller the project the more likely the project would resemble a buy-sell relationship with contractors, and the project would be completed by a single vendor. In this situation, staff employment status would be more noticeable and influential. The fourth alignment issue is expectations about the technology. These expectations include: an individual’s expectation of technology usage, their computer self-efficacy, their previous experience with the project selected technology, and the expectations of technology usage from their originating company. In the literature, computer self-efficacy “… refers to the judgment of one’s capability to use a computer” [9: 192, italics contained in original] for what can be done in the future. Individuals with high self-efficacy and
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
outcome expectation related to job performance used computers more, experienced less computer anxiety, and enjoyed their experience more. Personal outcome expectations had little impact on enjoyment and usage. Self-efficacy is seen as antecedent to use. However, successful interaction with IT influences self-efficacy thus an individual’s judgment of their self-efficacy can be both a cause and an effect [10]. The alignment of individual expectations about technology usage, their computer self-efficacy, their originating company’s perception of their ability, and their previous experience with the project selected technology has not previously been studied in the IT alignment literature. Seconded staff on projects would be expected to include individuals with a variety of IT self-efficacy. With independent contractors who are typically hired on a project for a specific skill or knowledge, it is expected that both their computer selfefficacy and their outcome expectations would be high. If their belief about their own abilities, their expectations, and their previous experiences were aligned then there would be no influence from these beliefs on their technology acceptance decision. If their self-efficacy beliefs were misaligned with their expectations and previous experiences, then there would be a negative influence on the technology acceptance. All respondents expected to be using technology and that it assisted them in their work. About half of the respondents felt the project was ambitious in its use of technology. A few of the respondents felt the technologies failed in supporting the work, and in-fact added to the work. All respondents were unsure about their originating company’s expectations. But they felt even if they did not have the specific skills they had IT capability, i.e. high general self-efficacy. Most respondents had previous experience with systems having similar functionality and in some cases had used the same systems. Previous experience and a demonstrated ability to work with technology were a part of the staff selection criteria used by the project. These findings demonstrate an alignment had been established through various hiring and previous training processes. Previous experience aligns with ones computer self-efficacy but does not align with their originating company expectations or their own personal expectations. The fifth alignment issue is peer alignment with peers on the project, on other projects, with their profession, and with the industry. The Perceived Characteristics of Innovating (PCI) of an IT innovation include relative advantage, compatibility, ease-of-use, result demonstrability, image, visibility, trialability, and voluntariness [23]. Since a project is a new organizational setting, there are little organizational
technology precursors for project members to draw upon. An individual’s assessment of the IT innovation would, if possible, draw upon a functionally similar technology in use by their originating company. In the case where individuals have limited exposure to a mandated project technology, then the relative advantage and compatibility factors would have been formed from the perceived value of result demonstrability, visibility, and trialability of peers. Therefore, result demonstrability, visibility, and trialability of IT would be influenced by a combination of project peers, experiences with peers on other projects, their professional peers, and industry peer experiences. If there is misalignment between these and project objectives and assessment, then an individual will be less likely to accept the technology. All respondents thought the project utilized systems that were visible across the project, across the oil and gas industry, and across their engineering discipline. Most respondents had experience with systems having similar functionality and in some cases had used the same systems. One respondent had no previous experience with any of the systems. These findings indicate varying alignment between project, IT and peer sources.
4. Analysis Incentive-alignment issues arise on projects that have many sources of information that cannot be easily verified at the time of creation and where the interests of individual project members can affect how the information is represented [2]. Incentive alignment of IT on a project achieves three objectives: 1) persuades users to utilize the project-selected technologies, 2) ensures information is created and captured in order to share accurate data across the project over time, and 3) those managing the project can rely on the accuracy of the information to make project decisions. The analysis of the interviews in conjunction with the observations revealed alignment among personal objectives and their originating company objectives, work output alignment with job description, work value alignment with all factors, technology expectations alignment with previous experience with project selected technology and computer self-efficacy, and peer alignment with all factors motivates the acceptance of the project technologies. However, the alignment did not ensure the information entered or created is appropriate for future usage. The analysis also revealed that objectives alignment is sufficient to prevent system gaming and direct misrepresentation of information. It also positively influenced people’s correction of information when data was found to be incorrect. We suggest the results
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
reveal a strong professional standard of behaviour and implied reputation effects, particularly from an individual’s expectations of future work with the project partners on other projects. The professional logic is perhaps obscured by a focus on contracting and individual guile in much organizational research [28]. The findings revealed that respondents observed their peers on the project, on other projects, in the oil and gas industry, and in the engineering discipline using technology that provided similar functionality as the project mandated technologies. This peer alignment combined with information technology capability and expectations alignment appeared to influence IT acceptance versus management fiat through mandated technology usage. The short-term tenure of the project members prevented the typical agency theoretical and top-down diffusion setting. This result is in keeping with the concept of trialability, visibility and result demonstrability [23] and with the concept of a heteronomous (i.e., partially dependent) professional [28]. Even though partially dependent professionals are subject to routine supervision, administrative controls, and outside control, this exploratory study has revealed how the professional engineer and the project environment moves beyond project command and control structures and self-interest towards alignment through a professional logic. This visibility from peer alignment provides an additional incentive for the professional to take the time to learn the use of the technology as it is seen as a part of future opportunities. Peer alignment combined with technology expectations alignment is a condition for a high level of commitment, especially if each alignment issue is considered separately. This professional logic is also supported by the informal norms that have developed among the permanent relationships with project professionals that move from project to project. This movement is often accompanied by a change in employment among the consulting engineering firms. These informal norms operated independent of the profession and of any company. This migratory effect is similar to a nomadic culture where repeated exposure to similar individuals appears to enforce a type of control and impetus for IT diffusion for coordination and sharing across these individuals. It is not surprising that gaming was not revealed and probably uncommon with individuals because this is considered to be unacceptable behaviour for a professional. This is in keeping with strong professional standards, future possibilities of working with the various consulting engineering firms or the owner company, and with the norms of the informal project nomadic group. Many of the project team
members do expect to be working with each other across many projects and are expected to keep secrets. In summary, the various groups identified with the project and its success, and were thus willing and through previous experience, able to learn the new project-mandated IT. The selection of the various IT systems for the project thus represented a negotiated design and use of IT, by IT selection, previous training, previous exposure, and alignment of interests. The system was designed and tailored to provide ease of use for groups (by corporation, professional affiliation, project team), and for specific individuals (training, special interface design). The groups and individuals invoked a form of strategic choice where they picked and choose which areas met their interests and professional background. As long as these omitted IT areas did not affect short-term or long-term project success, selection was the best method of producing this alignment. Even though management mandated certain elements of the system, continued participation in the project and financial rewards were not connected with use hence, a significant misalignment was averted through other social and professional processes. A common theme running through our results is a form of negotiated order [29]. This theory puts forth that any interaction between actors is a negotiated process involving continuous adjustment and agreement on the “rules” for engagement. Without these continual negotiated interactions, the coordination of work would be chaotic, unpredictable and ineffective [3]. In the case of LSP, the negotiated order produced incentive alignment. Where alignment was unclear and absent, it can be perceived as a failure of negotiation because the various sides could not produce an easy and mutually beneficial set of rules for the various sides. In this case, these different rules originate from the migratory group, from the professional logic, from the individual’s originating company, and from the project and are revealed through the alignment issues.
5. Limitations, Future Directions and Conclusions A number of limitations with the study are acknowledged. First the exploratory nature of the research does not allow easy generalization of the findings across a wider range of professional engineers; a more comprehensive sample would have to include the various categories of engineers. Second, the professional engineers in the sample were only from the management group. A confirmatory study would need to examine a wider range of respondents embedded in different parts of the organization. Third,
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
all of the respondents were male, requiring further investigation of female engineers. Finally to generalize to other heteronomous professionals beyond engineering, this study approach would need to be replicated with other professional groups. We explored the professional engineer how alignment issues influenced IT acceptance through observation and participant interviews on a large-scale joint venture project. The contribution to diffusion research is to explore unexplored sources of alignment. Five competing or cooperating issues of alignment developed from analytic deduction [31] of the findings and from the literature as being important in the diffusion of IT, particularly within a project setting, include 1) objectives alignment, 2) work output alignment, 3) work value alignment, 4) technology expectations alignment, and 5) peer alignment. The consideration of a project setting for IT acceptance with the need for quick IT diffusion and the short duration of the time an individual spends on the project contributes to the alignment and diffusion literature. In addition, in this case and many others, projects draw upon a nomadic pool of experts. Each of the alignment areas reveals an aspect of negotiated order. A further contribution to this study is that it addresses a call for a shift towards examining “deep usage” in “understanding constructs/concepts that are closely related to IT usage and shown to have an influence within an organizational setting” [7: 10]. In terms of future research, additional work needs to more closely integrate the actual act of technological usage by considering professional logic and issues of autonomy in future IT diffusion research. This study is a small step towards meeting this concern. Future research can also longitudinally explore the relationship between alignment issues and negotiated order. The implications for managers are a need for a clearer understanding of the factors that do and do not influence technology acceptance by professional users. This understanding can potentially lead managers and engineers to engage in more focused communications, orientation programs, and staff hiring practices that negotiate and align professional and project factors. This alignment would help to reduce some of the need for data migration during the different project phases, when data is turned over at the end of the project, and increase the amount of data usable for ongoing operations.
6. References [1] Soon Ang and Sandra A. Slaughter, “Work Outcomes and Job Design for Contract Versus Permanent Information
systems Professionals on Software Development Teams”, MIS Quarterly, 2001, 25(3), pp. 321-350. [2] Sulin Ba, Jan Stallaert, and Andrew B. Whinston, “Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design-The Case for Incentive Alignment”, Information Systems Research, 2001, 12(3), pp. 225-239. [3] Ashley J. Bennington, Judy C. Shetler, and Thomas Shaw, “Negotiating Order in Interorganizational Communication: Discourse Analysis of a Meeting of Three Diverse Organizations”, The Journal of Business Communications, 2003, 40(2), pp. 118-143. [4] Christian Berggren, Jonas Söderlund, and Christian Anderson, “Clients, Contractors, and Consultants: The Consequences of Organizational Fragmentation in Contemporary Project Environments”, Project Management Journal, 2001, 32(3), pp. 39-48. [5] Welmoet Bok van Krammen and Magda StouthamerLoeber, “Practical Aspects of Interview Data Collection” In L. Bickman and D. J. Rog (eds) Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998, pp. 375-398. [6] Patrick Y. K. Chau and Paul Jen-Hwa Hu, “Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach,” Decision Sciences, 2001, 32(4), pp. 699-719. [7] Wynne W. Chin and, Barbara L. Marcolin, “The Future of Diffusion Research,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2001, 32(3), pp. 8-12. [8] Yolande E. Chan, Sid L. Huff, Donald W. Barclay, and Duncan G. Copeland, “Business Strategic Orientation, Information Systems Strategic Orientation, and Strategic Alignment”, Information Systems Research, 1997, 8(2), pp. 125-150. [9] Deborah Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins, “Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test”, MIS Quarterly, 1995, 19(2), pp. 189-211. [10], Deborah Compeau, Christopher A. Higgins, and Sid Huff, “Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study”, MIS Quarterly, 1999, 23(2), pp. 145-158. [11] Deborah Compeau, Barbara L. Marcolin, and Helen Kelley, “Generalizability of Technology Acceptance Research Using Student Subjects” ASAC London, ON, 2001. [12] Randolph B. Cooper and Anol Bhattacherjee, “Preliminary Evidence for the Effect of Automatic Responses to Authority on Information Technology Diffusion”, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2001, 32(3), pp. 36-50. [13] F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, 1989, 13(3), pp. 319-339.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
9
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004
[14] Marjorie L. DeVault and Liza McCoy, “Institutional Ethnography”, Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Methods, Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein (eds), Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002. [15] Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”, Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14(1), pp. 57-74. [16] Andrea Fontana and James H Frey, “The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated Text” In Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000, pp. 645-672. [17] Floyd J. Fowler Jr., “Design and Evaluation of Survey Questions”, Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Leonard Bickman and Debra J. Rog (eds), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 343-374. [18] Michael J. Gallivan, “Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of a New Framework”, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2001, 32(3), pp. 51-85.
[28] W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (3rd edition), Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1992. [29] Anselm Strauss, Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order, San Francisco, CA.: JosseyBass Publishers, 1978. [30] Shirley Taylor and Peter Todd , “Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience”, MIS Quarterly, 1995, 19(4), pp. 561-570. [31] Robert K Yin, “The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method”, Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, L. Bickman and D. J. Rog (eds), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 229-260. Acknowledgements: The first authour acknowledges his supervisor Dr. Malcolm Munroe and the MIS Area Chair Dr. Barb Marcolin for their assistance and guidance in supervising this research. Both authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance.
[19] Ranjay Gulati and Harbir Singh, “The Architecture of Cooperation: Managing Costs and Appropriation Concerns in Strategic Alliances”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998, 43(4), pp. 781-814. [20] Francis T. Hartman, Don’t Park Your Brian Outside: A Practical Guide to Improving Shareholder Value with SMART Management, Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2000. [21] Jerry Luftman and Tom Brier, “Achieving and Sustaining IT-Business Alignment”, California Management Review, 1999, 42(1), pp. 109-122. [22] Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. [23] Gary C. Moore and Izak Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation”, Information Systems Research, 1991, 3(2), pp. 192-222. [24] S. Payne, “Asking Questions” The Art of Asking Questions In S. Payne (ed.) Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1957, pp. 214-237. [25] Blaize Horner Reich and Izak Benbasat, “Factors That Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment Between Business and Information Technology Objectives”, MIS Quarterly, 2000, 24(1), pp. 81-113. [26] C. Robson, Real World Research, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993. [27] Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion Of Innovations (Fourth Edition), New York: Free Press, 1995.
0-7695-2056-1/04 $17.00 (C) 2004 IEEE
10
