Human Faaors in Adoption of Geograpliic Information Systems: A

Human Faaors in Adoption of Geograpliic Information Systems: A Local Govemment Case Study Zorica Nedovic-BudiQ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign David R. Godschalk, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill How do perceptions, experience, attitudes, and communication behavior of local government employees affect the adoption of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology as an organizational innovation^ Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk examine the largely unexploredprocess of GIS diffusion inside local govemments in terms of the impact of human factors, internal organizational context, external organizational environment, and GIS

Computerized geographic information systems (GIS) are increasingly used by public and private organizations as tools for storage, selective retrieval, and manipulation oi spatial and nonspatial data. Local governments find GIS technology attractive for three major reasons: (1) spatially referenced data represent a large proportion (estimated at over 70 percent) of data processing in local government agencies (Somers, 1987), (2) information is considered a fundamental resource of government (Howard, 1985; Repo, 1989), and (3) pressure for improving government performance (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Gore, 1993) has prompted governments to look for more efficient ways of doing their work. Availability of more affordable computer technology in the late 1980s coincided with the increased interest of local governments in GIS technology and its intensified diffusion. Difficulties in capturing the exact GIS adoption rate sometimes result in inconsistent approximations, ranging fiom 2 to 3 percent to over 30 percent.' In this article, we focus on the factors that infiuence GIS diffusion in local government agencies. We look at employee perception, experience, attitudes, and communication behavior as they affect the success of GIS implementation. Organizational and management factors are studied a.s important contextual elements in the diffusion process.

management activities. Using a multiple-case study of four agencies within a North Carolina county govemment, the authors fmd that GIS diffusion is a very complex process. They conclude that perceived relative advantage, previous computer experience, exposure to the technology, and networking are the most significant determinants of employee willingness to use new GIS technology, while organizational and GIS management factors strongly influence GIS diffusion. The research findings have important implications for devising strategies for effective incorporation of GIS and other information system technologies in public organizations.

554

Public Administration Review • November/December 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

GIS Incorporation as Innovation Diffusion Viewing the spread of GIS technology into local governments as a: process of technological innovation, diffusion provides a systematic basis for analyzing adoption. Both scholars and local government decision makers need objective information on constraints and opportunities affecting GIS adoption. Diffusion of GISi technology cap be obsen^ed at both macro and micro levels (Budic and Godsc}ialk, 1994; Onsrud et al., 1993). Macro-level diffusion concerns jlocal government decisions to acquire the technology (Juhl, 198^; Somers, 1991; Wiggins and French, 1991; Budic, 1993a). Micro-level diffusion happens within local governments when their agencies, orjjanizational units, subunits, or individuals decide to irjiplement tlie technology acquired by the parent government (Leonard-Barton, 1987). Corresponding to the two diffusion levels zxe the initiation and implementation phases of GIS diffusion (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, 1973; Rogers, 1983; Onsrud and Pinto, 1993). During the initiation phase, organizations become aware of an innovation (i.e., GIS technology), evaluate it, aid decide about acquisition. Implementation encompasses installing the technology, developing a database, and using and maintaining the system. Acquisition of GIS technology is defined as the successful outcorne of GIS initiation, while adoption of GIS technology is defined as the successfiil outcome of GIS impilementation. Both GIS initiation and GIS implementation efforts may result ih rejection of the technology. Among many possible adcipters of GIS technolog]? (organizations, organizational units, organizational subunits, and individuals), individual users are considered the ultirnate aind most important adopters. Bqth systematic research and anecdotal evidence point to a high significance of human factors for successful development of computerized information systems. Garsons extensive litei;ature review concludes that "computer systems problems are traceable primarily to human factors" and that "information systents failures are rarely merely ofa technical nature" (1993; 515). Similarly, researchers in the GIS field find that obstacles to implementation are maiply nontechnical (Campbell and Masser, 1991; Croswell, 1991; Btidic, 1993b). Niemann and Niemann (1994), in their report on Some two decades of GIS use in the Tennessee Valley Authority (p/A), highlight a system designer's and manager's conclusion that "the organizatiorial, political, and human aspects of implementing GIS are far more difficult than the technical aspects" (p. 50)^ After GIS technology is acquired by an organization, decisions on its use are mad^ by or for each employee individually. Employees niay either volunteer or be assigned to work with GIS. Within an organization erpploying GIS, there are different types of GIS users: direct users |(hands-on daily GIS users), indirect users (rely on GIS output produced by other employees), aind nonusers (do not employ GIS jn their work). Depending on the tasks perforriaed by the stafjf, the level of GIS use ranges from simple data conversion and mapping to data analysis, synthesis, modeling, or integration with other systems or technologies. Individual adoptiori is a fiinction |of the type, level, and intensity (frequency) of utilization of the technology by staff members for organizational purposes.

Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Although an outsider would see an agency rathejr than individual employees applying the technology, we maintain that organizational adoption of GIS is a cumulative reflection of the relationships established between the employees and t i e technology. Moore (1993) agrees that "diffusion of innovations! occurs through the collective, yet individually based decisions of j individual level adopters" (p. 80). We define organizational adoption as use ofthe technology for performing organizational tasks, ths^t is, its internalization into organizational processesi and functions. Our research focuses on the factors influencing jliffusion of GIS technology toward individual users, that is, their p4rsonal decisions to adopt or reject the technology. Better knowledg: about GIS diffusion and about relevant factors that contribu :e to successful implementation will enable the design of more ef; ective strategies for incorporating GIS and other information sy:^tems into local governments. Effective adoption of GIS by the |end-users (and, consequently, by their agencies) is an important gojil of GIS implementation for two main reasons: i 1. GIS technology promises benefits not only irij increasing efficiency but also in improving policy design, dpcision making, communication, and dissemination of inforrAation (Somers, 1987; Rogers and Anderson, 1993a, 1993b; BJown and Brudnej, 1993). | 2. GIS acquisition and implementation entail larg; investments of public fiinds (Lang, 1990; Nev^combe, 1993; jDataquest, Inc., 1994).2

A Human-Factors Conceptual Fijamework This research focuses on the following eight hu nan factors that have been considered as significant in previous rejsearch on diffusion of computerized information systems and GISJ technology: 1. perceived relative advant^e of the innovation, | 2. personal values and beliefs about computerized technology, 3. computer experience, 4. perceived complexity of the innovation, 5. exposure to the innovation, 6. computer/GIS-related anxiety, 7. attitude toward work-related change, and 8. communication behavior (networking). All eight factors are rooted in tlie subjective realm of individual perceptions, experience, attitudes, and communij:ation behavior. They are the basis for individual acceptance or i^ejection of new technology; they influence decisions about the acj:ual use of GIS. The first five human-factor variables are the attribijtes of an innovation (GIS technology) defined through indiviqual perceptions and experience with those attributes (Rogers, 1983). The sixth and the seventh variables, computer/GIS-related ^iixiety and attitude toward work-related change, represent personal characteristics of organizational members (current GIS users, proispective users of GIS technology, or members that are in the position to make GIS-related decisions). The eighth variable, netjrorking, regards interpersonal contacts as an important source of information that can affect the level of individual involvement witl^ the technology. Taken together, these personal characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors are considered important elements of the adjopters' "innovativeness," that is, their willingness to adopt GIS technology

555

(Rogers, 1983). Our research tested propositions related to the eight human factors listed. The propositions about each factor's expected impact on the likelihood of becoming a GIS user were derived from theory and previous research on diiifusion of innovations and management of information systems. Hypothesized relationships between the eight human factors and individual adoption of GIS technology are given in Table 1 along with the sources on which the hypotheses were based. Our conceptual framework views the human-factor variables as independent variables influencing GIS adoption, the dependent variable (Figure 1). This influence is conditioned by die organization's internal context (a control variable), its external environment (a control variable), and its GIS management activities (an intervening variable). The complex nature of organizations ;is adopters of new technologies poses a challenge to implementors of GIS technology in local governments. Although organizations are viewed as structured and relatively stable, particularly those in the public sector (Rogers and Agaiwala-Rogers, 1976; Heffron, 1989; Scott, 1990), they respond dynamically to the introduction of new technology and may affect tlie success of an innovation (Howard, 1985; King and Kraemer, 1985). Incorporation of new technology in organizations is a reciprocal process: organizational characteristics influence diffusion of the (computing) innovation (Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, 197.3; Feller and Menzel, 1977; Stevens and McGowats, 1985; King and Kraemer, 1986), and the innovation in turn influences the organization (Rogers, 1983; Eason, 1988; Scott, 1990; Campbell, 1991). Previous research points to a number of factors to consider as external and internal determinants of organizational behavior (Mohr, 1969; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbeck, 1973; Baldridge and Burnham, 1975; Feller and Menzel, 1977; Howard, 1985; King and Kraemer, 1986; French and Wiggins, 1989; Kanter,

1989). Organizational internal context includes characteristics of the organization (such as organizational mission, structure, resources, operations, and social relations), motivation for incorporating GIS technology, and organizational change/stability. Organizational external environment is the aggregation of external characteristics and activities affecting local governments, including characteristics of the jurisdiction (size, demographic profile, economy, politics, complexity, changeability), mandates, availability of external support, communication with other agencies, and accessibihty of technology. Finally, management of computerized technologies can help anticipate and overcome individual and organizational resistance and other obstacles to GIS adoption. Management activities are found to correlate with successful development and use of information systems: (1) declaring GIS implementation mission and goals; (2) management commitment/support; (3) management leadership; (4) planningAschedulingof GIS implementation; (5) securing a continuous flow of fmancial resources; (6) involvement of users in GIS implementation design; (7) preparation for change (meetings, discussions, demonstrations, memos, etc.); (8) selecting user-friendly equipment; (9) user training; (10) ensuring GIS-related coinmunica tion; (11) initiating tandem (sponsor-expert) structure; (12) providing access to GIS consultants; and (13) securing good system documentation (Kraemer and King, 1977; Poll, 1985; Aronoff, 1989; Kraemer et d, 1989; Campbell and Masser, 1991: Croswell, !991: Budic and Godschalk, 1994). In our research, we looked at the following GIS management factors (Schultz et ai, 1987; Leonard-Barton and Kraus, 1985; Romer, 1985; Batson, 1987; Geisler and Rubenstein, 1987; Ginzberg and Schultz, 1987; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Chakrabarti and Hauschildt, 1989; Kanter, 1989). We see these organizational and GIS management factors as contextual elements iJiat affect the diffusion of GIS technology by inhibiting it or by providing a conducive environment for Its impleme.ntation.

Figure 1 Coneptual Framework Organizational Environment Organizational Internal Context

W Perceived Relative Advantage Compatibility with Values, Beliefs Compatibility with Computer Experience

GIS Management

Perceived Complexity of GIS Technology Exposure to GIS Technology | *\ Computer/GIS-related Anxiety Attitude Toward Work-related Change

556

Puhlic Administration Review • Novemher/Decemher 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

Table 1 Human Factors Determining Individual Decisions about Adopting GIS Technology and Corresponding Theoretical Propositions and Their Sources Factor 1: Proposition:

Perceived Relative Advantage If the relative advantage of using GIS technology over the procedure or system it replaces is small, even though benefits to the overall organization might be great, the intended users of GIS technology will not adopt it (Downs and Mohr, 1979; ZaltTajin etaL, 1973; Rogers, 1983; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Rivard, 1987).

Factor 2. Proposition:

Compatability with Personal Values and Beliefs • If implementation of GIS technology is inconsistent with potential adopters' values and beliefs about computerized ijechnology, the : intended users of GIS technology will not adopt it (Zaltman etaL, 1973; Rogers, 1983; Danziger and Kraemer, \%% Rivard, 1987; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990).

Factor 3. Proposition:

Compatability with Computer Ej;perience j If implementation of GIS technology is inconsistent with potential adopters' past experience with computerized tecl^nology, the intended users of GIS technology will not adopt it (Zaltman etaL, 1973; Ives etaL, 1983; Rogers, 1983; Danzigef ajid Kraemer, 1986; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Carey, 1988; French and Wiggins, 1989; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990).

Factor 4. Proposition:

Perceived Complexity of GIS Technology | If the perceived complexity of using GIS technology over the procedures or system it replaces is great, even though a(d'*'*ntages to individuals, groups, or the organization as a whole may be substantial, the intended users of GIS technology will not adiijpt it (Zaltman et aL, Wi; Ives et aL, 1983; Rogers, 1983; Danziger and Kraemer, 1986; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Raymond, 1987; Rifard, 1987; Baroudi and Orlikowski, 1988; Croswell, 1991). |

: Factor 5. Proposition:

Factor 6. Proposition:

; I

:

^

Exposure to GIS Technology If prior to making substantial commitment of their time and resources, opportunities to try out and experiment witj:| GIS technology in their organizational setting and to view operational applications ofthe technology in similar oi^nizational settings are low, the intended users of GIS technology will not adopt it (Ives et al., 1983; Rogers, 1983; Raymond, 1987; Baroudi and CH-likowski, 1988; Carey, 1988). '\ Computei/GIS-Related Anxiety If the intended users of GIS technolog)' are anxious when confronted with GIS technology and computers in generaj, they will deky the adoption of the technology (Raub, 1981; Danziger and Kraemer, 1986; Peterson and Peterson, 1988; Igbaria aiid Nachman, 1990). \

Factor 7. Proposition:

Attitude Toward Work-Related Change If the intended users of GIS technology have negative attitudes toward change, they will delay the adoption of the technology (Mohr, 1969; Zaltman etaL, 1973; Rogers, 1983; Brod, 1985; Leonard-Barton and Kraus, 1985; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Ri|vard, 1987; Robey, 1987; Carey, 1988; Peterson and Peterson, 1988; French and Wiggins, 1989; Raghavan and Chand, 1989; Campbell and Masser, 1991; Croswell, 1991).

Factor 8. Proposition:

Networking I If the degree of interpersonal communication within the organization is low or the messages about GIS technology sire negative, the intended users of GIS technology will not adopt it (Zaltman etaL, 1973; Ives etal, 1983; Rogers, 1983; Danziger and Kraemer, 1986; Leonard-Barton, 1987; Raymond, 1987; Baroudi and Orlikowski, 1988; Kearns, 1989; Campbell, 1990; Cromwell, 1991).

'

GIS Case-Study Research Methodology Case-study methodology has been recognized by the GIS reseiarch community as the appropriate approach for studying issues related to diffusion of GIS technology (Zwart, 1986; Niemaijn etaL, 1988; NCGIA, 1989; Craig, 1989; Azad, 1990; On^rud, Pinto, and Azad, 1992). It has been found particularly suitable during this period of limited knowledge, experience, and preV^ious research on GIS implementation. Our study followed guidehnes developed by the National Center for Geographic; Information and Analysis (NCGIA) leaders of Initiative 4 on Use and Value of Geographic Information (Onsrud, Pinto, and Azad, 1992). The guidelines called for rigorous and systematic case-study research aimed at theory testing rather than the description of situations and phenomena (Yin, 1984; Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead, 1987; Lee, 1989a, 1989b). We conducted ^ multiple case study of four local government agericies located in Cumberlaitid County, North Carolina.^ The study site was selefted from a set of local governments in North Carolina which had an operational GIS.^ At tiie time of our study (19^2), several agencies within the county government had been Hunjan Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

implementing GIS technology for over three yeaira in a vzntVf of applications, from automation of bus routing and itax-parcel mapping, to comprehensive and project-oriented plami![ng. The diversity of applications raised a question! of validity imd comparability of findings across tbe cases. TliijS problem was addressed by measuring the level of GIS adoption j and the implementation success with reference to what would amount to a fully functional GIS given the nature of tasks in each I agency studied and with regard to GIS capabilities to conttibutel to those tasks. This avoided comparing different applications uiider a common denominator. Data were collected through interviews, using a! research protocol and a questionnaire with structured, semisjcructured, and open-ended questions.5 The interviews were ccjnducted in the summer of 1992 with 27 employees of the snidied agencies, regardless of their use of GIS technology (3 indilwduals were in GIS management positions and 4 served as key informants) and with 5 higher level administrators who were in a pjosition to make decisions regarding their agency's incorporation of tJiIS technology. The study was conducted with dual units of aiijalysis—individual employees and organizational units. The intedviewed subjects

557

within each agency were classified as direct GIS users (employees who personally operated GIS technology, further divided into main users, and medium- and low-level GIS users), prospective GIS users (employees who expected to become direct users of GIS technology in the near future), indirect GIS users (employees who used outputs generated with GIS technology but did not operate the technology themselves), GIS nonusers (employees who did not employ GIS technology either directly or indirectly), and higher level administrators (individuals in organizational positions able to initiate and support GIS implementation, such as department heads). Designation of main GIS user[s] and main GIS non-user[s] was crucial for testing the propositions. While data on the eight variables were elicited for ali employees, the values found with the main GIS user[s] and nonuser[s] were given more weight in evahiating the significance of individual attributes on GlS-related behavior becau.se the patterns were clearest at these extreme ends of the adoption/nonadoption continuum, Conclusions about falsification or cortoboration of the theoretical propositions were reached through qualitative analysis. Pattern matching, a powerful method that can be used in casestudy research (Yin, 1984), was the major technique for data analysis.^' Three bases for composing the pattern associated with each individual and agency and for evaluating the significance of the factors were: (1) cumulative scores on a set of closed questions, (2) information elicited from open-ended questions (comments, statements, explanations, and reasoning about issues), and (3) direct observation of the individual employees and their envi-

ronments. None of the three sources was given an a priori precedence over the other two. A mixed-result category was introduced when the pattern was unclear or when the evidence was conflicting.

Diffusion of GIS Technology within Four Agencies We studied four organizational units of the government of Cumberland County, North Carolina: the transportation department of the city/county school system, die mapping section of the county tax assessor's office, the community assistance section of the city/county planning department, and the comprehensive planning section of tlie city/county planning department. The histor)!- of GIS acquisition and implementation in the four agencies is outlined in Table 2. The summary covers a period from 1986 to 1992, from the time when the first move was made in the transportation department to introduce GIS technology (Transportation Information Management System—TIMS) to the most recent GIS-related activities in the four agencies. The transportation department acquired TIMS software and equipment under a grant from the state of North CaroJina as part of a pilot program to get local school boards to computerize their bus-routing procedures. StafF acceptance of the program was positive and staff training was effective, leading over six years to full implementation. The tax mapping section acquired Arc/Info software to investigate adding spatial graphics to their On-line Assess-

Table 2 Summary of History of GIS Acquisition and Implementation in the Four Agencies

Transportation Planned GIS/FuUy Operational

Tax Mapping Experimental GIS/Underutilized

1986

Acquired TIMS software and equipment; TIMS Manager hired and operator assigned

On-line assessment information system (OASIS) implemented

1987

Database development in progress; software upgrade; first use of TIMS for school bus routing

1988

Continuous progression in database and use; software upgrade; current TIMS operator hired

1989

Year

Community Assistance Incremental GIS/Partially Utilized

Comprehensive Planning Deferred GIS Started the comprehensive plan update

Acquired Adas Graphics and equipment; digitized origin destination (OD) zones

Data coUeaion activity (not computerized)

Acquired Arc/Info software and equipment; experimentation with GIS

Acquired Maplnfo; hardware upgrade; continued work with O D zones and information from OASIS

Data collection activity (not computerized)

Hardware and software upgrade; continuous use of TIMS

Merger of land records under tax assessor's office; resignation of the head

Continued work on the thoroughfare plan update and population/economics stud/

Sporadic use of GIS (through CA Section); continued data collection

1990

Continued database development; software upgrade; steady use of TIMS

Stagnation (experimentation continued); "cleaning" soil and parcel maps (digital form)

Acquired Arc/Info

Sporadic use of information from GIS; continued data collection (not computerized)

1991

Continued database development and update; software upgrade; continued use of TIMS; difftision toward other staff members started

Started to digitize zoning; a few small projects completed (for Tax Office and other departments

Installed Arc/Info; hardware upgrade; finalized population and economic study; started other projects

Continued occasional use of GIS (traced and colored manually GIS generated maps); completed draft of Land Use Element of the Plan

1992

Hardware upgrade (LAN-work stations); full utilization of TIMS; diffusion toward other agencies

The main user title change to GIS coordinator; continued small projects

Plans for ftirther hardware and software upgrade; small projects continued; diffiision toward other agencies

Deadline for the plan

558

Public Administration Review • November/December 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

Table 3 Diffusion of GIS Technology among the Employees by Type/Level of Use and by Agency GIS Ditect Users Main Mediiun Level Agency Transportation Department 1 1 Mapping Section 1 2 Community Assistatice Section 1 2 Comprehensive Planning Section 0 0 Total 3 5

Low Level

0 3 0 0 3

ment Information System (OASIS). However, progress was interrupted by personnel and organizational changes, sind accomplishments were restricted to completion of a few small projects. In an incremental procesis, over time the community assistance section acquired two software packages. Atlas Graphics and Maplnfo, using them on transportation plans and population/economic studies. Then they! installed Arc/Info and used it on various studies, with partial use within the agency. The comprehensive planning section, which could have made significant use of GIS on their update of the comprehensive plan, decided instead to use traditional data collection, mapping, and presentation techniques, Essentially, they deferred use of GIS during the six-year study period. The four agencies pursued different implementation approach-* es. Planned and controlled implementation in the transportation department led to a successful, fully operational system. An experimental approach iri the mapping section prevented full incorporation of GIS technology into organizational functions and opera-

GIS Prospective Users

GIS Indirea Users

2 0 0 0 2

GIS Nonusws

1 0 2

2 2 3 0 7

4 7

Total

7 8 8

4 27

tions. An incremental approach in the community assistance section yielded a semisuccessful, partially utilized GlS. Finally, the comprehensive planning section decided not to implement GIS technology, except for minor tasks. \ The county govemnient agencies and their rqembers reacted differendy to the introduction of GIS technolog)'.| GIS diffusion in each agency was a function of unique organixa^ional and individual circumstances, such as the t^i'pe of function! and operations performed by an ^ency, particular staff member's current involvement in different projects, imposed deadlines, supervisor's tolerance for experimentation with new approaches, ex|:jectations about performance, (perceived) need for GIS technolojgy, knowledge, experience, and personal history. Resulting engagi^ment with GIS technology varied across all staff members with jrcgard to type, time, and level of GIS use. Out of 27 interviewed staff members, about onj;-half were GIS users; the other half were nonusers and indirect psers (Table 3). The highest level of use was adiieved by employees in the Trains-

Table4 ' ^ ^ ^ " Resets of Proposition Testing Transportation Department of the City/County School System

~"

^

Theoretical Proposition Reladive Advantage

Description of Findings that Warranted Corroboration/Falsification, or Mked Results The main TIMS user (TIMS operator) had the highest expectations of all employees in terms of personal benefits (primarily intangible).

Values, Beliefs

No association was found between the pattern of individual involvement with TIMS and expressed attitudes toward technology. No difference between TIMS users and nonusers.

\F

Computer Experience

Current and prospective TIMS users had more experience with computers than the other employees. TIMS manager engaged with TIMS with no previous computer experience.

^M i

Perceived Complexity

Trend reversed flom expected. GIS technology (TIMS) was seen as more complex by users than by nonusers of TIMS.

•F :

Exposure to GIS

Two main TIMS users (TIMS operator and TIMS manager) were not exposed to GIS technolo|5y prior to making decision to engage in using TIMS.

iF

Computer/GIS Anxiety

No substantial anxiety or apprehension about TIMS was discovered. Results were opposite from expected. Generally, more intensive anxiety was associated with GIS technology than with computers.

IF

Attitude Toward Change

Resistant behavior was encountered with one indirect TIMS user and one nonuser. Failure to use TIMS could not be dearly attributed to the attitude toward work-related change.

iM \

Networking

Amount and nature of communication among the employees was not associated with the employees' decision to use or not to use TIMS.

IF

Relevant Contextual Elements

1. State mandate for the use of GIS/TIMS (Transportation Department volunteered to be a pilot ptiaject); 2. Availability of funding from sources outside the agency; 3. Extensive management activities (support, training, user involvement, etc.); 4. Good history of automation; 5. Stable organizational environment.

Notes:

Result ;C

C is corroboration; F is falsification; M is mixed result.

Human Factors in Adoption of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

559

Table 5 Results of Proposition Testing Mapping Section ofthe Tax Assessor's OiEce Theoretical Proposition Relative Advantage

Description of Findings thatWaaanted Corroboration/Falsification or Mixed Results Significant difference in perceived personal henefits between GIS users and a nonuser. The main GIS user had stronger motivation to engage in using GIS technology than the other GIS users.

Values, Beliefs

The main GIS nonuser was concerned ahout the influence of computerization on jobs, social interaction, and power sharing.

Computer Experience

The main GIS user, who was the first to engage in GIS technology, used computers in a variety of applications and was very knowledgeable about them.

Perceived Complexity

Results were opposite from expected. GIS nonusers saw GIS technology as leis complex and difficult to use than GIS users.

Exposure to GIS

Extent of exposure to GIS technology was associated with the level of involvement with the technology. The main GIS nonuser was the least exposed.

Computer/GIS Anxiety

The main GIS nonuser was very anxious about using GIS technology. M Avoidance and apprehensiveness of computers was not found among other employees, except with the main GIS user.

Attitude Toward Change

Variation in attitudes between GIS users and GIS nonusers was not substantial.

F

Networking

Intensity of GIS-related communication was associated with adoption of the technology and with the level of engagement with it.

C

Result C

Relevant Contextual Elements 1. Organizational restructuring resulting from a political conflict; 2. Hierarchical and conflicting organizational environment; 3. Lack of political support for GIS; 4. Few GIS management activities (i.e., no commitment of funflii^, no official training provided); 5. Good history of automation (On-line Assessment Information System - OASIS). Notes;

C is corroboration. F is falsification. M is mixed result.

Table 6 ResiJts of Proposition Testing Community Assistance Section ofthe City/County Planning Department Result M

Theoretical Proposition Relative Advantage

Description of Findings that Warranted Corroboration/Falsification or Mixed Results Strong consensus among GIS nonusers and indirect users about absence of any tangible personal benefit. The main GIS user also had low personal expectations from engaging in GIS.

Values, Beliefs

While the main GIS nonuser was concerned about the consequences of extensive computerization, the manager (supporter of GIS) was unreserved about it.

Computer Experience

Employees with most computer-related experience wete the proponents and/ot the first users of GIS technology.

c

Perceived Complexity

No difference was detected between GIS users and GIS nonusers. Generally, the technology was not perceived as complex.

F

Exposure to GIS

Extensive exposure to GIS technology by the main GIS user and one indirect user (the supporter of GIS) relative to other staff members (mostly nonusers).

Computer/GIS Anxiety

GIS nonusers felt less anxiety and apprehension about the technology than GIS users. Trend reversed from expected.

Attitude Toward Change

The main GIS nonuser displayed rigid behavior regarding work-related change. The promoter of GIS technology (indirect GIS user) was open to change, particularly computer related.

Networking

Low communication with regard to GIS technology coincided with failure to adopt the technology.

Relevant Contextual Elements

1. Unsta^ble organizational environment with frequent restructuring and internal reassignment of staff members; 2. Conflicting and segregated organizational environment; 3. Lack of political support for GIS (not sought); 4. Few GIS management activities (funding the acquisition of equipment, but no official training provided, no user involvement); 5. Low level of computer use in the organization (Planning Department).

Note:

560

C is corroboration. F is falsification. M is mixed result.

Public Administration Review • Novemhet/Decemher 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

Table 7 Results of Proposition Testing Comprehensive Planning Section of the City/County Planning Department Result

Theoretical Proposition Relative Advantage

Description of Findings that Warranted Corroboration/Falsification and Mixed Results Very low perceived benefits among all employees, particularly tangible benefits (salary raise and opportunity for position advancement).

Values, Beliefs

The main GIS nonuser was; concerned about possible influence of computerized technology otv job security and distribution of power. The section head, however, strongly beUeved in its value.

Cornputer Experience;

Ver/ limited experience with computers among all employees. In addition, strong feeling of frustration with computers introduced in the agency, particularly felt by the main GiS nonuser.

Perctived Complexity;

The main GIS nonuser felt strongly that GIS technology was hard to understand and use.

C

Exposure to GIS

Limited exposure to GIS technology by all staff members, particularly by the main GIS nonuser. Rather negative opinion about the products generated with GIS.

C

Computer/GIS Anxiety

High computer/GIS related anxiety and apprehension expressed by the main GIS nonuser. Consciousness about avoiding use of the technology.

c

Attitlude Toward Change

The main GIS nonuser expressed negative attitude toward work-related change.

Networking

Low GIS-related communication. Isolation from other sections.

M

c

Relevant Contextual Elements I. Unstable organizatipnal environment with frequent restructuring and internal reassignment of staff membeirs; 2. Conflicting and segregated organizational environment; 3. Lack of political support for GIS (not sought); 4. No GIS management activities (no management support, no funding for technical support staff member, training, or acquisition of equipment, no user involvement in the Departmental GIS implementation); 5. Low level of computer use in the organization (Planning Department). Note:

C is corroboration. F is falsification. M is mixed result.

portation Department. Evident eiSforts to involve additional staff work-related change, encountered a mixed resuljc. Table 4 also meipbers was part of a deliberate departmental policy to widen its identifies five contextual elements that were relevajiit to GIS impleGIS user base. The mapping section experienced the most inten- mentation in this agency. Diverse and continuous management sive; horizontal dilfusion of all the agencies studied but had an activities, and external mandate and support werei the most influoverall low level of use. Notable direct and indirect use, but lack of ential factors that contributed to successful GIS ad(j»ption. further diffusion, characterized the community assistance section. The patterns revealed within the mapping sect) on yielded v/ide Finally, GIS technology was used only Indirectly by employees in corroboration of the research propositions. Five (pf the eight facthe comprehensive planning section. tors were corroborated: perceived relative advanta|^e, compatibility Except for the transportation department, the agencies had a with computer experience, compatibility with pei'ijonal values and mostly uncontrolled GIS diffusion, where implementation was left beliefs, exposure to GIS, and networking (Table j). The finding to spontaneous processes and voluntary participation, and intro- on the impact of computer/GIS-related anxiet)' jon decisions to duciion of the technology was driven by opportunity, immediate adopt GIS technology was mixed. Contextual Corroborations; One Falsification; One Miajed) In three agencies, there were instances where | the main GIS nonusers showed a negative attitude toward workirelated change, that is, showed a preference for a rather static wo:t|i; environment. A variety of reasons, however, could have simultaneously contributed to their failure to adopt GIS technology. For instance, in the case of the main GIS nonuser within the mapping section, those factors included passive communication beh;Mor, low exposure to GIS technology, high computer anxiety, la|;k of perceived personal benefits, lack of computer experience, and! concern about the consequences of computerization. In the comprehensive planning section, the cau|es of resistance also could not be exclusively attributed to the maifl GIS nonuser's negative attitude toward change but could be traced to low appreciation for products generated with GIS technolog;], low perceived personal benefits, computer and GIS-related anxierf, and a perception of GIS technology as complex and difficult to .learn. Finally, in the Transportation Department, itjwas uncertain whether the two GIS nonusers' bebavior could bp attributed to their general resistance toward change. Other circianastances had a great potential to influence their decisions. Hence, j:he mixed finding on tbis proposition. \

Computer/GIS-Related Anxiet:y^ (One Corroboration; Two Falsifications; One Mijcjjd) Computer/GIS-related anxiety showed as proljably the most sensitive area of inquiry. Many employees ofFeredi responses that were the reverse of what had been expected. Surprisingly, the GIS nonusers presented themselves as less anxious, apj^rehensive, and fearful of the technology than GIS users. The niaijority of staff members described their anxiety in positive terms (being interested, active, enthusiastic, curious, etc.). In two cases, one where the proposition was corroborated and the other with a mixed result, instaiures were found cif the main GIS nonusers, one in the mapping section, the other in itjhe comprehensive planning section, expressing an extremely high! computer and GIS-related anxiety. This high anxiety could have | contributed to their resistance to adopting GIS technology. The nJixed fmding in the mapping section accounted for the fact that the imain GIS user

563

reported an intense feeling of apprehensiveness of GIS technology and avoidance behavior in the early adoption stage. Finally, no significant difference was found among the employees with regard to their anxiety and apprehensiveness about computers in general.

Perceived Complexity of GIS Technology (Three Falsifications; One Corroboration) In the comprehensive planning section, the only s^ency which did not incorporate GIS technology, two crucial staff members (the section head and the main GIS nonuser) viewed GIS technology as more complex and difficult than their current practice and approach to doing their tasks. This was the only agency where sufficient evidence was fotmd to corroborate the proposition. In three remaining agencies that had implemented GIS technology and used it even to a limited extent, tlie technology was not seen is complex to understand and use by either GIS users or nonusers. Because the difference in .statements between those two groups was not significant, the perceived complexity of GIS technology cotild not be proven to determine individual involvement. The responses were, in some cases, reversed from those expected, that is, before engaging with GIS technology the cutrent GIS users saw it as more complex than the current nonusers of GIS.

Conclusions about Human Behavior and GIS Acceptance Our study ofthe diffusion of GIS technology in four local government agencies confirmed the complex, situational, and selective nature of the GIS diffusion process. It discovered a number of ways in which individual behavior concerning GIS technology is affected by organizational contextual elements and GIS management activities and ways in which employees' behavior contributes to the organizational adoption of GIS technology. In aJl four agencies studied, perceived relative advantage and compatibility with computer experience stand otit as major determinants of individual decisions to start using GIS technology. Most GIS users had higher expectations in terms of personal benefits from starting to work with the technology than the rest of employees. Individuals identified as the main GIS nonusers stated that they anticipated no persotial gain from making the effott to learn the technology. Perceived organizational benefits were not significandy related to individual adoption of GfS technology but were a possible important factor in the organizationaj-level decisions to use the technology as a source of indirect influence on tlie individual decisions. Computer experience was another major factor determining individual engagement with GIS technology. With one exception, all employees who wete on the forefront of using GIS technology were aiready intensive computer u.sers. The fact that tbey were familiar with computers contributed clearly to theit early adoption of GIS technology. On the other hand, the main GIS nonusers were the least computer literate, and, in a few cases, did not use computers at all. Exposure to GIS technology and communication behavior were also significantly related to individual decisions to use the technol-

564

ogy. Results on infiuence of personal values and beliefs about computerized technology and attitude toward work-related change on individual adoption of GIS technology were mixed. Gomputer/GIS related anxiety appeared an even less significant factor in the adoption decisions, with only one clear corroboration. Finally, responses about perceived complexity of the technology were not associated with the pattern of adoption in most individuals. Our findings are somewhat diffetent from Moores and Benbasat's (1992) results. Although there is an agreement on the relative advantage and expostire propositions, the perceived complexity factor was insignificant in our research. One possible explanation for this difference could be bias in respondents' answers to this question because ofthe presence ofa researcher, before whom they were reluctant to admit to being swayed by information system complexity. Diffu.sion of GIS technology toward both organizations and individuals was affected by management and contextual factors, in addition to human factors. These account for differences among the four agencies in testing the eight factors, as well as the overall differences in the success of implementing GIS technology. Organizational conflict and organizational instability were the most detrimental internal organizational factors. State mandates, provision of external funding, political support, and jurisdiction size were the most infiuentiai external organizational environmental factors. Finally, user training, involvement in system design and implementation, and support and commitment at the administrative level were the management factors that increased the likelihood of GIS implementation success. Our findings are compatible with the already recognized need for application of user-oriented strategies in development and incorporation of information systems. Eason's (1988) concept of "socio-technical system design" and Danziger and Kraemer's (1986) concept of "socio-technical interface" capture the essence of strategies aimed at promoting effective diffusion of GIS technology. Glose attention to the individuai employees as the ultimate users of GIS technology' and implementation strategies that account fot organizational dynamics will ensure better use of the considerable public investments in informaiion technology and increase the likelihood that GIS technology fulfills its promises. "While in ever>' agency there will always be one or more employees, usually experienced computer users, who will take advantage of the new technology immediately, the majority will need additional attention. Agencies with a goal of developing a wide GIS-user base should take into account the needs and capabilities of each staff member and provide them with sufficient exposure and incentives to adopt and continue to use GIS technolog"/ in their daily work. • • •

Zorica Nedovic-Budic is an. assistant professor in urban planning and GIS at the University of Illinois at Utbana-Ghampaigii. Het research is in implementation of GIS technology in local governments and evaluation of its impacts on the planning process. David R. Godschalk is Stephen Baxter Professor at tbe University of North Gatolina at Ghapel Hill. He has done extensive research and pubhshing in the areas of land tise policy, dispute resolution, and growtb management.

Public Administration Review • November/December 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

Notes The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to all the case-study participants for their cooperation and help with this study. 1. The difficulties have to do with rapidly changing market trends, regionally oriented surveys, and no systematic method established for tracing the acquisition of GIS by government units. Huxhold (1993), hased on Onsrud's and Pinto's survey (1993), estimated that as low as 2.3 percent of all county and rnunicipal government units in the United States had acquired a GIS hy 1990. In her 1990/91 research on GIS implementation in four southeastern states, Budic (1993a) found a wide variation hy state and type of local government, with municipalities with populations over 2,500 having an average adoption rate of 2.3 percent (ranging from 1.7 to 3.4 percent) and counties having an average adoption rate of 15.9 percent (ranging from 6.5 to 29 percent). With plans for GIS acquisition stated by many surveyed agencies Quhl, 1989), however, the rates are expected to change rapidly. The number of GIS developed is accelerating each year (French and "Wiggin-s 1990; Wiggins, 1993). Masser and Campbell (1994) resport a raise iji percentage of government units in the United Kingdom using GIS technology from 16.5 percent in 1991 to 29 percent in 1993. "The latest survey of U.S. local governments conducted by the International City/Count)'Management Association (ICMA) estimates an average of about a 30 percent diffusion rate, varying from state to state (Sprecher, 1994). 2. Estimates by Utility Graphics Consultants (UGS), an Englewood, Colorado, consulting firm, show expected spending by U.S. local governments of approximately $27 billion during the 1990s for hardware, software, and data conversion (Lang, 1990). Newcombe (1993) reports expected increase in state and locil government spending for GIS technol-

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ogy from $168 million in 1993 to $432 million by 1997 j(according ro G2 Research, Inc., a Mountain View, California, market research firm). Dataquest, Inc. (1994), identifies government as the mjijor consumer of GIS products, providing in 1992 mote rhan one-third ij)f all revenues to software vendors. The case smdy was conducted as one phase of Budic's jioctoral dissertation research. Details of the research design, case descriptions, and other elements of the case-study research are available in t$e thesis (Budic, 1993b) and in the NCGIA Report #93-8 (Budic and Gojkchalk, 1993). The local governments were identified in a 1990/91 nijiil survey of GIS use among local governments in rhe Southeast (Budic, 1993a). The choice of site was based on length of involvement with j GIS technology, diversity of GIS applications, and proximity of the study jiite. Other sources included documentation (minutes from neetings, memoranda, GIS acquisition, and implementation related doc iments), archival records (organizational charts, financial records, personnel listings, and job descriptions), direct observation of people and field environment, and physical artifacts (computer equipment and output, i.e., maps). The technique is based on comparing empirically observed patterns with predicted patterns deduced from theory and on emplo rment of natural control situations. Coincidence or contradiction bervii xn the two patterns forms the grounds for confirming (corroborating) air rejecting (falsifying) the theoretical propositions, j The fact that this was the only agency with extensive '^iIS management activities and an upcoming mandate for system develojjment may contribute ro its exceptional status among the cases.

References Arondff, Stanley, 1989. Geographic Information Systems: A Management Per1993b. Human and Institutional Factors in Gl Implementation spective. Ottawa: WDL Publications. by Local Govemments. Doctoral dissertation. Chapel H; 1, NC; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Azad, Bijan, 1990. Implementation cf Geographic Injhrmatien Systems. Ph.D. proposal. Cambridge, MA; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Budic, Zorica D. and David R. Godschalk, 1993. "Human Factor DeterrniDepartment of Urban Studies and Planning. nants of GIS Implementation Success; Perception, Exps rience. Attitude, Baldridge, Victor J, and Robert A. Burnham, 1975. "Organizational Innovaand Communication Behavior." In Harlan J. Onsrud, Jeffrey K. Pinto, tion; Individual, Oilganizational, and Environmental Impacts." Adminisand Bijan Azad, eds.. Testing Technologf Transfer Hypotheses in GIS Envitrative Science Quarterly, vol. 20 (2), 165-176. ronments Using a Cast Study Approach, Technical Paper 93-8. Nationai Baroufli, Jack J. and Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1988. "A Short-Form Measure of Center for Geographic Information &.Analysis (NCGMi) , pp. 35-63. User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on 1994. "Implementation and Management Effectiveness in Use." Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 4 (4), 44-59. Adoption of GIS Technology in Local Governments." \Computers, EnviBatsori, Robert G., 1987. "The Modern Role of MS/OR Professionals in ronment and Urban Systems, vol. 18 (5), 285-304. i Interdisciplinary Teams." INTERFACE, vol 17 (3), 85-93. Campbell, Heather J., 1990. "The Organizational Implications of GeographBenhaSat, Izd»r»/?i;vol. 5(1), 18-39. Igbaria, M. and S.A. Nachman, 1990. "Correlates of User Satisfaction with End User Computing: An Exploratory Study." Information and Manage- Onsrud, Harlan J. et aL, 1993. Experiences in Acquisition, Implementation, and Use of GIS in U.S. Local Governments: A Sampler of Academic Studies ment, vol. 19 (2), 73-82. and Findings. Presentation at GISDATA Specialist Meeting "GIS DiffuIves, BKike, Margrethe H. Olson, and Jack J. Baroudi, 1983. "The Measuresion in Local Government in Europe." Knutsford, England, 28-30 Octoment of User Information Satisfaction." Communications ofthe ACM, ber. vol. 26 (10), 785-793. Juhl, Ginger M., 1989. GIS Implementation and Use in City/County Govern- Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler, 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ment. Market research results. Hnglewood, CO: Utility Graphics ConsulPeterson, C M . and T.6. Peterson, 1988. "The Darkside of Office Automatants. tion: How People Resist the Introduction of Office Automation TechnolKanrer, Rosabeth M., 1989. "Mastering the Dilemmas of Innovation." Catiogy." In J.M. Carey, ed.. Human Factors in Management Information Sysfornia Management Review, vol. 31 (4), 38-69. tems. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation. Kearns, K.P., 1989. "Communication Networks among Municipal Administrators." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 10 (4), 260-279. Poll, W.J., 1985. "Avenues for Top Management Involvement in Successful MIS Development." MIS Quarterly, vol. 9 (J), 43-49. King. John L. and Kenneth L. Kraemer, 1985. The Dynamics of Computing Raghavan, Sridhar A. and Donald R. Qiand, 1989. "Diffusing SoftwareNew York: Columbia Universit)' Pre.«. Engineering Methods." IEEESojhvare, (July), 81-90. , 1986. "The Dynamics of Change in Computing! Use: A Theoretical Framework." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 10, Raub, Annalyse C , 1981. "Correlates of Computer Anxiet)' in College Students." Doctoral Dissertation in Psychology in Education. University of 5-25. Pennsylvania. Kraenjer, Kenneth L , John L. King, Debora E. Dunkle, and Joseph P. Lane, 1989. Managing Information Systems: Change and. Control in Organiza- Raymond, Louis, 1987. "Validating and Applying User Satisfaction as a Measure of MIS Success in Small Organizations." Information and Mantional Computing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. agement, vol. 12 (4), 173-179. Kraemtr, Kenneth L. and John1. King, 1977. Computers and Local Gm/emment, vol. 1: A Manny's Guide; vol. 2: A Review ofthe Research. New Repo, Aatto J., 1989. "The Value of Information—Approaches in Economics, Accounting, and Management Science." Journal of American York: Praeger Publishers. Society for Information Science, vol. 40 (2), 68-85. Lang, iaura, 1990. "Making a GIS Dream Come Tme." Planning, vol. 56

566

Public Administration Review 4 November/December 1996, Vol. 56, No. 6

ment: A Commentary." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing^ vol. 53 (10), 1379-1382. ,1991. "GIS in U.S. Local Government." G'ftH vol. 8 (1), 2532. Sprecher, Milford H., 1994. "ICMA Survey Dissects Local Government IT Use." URISAJoumai,vol.6 {2),92~94. Stevens, John M. and Robert P. McGowan, 1985. Information Systems and Puhlic Management. New York: Praeger. Wiggins, Lyna L., 1993. "Diffusion and Use of Geographic Ilnformation Systems in Public Sector Agencies in the United States." In I Ian Masser and Harlan J. Onsrud, eds.. Diffusion and Use of Geographic iMormation Technologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pubjishers, pp. 147163. Wiggins, Lyna L. and Steven P. French, 1991. GIS: Assessing! YouT Needs and Choosing a System. Planning Advisoiry Service Repori Number 433. Chicago, IL American Planning Association. Urban System,vQ\.iQ(\),\^-2\. Yin, Robert K., 1984. Case Study Research—Design and Methods. Beverly Schultz, Randall L , D.P. Slevin, and Jeffrey K. Pinto, 1987. "Strategy and Hills: Sage Publications. Tactics in a Process Model of Project Implementation." INTERFACES, Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbeck, 19(3. Innovations voi: 17 (3), 34-46. ' and Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Scott, W.R., 1990. "Technology and Structure: An Organizational-Level Per- Zwart, Peter, 1986. "User Requirements in Land Infor|mation System spective." In P.S. Gpodman and L.S. Sproull and Associates, Technologf Design—Some Research Issues." Surveying and Mapping, vol. 46 (2), and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 123-130. Somers, Rebecca, 1987. ' "Geographic Information Systems in Local Govern-

Rivard, Suzanne, 1987. "Successful Implementation of End-User Computing." INTERFACES, vol. 17 (3), 25-33. Rogers, Clark D. and Jerome R. Anderson, 1993a. "Data for Planning, Management and the Community: A Working Example." Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management. Atlanta, GA, July 23-25. , 1993b. "Policy Factors in a Data-Access Poliq?: A Conceptual Model." Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management. Adanta, GA, July 2325.; Rogers, Everett M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed. New York; The Free Press. Rogers, Everett M. and R. Agarwala-Rogers, 1976. Communication in Organizations. New Yorki The Free Prtas. Romer; Mogens D., 1985. "The Changing Relationship Between the User and the Information!Processing Specialist." Computers, Environment and

Human Factors in Adoption of Geograpliic Information Systems (GIS)

567