Integrated Model Approach for RFID Implementation Process Maher ...

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015

Integrated Model Approach for RFID Implementation Process Maher Waleed Asaad Saab1. Mahadi Bahari2. Author(s) Contact Details: 1,2

Faculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Published online: February 2015 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

Abstract The wide applicability of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology has made it a better choice over all other automatic identification systems. Recent advances in this technology has increased its usability in auto detection and data collection of large number of tagged objects such as books in university libraries (i.e., in inventory and library management). However, transiting from the barcode technology to the new RFID technology (i.e., implementation process) has posed several challenges for university libraries. Most studies on RFID implementation in university libraries dwell mainly on adoption issues and its technological benefits, with lesser studies focusing on the sociotechnical issues. This paper proposes a methodological approach for investigating RFID implementation from a user, technological and organizational context. It begins by reviewing literature with the aim of identifying the gap and to determine the best approach in investigating RFID implementation in university libraries from all three perspectives. The findings show that limited studies have looked at RFID implementation from these three perspectives and in cases where they were considered, inappropriate models were used. The main outcome of this study is the identification of the various factors influencing RFID implementations process in university libraries. The study concludes by proposing an integrated model approach for RFID implementation process in university libraries. Keywords: RFID technology, implementation process 1.

INTRODUCTION

Early uses of RFID technology after the first crude version was invented in 1948 (used by Britain in World War II for aircraft identification), were mostly in industries ranging from livestock tracking to vehicle identification, access control and others (Irani, Gunasekaran, & Dwivedi, 2010). However, its implementation in libraries were not feasible at the time because of their tick sizes, which made it impossible to stamp RFID tags on curved surfaces. Nevertheless, with the recent advances in technology, ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

RFID tags are now as small as a grain of rice, thus, many libraries are quickly beginning to implement and use this technology in assisting their daily operations (Bahri & Ibrahim, 2013). Although there is a general acceptance of RFID technology among university libraries in terms of its ability to address issues such as fast user self-check, repetitive tasks, untimely and inaccurate inventory, it is yet to record a commensurable rate of implementation success when compared with the anticipated. Sing, Brar, and Fong (2013) predicted that RFID implementation in university libraries would mark the first large scale deployment of RFID item level tagging. They posit that libraries have the panorama for such large scale implementations based on the volume of resources in most libraries, especially in university. A number of studies have looked at the problems associated with RFID implementation in university libraries Ning and Xing (2013); Bahri and Ibrahim (2013); Sing et al. (2013) and some other studies have attempted to address these challenges (Chang, Hsu, & Wang, 2013; Makori, 2013). The use of RFID in university libraries have facilitated an efficient method of collecting, managing and distribution of books through automated lending and borrowing supported by real-time inventory management (Mehrjerdi, 2011 ). Despite these benefits and numerous advantages, RFID technologies are still new in libraries when measured against its application in industries such as warehouses and retail organizations (Wang, 2014). Majority of the literatures that addressed technological concerns of RFID were more focused on highlighting the benefits of these technologies rather than the challenges faced in its implementation. Furthermore, majority of the studies on RFID implementation in university libraries reviewed did not provide a thorough discussion of the factors responsible for successful RFID implementations in these libraries but rather mere narratives of the implementation process. Even at that, only few aspects of the RFID implementation process were discussed Smith, Gleim, Robinson, and Kettinger (2014); Dwivedi, Kapoor, Williams, and Williams (2013) whereas the entire implementation process of the technology in the university libraries were overlooked. Thus, there is a strong need for an effective integrated model approach that can adequately Page 26

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 cover the entire implementation process of RFID in university libraries (i.e., to provide better insights). This study, therefore, proposes an integrated model approach suitable for RFID implementation process in university libraries from the perspective of technology, user, and organization. The rest of the paper has been divided into the following sections. Section two reviews related literature in RFID technologies, its application, challenges and benefits for university libraries. Section three discusses the method employed for this review. Section four presents the proposed integrated model approach for RFID implementation process in university libraries. Section five concludes the study, stating its limitations and areas of further research. 2.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The first know use of RFID was recorded during the Second World War and has been evolving since then. Maxwell (1865) conducted a research in the theory of electromagnetism, a related area of RFID which led to some of the inventions of that era such as the Robert Richardson’s invention of a device powered by a radio frequency that was remotely activated (Richardson, 1963). The major breakthrough in this field was witnessed in the 1960s which led to the commercial adoption of the RFID technology in the area of factory automation and vehicle tracking in the 1970s and later into applications and home appliances in the 1980s and 1990s. As at today, this evolution has made it possible to plant RFID tags, which are as small as a rice grain into humans and plants, animals and objects, and the technology is still growing (Bahri & Ibrahim, 2013). The use of RFID for auto detection and data collection of large number of tagged objects such as books through the use of radio waves have attracted so much interest of recent from several university libraries especially in inventory and library management. However, transiting from the traditional barcode technology, which has been in use for decades, to the new RFID technology has posed several challenges for universities especially in the area of implementation (Ferguson, Thornley, & Gibb, 2014). The difficulties encountered in the use of barcodes such as its inefficiency to protect library resources from irresponsible users, high cost and time wasting, has pushed many university libraries to implement RFID in their inventory, security, and check-in check-out processes (Mehrjerdi, 2011 ). Nevertheless, quite a number of university libraries still make use of barcodes in their inventory and library management. Although there is a general acceptance of RFID technology among many university libraries in terms of the ability of RFID technology in addressing issues such as fast user self-check, repetitive tasks, untimely and inaccurate inventory, its rate of implementation has not measured up with the anticipated. Sing et al. (2013) suggested that RFID implementation in university libraries could mark the first deployment in a large scale of RFID item level tagging. They posited that libraries have the panorama for such studies based on the size of library resources especially ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

university libraries. However, the associated operational challenges associated with item level RFID tagging have been major impedance to its successful implementation. A number of studies have looked at the problems associated with RFID implementation in university libraries. Ning and Xing (2013) identified reading errors, managing the huge volumes of tag-generated data, data collision, immature standards and failure when in the environment of liquid based products and metals. Bahri and Ibrahim (2013) opined that RFID implementation in library environment was different from that of a manufacturing or distribution context. Makori (2013) conducted a study on RFID implementation in a university library. They collected data in the areas of equipment assessment, such as the inventory reader and self-check stations. Their findings reveal that mobile interference and metal shelves were the major causes of RFID equipment malfunctions and irregular or erroneous data reading by RFID readers. Lang and Han (2014) looked into the types of RFID readers used by university libraries. They reveal that so many variations abound ranging from mobile mounted, handheld, read and write readers, and fixed readers. They observed that the main purpose which these readers serve in most of the libraries they studied was mainly for tag identification to aid circulation such as theft prevention and managing inventory. Other studies such as Luo, Cao, and Qian (2013) have stressed on the need for more research in RFID reliability and performance in university libraries particularly in academic and management fields in order to further improve the adoption and implementation process of these technologies. This position is further asserted by Bahri and Ibrahim (2013) when they recommended a comprehensive assessment on the implementation of RFID applications in academic libraries which they claim will serve as valuable inputs to librarians’ decision making process with regards to the use of RFID technology. Dwivedi et al. (2013) asserts that most libraries employ the use of handheld or fixed readers and suggested the need for further studies in the operational effectiveness and performance of RFID in libraries of higher institutions. Vasishta (2009), also observed that very few studies have been documented on RFID implementations in university libraries and that most of the findings of these studies were inconclusive. Kim and Garrison (2010) suggested three factors that should be considered to ascertain the feasibility of RFID implementation in university libraries. These factors include the organizational readiness, the perceived factors and the organizational needs. According to them, the library’s perception on the RFID’s ability to provide personalized and uninterrupted communication flow regarding the movement of books and the respective information of users is of great importance in the library’s management of the supply chain. This perception may be in the areas of less time taken to check in and check out users while the organizational needs may cover issues pertaining to the number of personnel required for the job. Ching and Tai (2009) concluded that RFID implementation in university library helps in the reduction of operating cost and enhances performance significantly. Filip (2011) stated that effective information exchanges, Page 27

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 communication flow and enhanced library service operations could also be considered as cost saving benefits of RFID implementation in university libraries. Another major issue of RFID implementation in university libraries is the restriction placed on patency rights of these RFID technologies, thus making it impossible for individual university libraries to customize the technology to best suit their peculiar library needs. Regarding cost issues, most universities are concerned about the ROI of RFID implementation given to their high initial setup cost (Tajima, 2007). Besides the migration costs which may include the cost of maintaining a dual system (RFID and barcode) during the transition phase Wu, Nystrom, Lin, and Yu (2006), other costs may include software and hardware recurring costs (such as upgrade, maintenance, integration, and moving costs), training costs (such as management change, on-going training), development costs (such as technical, communication, tagging labor costs, etc.) and service costs like professional services (Lee & Lee, 2010). Some of the threats posed by RFID implementation in university libraries have been discussed by (Ngai, Moon, Riggins, & Yi, 2008a). According to them, hackers, government, or the library staff may take wrong advantage of the vital and personal information of library users stored in the RFID database. This is basically because RFID automatically collects different information of users such as their actions, locations, etc. and automatically stores and updates it in its database without the consent of the user, and which is usually characterized by several generic facilities and protocols, source codes, high-value data, weak security, thus making it prone and attractive to hackers and abuse (Rieback, Simpson, Crispo, & Tanenbaum, 2006). Other social threats may include challenges those emanating by the affected employees who may likely be affected directly or indirectly by the RFID implementation (Minami, 2006). In general, there is a positive indication that most university libraries are exploring ways in which RFID technologies can best improve their services. However, most of the literatures that addressed technological concerns of RFID were more focused on highlighting the benefits of these technologies Kausal, Jadhav, Pachpande, and Rane (2014); Bahri and Ibrahim (2013) rather than the challenges faced in its implementation. Furthermore, majority of the studies on RFID implementation in university libraries reviewed did not provide a thorough discussion on the technological factors responsible for successful RFID implementations in these libraries (Kim & Garrison, 2010) but rather presented mere narratives of the implementation process. Even at that, only few aspects of the RFID implementation processes were discussed (e.g. the reliability, operational effectiveness and performance) whereas the entire implementation process of RFID in these university libraries were overlooked. Thus, there is a strong need for an effective methodological approach that can adequately cover the complete picture of RFID implementation process in university libraries in order to provide better insights into the complexities of factors (i.e., organizational and technological) that influence RFID implementation in university libraries.

ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

3. METHODOLOGY In conducting this study, certain criteria were used to determine which approach was most suitable for RFID implementation studies in university libraries. A total of 50 selected academic papers comprising of both journal and conference papers were reviewed. The papers were sourced by querying three major databases: IEEE Xplore, EdiTLib, and Google Scholar, based on the search criteria for the study (both initial and expanded). The review structure was based on Chukwunonso, Ibrahim and Selamat (2014), which guided the questions posed by this study in accordance to the study objective. The study questions were framed under three main perspectives of RFID implementation process; user, technological and organizational perspectives. The study questions centered on: a) What are the factors that influence the RFID implementation process? B) What is the most suitable approach for investigating RFID implementation processes? A multi-step filtering process with independent validation in each step was used for paper inclusion and exclusion. Papers with titles that were not related to the topic of study were excluded while overlapping and duplicating papers gotten from other sources was manually sorted out. Full papers whose abstract met the extraction criteria was included after undergoing a manual validation done by cross-checking the text to ensure it is relevant to the study objectives. The analysis was based on three basic criteria: Rigour, Credibility, and Relevance (see Table 1). The selected criteria were influenced by the guidelines proposed by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2011). Table 1: Extraction Criteria adapted from Cohen et al. (2011) Criteria Objective Rigour

Has a thorough and appropriate approach been applied to key research methods in the study?

Credibility

Are the findings well-presented and meaningful?

Relevance

How useful are the findings to university institutions and the IS research community?

Based on the analysis, we were able to deduce the research gaps and current challenges in RFID implementation in the university libraries. 4. PROPOSED INTEGRATED MODEL APPROACH Several authors have described RFID as not just a device but a complete information system (IS) because of its ability to collect, process and store data, thereby, providing the organization with the highest value of its technology (Garud, Tuertscher, & Van de Ven, 2013). Thus, two fundamental IS implementation literatures namely innovation diffusion Lucas Jr, Swanson, and Zmud (2008) and management information systems Laudon and Laudon (2010) shall be reviewed to come up with the

Page 28

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 integrated model approach for RFID implementation proposed by this study. 4.1 Information Systems Implementation Defined for RFID Implementation There are two major groups of definition of IS implementation that are related to the definition of RFID implementation (Lucas Jr et al., 2008). According to the first school of thought, IS implementation can be defined as a part or phase in a project development cycle. Their definition lays emphases on only the physical attributes of implementation such as user and design requirements, installation and maintenance (Braglia & Frosolini, 2014). The other school of thought however approaches IS implementation from both physical and cognitive perspectives. They define IS implementation as process of integration between organizational members, set out objectives or goals, and acceptance of the technology or processes through which those aims would be achieved (Tushman & O'Reilly, 2013). For the purpose of this study, we shall stick with the later definition due to the inadequacy of the first definition to meeting the objectives of the study. Bell and Wood-Harper (2013) argues that organizational systems comprise of both hard and soft systems and as such alienating one from the other will cause disharmony and impede against the success of any objective or implementation. Tushman and O'Reilly (2013) posits that for organizational change to be effective, the organization’s behavior must be duly considered. In addition, Amperkel (1999) states that most failures encountered in implementation processes are mainly due to the exclusion of the organization’s staff members in the development life cycle including the design and implementation phases whereas such technology or process is meant to be used by the member of such organization and have direct effect or impact on them.

organizational change process based on the review criteria discussed in Section 3. The selected models include Rao‘s PRESS (2007), Lewin (1947), Garvin and Roberto (2005) and Kolb and Frohman (1970) models. These models provide a step-by-step guideline through which change can be successfully achieved in an organization. The aim of the review is to select a model approach that is most suitable for RFID implementation studies and justify the basis for its selection. 4.3.1 Kolb-Frohman‘s model approach The steps involved in achieving this organizational change has been clearly outlined in Kolb-Frohman‘s (1970) model. This model consists of seven steps as outlined in Table 2. Table 2: Kolb-Frohman‘s model approach Steps Description Step 1: Scouting

At this step, the consultant is invited to the organization for a first-hand ground assessment of the client’s system.

Step 2: Entry

After a first-hand assessment of the system, a negotiated contract that spells out the contributions and expectations of both the consultant and the client is agreed and sealed.

Step 3: Diagnosis

At this change, the consultant identifies the challenges or problems in the system and rectifies them. This result of this process depends largely on the resources accessible to both parties.

Step 4: Planning

At this step, a plan is developed, which clearly states the intended objectives to be fulfilled.

Step 5: Implementation

At this step, the developed plan is carried out with the aim of achieving all the stated objectives. It should be noted that any improper action in this phase usually has unexpected consequences and as such, it is advisable to stick to the intended plan.

Step 6: Evaluation

At this step, the result of the action or implementation is measured against the intended objectives earlier stated in the plan (step 4) based on the expectations mentioned in step 2. The outcome of this evaluation step will either lead to step 7 or back to step 2.

Step 7: Termination

This is the final step where the client is either successful or have

4.2 Approaches in Implementation Studies Davenport (2013) categorized studies on IS implementation into two approaches; process approach and factor approach. The process approach focuses on individual sequences and collective activities and events based on their occurrence in a given period of time, whereas the factor approach makes use of surveys in identifying critical success factors of a particular system (Davenport, 2013). Ram, Corkindale, and Wu (2013) categorized these factors as organizational, technological and users. For the purpose of this study, we have chosen the process approach proposed by (McEvoy et al., 2014). The choice of this approach is to because of it provides a whole picture of the implementation process by determining the individual sequences and their collective activities and events, which later emerge what we refer as a factor. 4.3 Implementation Models This section considers some implementation models used for IS implementation studies. Four IS implementation models were carefully selected within the context of ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

Page 29

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 failed in the attempt to solve the problem.

aggressive, passive, resignation or comfortable with the change. Phase 2: Recruiting

This phase proffers ways of solving the outcome gotten from the first phase. There are four possible ways through which the organization may seek to address the aggrieved employees: a) sidelining them by not getting them involved in the change initiative, b) encirclement; where they are merged with those with very strong support for the change, c) isolating them by transferring them to units or departments not affected by the change process, or d) sacking them by terminating their appointment with the organization.

Phase 3: Energizing

This is a process of rewarding those employees who are devoted to the change initiative in order to attract (win over) the commitment of the rest of the employees towards the change initiative.

Phase 4: Staffing the change team

At this phase, a change leader is set over the rest of the change team. The leader must be a person of proven credibility, leadership skills, commitment and must have laid down structures or vision. This is necessary to boost the morale and confidence of the employees on the feasibility and actualization of the change.

Phase 5: Sequencing change

This is the phase where the current phase is evaluated based on the set milestone to determine when new changes should be introduced to the system.

4.3.2 Garvin and Roberto‘s model approach Garvin and Roberto‘s (2005) model addresses issues of organizational change. It stresses on the importance of getting employees ready for any change that may occur in the organization, failure of which may lead to implementation or system failure. Under this approach, the decision makers must be able to convince the affected employees on the profitability and benefits of the change. This model approach outlines the process of achieving organizational change in four phases as outlined below in Table 3. Table 3: Garvin and Roberto‘s model approach Phases Description Phase 1: Setting the stage

Here, the change personnel or team heads persuade the employees on the need for radical change through convincing illustrations and by clearly spelling out the intended benefits and/or incentives of change.

Phase 2: Create the frame

The team heads map out a plan at this phase on how the change is to occur. For this plan to be successful, the opinions of the affected employees must be incorporated or considered.

Phase 3: Managing the mood

The team heads must have the ability to understand and manage the feelings, reactions and mood of the affected employees through constant interaction and communication.

Phase 4: Reinforcing good habits

There should be set out rules and code of conduct that will ensure employees comply with the new change and do not revert back to their old ways of doing things.

4.3.3 Rao‘s model approach Another approach to achieving organizational change was proposed in Rao‘s model (2007), which can be achieved through a five-phase process, as outlined below Table 4. Phases Phase 1: Persuading

Table 4: Rao‘s model approach Description At this phase, change leaders assess the strength and emotions of the affected employee in order to ascertain whether their mood is


4.3.4 Lewin‘s model approach The Lewin‘s change model (Lewin, 1947) categorizes the process of change into three phases. This approach has wide applicability in IS research and has been used by several studies in investigating IS phenomenon (Cummings & Worley, 2014). Some of the areas where it has been applied include Geographical Information Systems (GIS) implementations Chandio et al. (2013), and in supply chain management (Lee & Lee, 2010). The phases of the model are as outlined below Table 5. Phases

Table 5: Lewin‘s model approach Description

Phase 1: Unfreezing

This phase destabilizes the norm by discarding old behaviors in

Page 30

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 order to allow for new behaviors or changes to be introduced. Phase 2: Moving

In this phase, the old behaviors are unlearnt and new behaviors are learnt.

Phase 3: Refreezing

Here, a new equilibrium or norm is instituted ad stabilized in such a way as to enable the new behavior to flourish.

The first three implementation model approaches discussed (Kolb-Frohman, Garvin-Roberto, and Rao) are more suitable for cases of change process managements where the consultant proffers advice on how to manage the change process. They are not very useful in cases where the manager or team leader does the actual management of the change process. Lewin’s implementation model has attracted wide usage in many studies on societal and organizational change mainly because of its broad implementation phases (unfreezing, moving and freezing) as well as its simple framework structure (Schein, 2013). Burnes (2013) in their study, asserted to this fact by stating that majority of the recent models used in organizational change studies are adapted from the three-phase model of Lewin. Chu and Smithson (2007) suggests that it is important to consider the effects change on individual, sociopolitical, and responsibility factors of an organization in RFID implementation. Also, Cule and Robey (2004) posits that IS implementation must consider how to manage these changes in IS implementation. Following the shortcomings of the process models and the advantages of the Lewin-Schein’s model, this study proposes an integrated model approach. 4.3.5 The Integrated model approach The integrated approach is a mapping of the seven stages of Kolb-Frohman’s (1970) model into Lewin-Schein’s three-stage model Kirby (2012) by operationalizing the Lewin-Schein model to describe the consultation process as shown in Table 6. The choice of Kolb-Frohman’s and Lewin’s models for this study is based on certain considerations. Ranjan, Goyal, Khajuria, and Roy (2013) stated that of all the organizational change models, the Lewin-Schein framework and the Kolb and Frohman's model were the most used because of their suitability for modeling people-task-technology structures in organizations. Also, they do not need to be manipulated for their reality to be confirmed (Bond, 2013). Using the IS components in Lewin’s model does not require a situational analysis for the construction of a universally applicable model that explains organizational change behavior. This means that it allows for easy integration with the Kolb Frohman’s model. This is in agreement with the assertion of Vancouver, Weinhardt, and Vigo (2014) that expectations are contingent beliefs that permit for easy integration of learning model to control theory models of self-regulated behavior.

Table 6: A Mapping of Lewin-Schein and KolbFrohman’s models LEWINKOLBMapping SCHEIN FROHMAN Outcome Model Model Phase 1: Unfreezing

Phase 1: Scouting

Phase 2: Moving

Phase 3: Diagnosis

Phase 2: Entry

Phase 4: Planning

Technical Analysis and Design

Phase 5: Implementation Phase 3: Refreeze

Phase 6: Evaluation

Institutionalization

Phase 7: Termination

The two change models selected for the study describes the change management processes involved in the implementation RFID systems based on the various IS theories. Bau (2013), in his study on value chain analysis of a firm, adapted the Kolb-Frohman model for deliveryoriented representation of corporate functions. His adjustments and enhancements to the model typify the integration process on which this research bases its integration of the Kolb-Frohman’s and Lewin’s models. Furthermore, Bahari (2013) in his study on the implementation of Citizen Relationship Management in Malaysian local governments asserts that the simplicity with which the Lewin’s model encapsulates the implementation process of change in organizations gives it wider acceptability and usage among many researchers. His assertion is in agreement with (Suc, Prokosch, & Ganslandt, 2009). In another comparison, Pan, Pan, Newman, and Flynn (2006) posits that although several change models such as Kotter’s, Gavin and Roberto’s, and Cooper and Zmud’s models, offer procedures for change process management, the Kolb-Frohman’s model was the most suitable for change agents. Therefore, given the fact that Kolb-Frohman’s model does not incorporate major stakeholders that are deeply involved in system implementation and issue management during the actual change process such as support the system developers, there is need to address these limitations by integrating the Kolb-Frohman’s model with the Lewin’s model which incorporates the change in values and attitudes of the major actors involved in the implementation process as well as serve as a magnifier of the detailed processes undertaken during the change process implementation. Thus, the justification of integrating and using these two models (Kolb-Frohman’s and Lewin’s) are based on these arguments. The steps to be taken during the integration process of change models for the cooperation of developers and users of an information system (e.g. RFID implementation) are discussed in the proposed integrated model approach presented in Table 7 below. Table 7: The proposed integrated model approach Phases Description Phase 1: Create Climate for and


Create Climate for and contract for change

This phase requires much prior work to be conducted before the Page 31

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 contract for change

design. The desired change must be born out of need and selfmotivation and bound by a mutual contract between the user and one who is credible and committed to implement the system (implementer).

Phase 2: Technical Analysis and Design

This phase addresses the unforeseen challenges to be encountered in institutionalizing the system so as to ensure that the changes remain even after the consultant or implementer departs from the scene, by aligning the changes with the goals and objectives of the organization.

Phase 3: Institutionalization

In this last phase, the success factors are identified in order to achieve the intended goals or outcome.

5 CONCLUSION The advancements in new technologies has defined new user types and functions from the usage patterns of traditional system leading to new challenges in the way new systems are designed, implemented and understood. This has made it difficult to characterize generic phases of implementing systems using traditional process models which require a sequential management of processes for a successful implementation of new technologies. Given that RFID is a new and still evolving technology, its implementation challenges demands more than process models which are best suited for contemporary information systems environment if the system design and implementation is to be well understood (Garud et al., 2013). There is therefore a need to look beyond the views of Allison (1971) tactical “Up and In” approach or Weick (1969) “Down and Out” approach and focus on the larger perspective of carefully building coalitions of complex negotiations and more strategic goal to address the challenges of interdependencies, whose geometric growth and implications extend over time. This study presented a comprehensive overview of RFID technology. The aim of the study was to offer insights into the challenges of RFID implementation in university libraries. The paper discusses the roles of technology, user and management in RFID implementations; their interrelationships and pitfalls. The findings clearly show that although RFID holds several promises for university libraries, there are several untendered issues regarding RFID implementation. The literature review findings show that there are very few studies in the area of RFID implementations in university and libraries and even where literatures exist, they failed to adopt a holistic approach to RFID implementation from user, organizational and technological perspectives. The study therefore proposes a new methodological integrated model approach to be used in investigating this challenging area of RFID implementation. The practical implication of this integrated model approach is that it can be used to develop coalitions of complex negotiations that is able to ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

identify the various factors that exist interdependently under a highly dynamic environmental context such as RFID implementation in university libraries. The novelty of this approach is a major contribution to the body of knowledge in the domain of RFID technology implementations. REFERENCE Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of Decision. Massachusetts, Boston, USA: Little Brown. Bahari, M. (2013). Citizen relationship management implementation in Malaysian local governments. Brunel University, School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics. Bahri, S., & Ibrahim, A. (2013). RFID in libraries: a case study on implementation. Library Hi Tech News, 30(5), 21-26. Bell, S., & Wood-Harper, T. (2013). How to set up information systems: a non-specialist's guide to the multiview approach: Routledge Braglia, M., & Frosolini, M. (2014). An integrated approach to implement project management information systems within the extended enterprise. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 18-29. Chandio, I. A., Matori, A. N. B., WanYusof, K. B., Talpur, M. A. H., Balogun, A.-L., & Lawal, D. U. (2013). GISbased analytic hierarchy process as a multicriteria decision analysis instrument: a review. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(8), 3059-3066. Chang, T.-H., Hsu, S.-C., & Wang, T.-C. (2013). A proposed model for measuring the aggregative risk degree of implementing an RFID digital campus system with the consistent fuzzy preference relations. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(5), 2605-2622. Ching, S. H., & Tai, A. (2009). HF RFID versus UHF RFID—Technology for Library Service Transformation at City University of Hong Kong. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 347-359. Chu, C., & Smithson, S. (2007). E‐business and organizational change: a structurational approach. Information Systems Journal, 17(4), 369-389. Chukwunonso, F., Ibrahim, R., and Selamat, A. (2014). Exploring the Research Methods Employed for Investigating Current Challenges in E-learning Adoption in Universities: A Short Literature Review, In New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 265, 906-920. Doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-434-3-906. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Milton Park. Abingdon, Oxon,[England]: Routledge. Cule, P. E., & Robey, D. (2004). A dual-motor, constructive process model of organizational transition. Organization Studies, 25(2), 229-260. Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and change: Cengage learning. Page 32

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 Davenport, T. H. (2013). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology: Harvard Business Press. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kapoor, K. K., Williams, M. D., & Williams, J. (2013). RFID systems in libraries: An empirical examination of factors affecting system use and user satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 367-377. Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2014). How do libraries manage the ethical and privacy issues of RFID implementation? A qualitative investigation into the decision-making processes of ten libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 0961000613518572. Filip, F. G. (2011). Designing and building modern information systems; A series of decisions to be made. Computer Science Journal of Moldova, 19(2), 56. Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775-819. Garvin, D. A., & Roberto, M. A. (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 104-112. Irani, Z., Gunasekaran, A., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2010). Radio frequency identification (RFID): research trends and framework. International Journal of Production Research, 48(9), 2485-2511. Kausal, M. A., Jadhav, I., Pachpande, S., & Rane, K. P. (2014). A Paper on RFID in Library Automation. International Journal of Advanced Electronics and Communication Systems. Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2010). Understanding users’ behaviors regarding supply chain technology: Determinants impacting the adoption and implementation of RFID technology in South Korea. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 388-398. Kirby, M. T. (2012). Action Research for Sustainable Change. Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Human Resources and Employment Forms, 2, 283. Kolb, D. A., & Frohman, A. L. (1970). Organization Development Approach to Consulting. Sloan management review, 12(1), 51-65. Lang, J., & Han, L. (2014). Design of Library Smart Bookshelf Based on RFID. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 519, 1366-1372. Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2010). Management Information Systems: International Edition, 11: E. Lee, I., & Lee, B.-C. (2010). An investment evaluation of supply chain RFID technologies: A normative modeling approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(2), 313-323. Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in social psychology, 3, 197-211. Lucas Jr, H. C., Swanson, E. B., & Zmud, R. (2008). Implementation, innovation, and related themes over the years in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 8. ISSN 2289-1358 © 2015 JISRI All rights reserved

Luo, Y. C., Cao, J. J., & Qian, J. F. (2013). Exploration and Construction of Smart Library Based on RFID Technology. Advanced Materials Research, 765, 17431746. Makori, E. O. (2013). Adoption of radio frequency identification technology in university libraries: A Kenyan perspective. Electronic Library, 31(2), 208-216. Maxwell, J. C. (1865). A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, 459–512. McEvoy, R., Ballini, L., Maltoni, S., O’Donnell, C. A., Mair, F. S., & MacFarlane, A. (2014). A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implementation Science, 9(1), 2. Mehrjerdi, Y. Z. (2011 ). RFID: the big player in the libraries of the future. Electronic Library, 29(1), 36-51. Minami, T. (2006). RFID tag based library marketing for improving patron services Advances in Knowledge Acquisition and Management (pp. 51-63): Springer. Ngai, E. W. T., Moon, K. K. L., Riggins, F. J., & Yi, Y. C. (2008a). RFID research : an academic literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 510–520. Ning, L., & Xing, Y. L. (2013). The Application of RFID Technology in the University Library. Paper presented at the Applied Mechanics and Materials. Pan, G., Pan, S. L., Newman, M., & Flynn, D. (2006). Escalation and de‐escalation of commitment: a commitment transformation analysis of an e‐government project. Information Systems Journal, 16(1), 3-21. Ram, J., Corkindale, D., & Wu, M.-L. (2013). Implementation critical success factors (CSFs) for ERP: Do they contribute to implementation success and postimplementation performance? International Journal of Production Economics, 144(1), 157-174. Ranjan, P., Goyal, R., Khajuria, N., & Roy, S. P. (2013). Mapping expertise and improving communication in the HelpAge global network. Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Richardson, R. (1963). Remotely activated radio frequency powered devices. U.S. Patent, 3, 098 971. Rieback, M. R., Simpson, P. N., Crispo, B., & Tanenbaum, A. S. (2006). RFID malware: Design principles and examples. Pervasive and mobile computing, 2(4), 405-426. Schein, E. H. (2013). Notes: towards a model of organizational therapy. Humanness in Organisations: a Psychodynamic Contribution, 91-102. Sing, J., Brar, N., & Fong, C. (2013). The state of RFID applications in libraries. Information technology and libraries, 25(1), 24-32. Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., Robinson, S. G., & Kettinger, W. J. (2014). Using an Old Dog for New Tricks A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Consumer Acceptance of RFID Applications. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 85-101. Page 33

Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation 9(1), 26-34, February 2015 Suc, J., Prokosch, H.-U., & Ganslandt, T. (2009). Applicability of Lewin s change management model in a hospital setting. Methods Inf Med, 48(5), 419-428. Tajima, M. (2007). Strategic value of RFID in supply chain management. Journal of purchasing and supply management, 13(4), 261-273. Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (2013). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal: Harvard Business Press. Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Vigo, R. (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 56-74. Vasishta, S. (2009). Roadmap for RFID implementation in Central library, PEC University of Technology. Wang, K.-S. (2014). Intelligent and integrated RFID (IIRFID) system for improving traceability in manufacturing. Advances in Manufacturing, 2(2), 1-15. Weick, K. (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Massachusetts, Boston, USA: Addison Wesley. Wu, N.-C., Nystrom, M., Lin, T.-R., & Yu, H.-C. (2006). Challenges to global RFID adoption. Technovation, 26(12), 1317-1323.


Page 34