Innovation with Information Systems: An Appropriation Perspective

Transcription

1 Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) ACIS 2004 Proceedings Australasian (ACIS) December 2004 Innovation with Information Systems: An Appropriation Perspective Michael Davern University of Melbourne Carla Wilkin University of Melbourne Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Davern, Michael and Wilkin, Carla, "Innovation with Information Systems: An Appropriation Perspective" (2004). ACIS 2004 Proceedings This material is brought to you by the Australasian (ACIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in ACIS 2004 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact

2 Innovation with Information Systems: An Appropriation Perspective Michael J. Davern Carla L. Wilkin Department of Accounting and Business Information Systems The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010, Australia or Abstract In this paper we present the preliminary results of a research study looking at innovation with information systems from an appropriation perspective. We develop a taxonomy of appropriations (the innovationappropriation matrix) and classify instances of appropriations of a reservation system at two sites in a large Australian holiday park chain. Our preliminary analysis yields insights into achieving the Ideal-Design Cycle and the use of information systems for sharing best practices in a geographically distributed organization. Keywords Innovation, Appropriation, Adaptive Structuration Theory, User Centred Design INTRODUCTION The ability to transfer best practices internally is critical to a firm s ability to build competitive advantage (Szulanski, 1996 p.27). As embodiments of organizational routines and processes, Information Systems (IS) are a key vehicle for promoting and sharing best practices, particularly across geographically distributed organizations. However, IS are also subject to interpretation and appropriation by users: implementation and use are defined by social context and local constraints as much as by concrete system features and functionality. Indeed, this flexibility is what makes information technologies powerful artefacts and interesting to study. It also offers the potential for misinterpretation, misuse and consequent loss of the potential organizational benefits of shared standards of best practice. In this study we explore the appropriation of IS with a view to improving innovation and design of best practice business processes. An appropriation is an action or behaviour evidencing choices about how users apply the structural features and functionality of a technology (DeSanctis and Poole 1994). Appropriations can be functional, providing innovative use of technology for organizational benefit. They can also be dysfunctional, and thus circumvent the organizational benefits offered by a system, or even be contrary to an organization s goals. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the role of appropriation in innovation and ongoing design (the design cycle). Specifically we develop a taxonomy of appropriations from an innovation perspective and describe what is required to influence appropriation behaviours to support innovation. To this end we explore several illustrative examples of appropriation of specific system features of relevance to routine tasks in the reservations management process of a large holiday park chain. The results of our analysis provide a foundation for reconceptualizing the design process and the importance of user centred design (Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998) to promote the development and sharing of best practice business process through innovative information systems design. In the next section we review the motivation for our study, and the literature on the appropriation of technology. This leads us to the formulation of the Appropriation-Innovation matrix, and the concept of the Ideal-Design cycle. We describe our research context and method, concluding with an overview of progress-to-date. MOTIVATION AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT Motivation for Practice and Research Context The use of IS as a tool for competitive advantage has long been recognized (Ives and Learmonth, 1984). One such use is the application of IS for identifying and sharing best practices within a firm. Success in such an application requires a critical understanding of how IS features and embedded processes are appropriated. Since development of the SABRE Reservations system at American Airlines in the 1960s, the travel and hospitality industry has been at the forefront in the innovative use of IS for competitive advantage. While computerized reservation systems and associated revenue yield management practices are well established in the airline industry (e.g. Cross, 1997; Smith et al., 1992), they have not yet reached the same position in the holiday park industry in Australia. Consequently, we have embarked on a large program of research into the role of IS in the

3 adoption and rollout of yield management practices at a large Australian chain of holiday parks (we call Omega). In the present work we consider the appropriation of the existing reservation management systems at individual franchisee locations within the Omega chain. Omega plans to use the reservation system as the vehicle for delivering yield management practices out to the individual parks, which otherwise operate with almost complete managerial autonomy. Appropriations and the Spirit of the Technology Adaptive Structuration Theory (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994) is premised on the notion that there is choice in how technology is used and that use is a social process (DeSanctis et al., 2000). How a technology is appropriated the choices made in patterns of use mediates any performance impacts of a system. Appropriation is concerned with how a system is actually used, which may or may not be how it was intended to be used. While systems clearly can vary in their restrictiveness (Silver, 1990; Wheeler and Valacich, 1996), the possibility remains for them to be used in quite different ways from that intended by the designers (Davern, 1996). As DeSanctis and Poole (1994, p.129) note: Appropriations are not automatically determined by technology designs. Rather, people actively select how technology structures are used, and adoption practices vary. Given the availability of technology structures, groups may choose to: (a) directly use the structures; (b) relate the structures to other structures (such as structures in the task or environment); (c) constrain or interpret the structures as they are used; or (d) make judgments about the structures (such as to affirm or negate their usefulness). Technology structures are the rules and resources provided by the system (Chin et al., 1997; DeSanctis and Poole, 1994). From a functional perspective, a specific technology structure provides a set of features for performing some task or process with the system. Appropriations of technology structures consider the social context, the knowledge of the users, and the Spirit of the technology. Analogous to the spirit of the law, the spirit of the technology is the goals or general intent of a set of features of the system (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Chin et al., 1997; Salisbury et al., 2002). DeSanctis and Poole (1994, p.126) describe the spirit as: the official line which the technology presents to people regarding how to act when using the system, how to interpret its features, and how to fill in gaps in procedure which are not explicitly specified. The concept of spirit is theoretically complex (e.g. see Chin et al., 1997 for a detailed review). Spirit is subject to change over time with repeated use and interpretation through the structuration process. Spirit can be described as objective, but as also subjective and thus dependent upon the perspective of who is describing/defining the spirit. For the present purposes we focus on the spirit at the point of adoption/implementation. At this point spirit is largely determined by the intents of the designers (e.g. Dennis et al., 2001). Thus, empirically it can be assessed by an analysis of the features of the system, training materials and system documentation. The Appropriation-Innovation Matrix Adaptive Structuration Theory classifies appropriations as either faithful or unfaithful. Formally, faithful appropriations are consistent with the spirit. In contrast, unfaithful appropriations do not conform to the spirit, although importantly this does not mean that the resulting behaviours are bad per se. Indeed, unfaithful appropriations may be quite innovative (Davern, 1996). Thus, we consider the classification of appropriations as functional or dysfunctional in terms of performance outcomes. More specifically we consider dysfunctional outcomes as those that run counter to the organization s goals with respect to operational efficiency and effectiveness, and managerial effectiveness. Table 1 shows the labels we assign to the different combinations of faithfulness and performance outcomes: The Appropriation-Innovation Matrix. Table 1: The Appropriation-Innovation Matrix Functional Dysfunctional Faithful Equilibrium Developer Domination Unfaithful User Innovation User Circumvention Equilibrium appropriations are those that are both faithful to the spirit and functional in terms of performance. In such situations users are efficiently and effectively using the features of the system as the designers intended. On the one hand equilibrium would seem to be a favourable outcome: the melding of successful design and stable usage patterns. From an innovation perspective however, equilibrium implies a lack of stimulus for innovation (e.g., recognition of problems or opportunities) and thus the usage behaviour may be stagnant rather than favourably stable.

4 User innovation arises when unfaithful appropriations are functional: they have positive performance impacts. This may be the successful result of efforts to work around a design flaw 1. Alternatively it may represent user insight derived from their immersion in the context of use (i.e., understanding from the coalface or factory floor ). An appropriation that is faithful but dysfunctional is labelled Developer Domination. In part this is an issue of flawed or dysfunctional design. However, the fact that users have not innovated around the dysfunctionality is also a matter of concern. When a user does not use the system as intended, and the performance outcomes are undesirable, we label the appropriation as an instance of User Circumvention. Such unfaithful dysfunctional appropriations represent a problem with user behaviour, more than issue of system design. The Design Cycle and Appropriation Moves In terms of the Appropriation-Innovation Matrix, the ideal situation is clearly to be continually cycling through from equilibrium to innovation and back to equilibrium (as the innovations are incorporated into a revised system design). We label this repeated process the Ideal Design Cycle. Consequently, it is important to understand how to move between cells in the Appropriation-Innovation Matrix both in terms of the ideal design cycle, and with respect to moves from the dysfunctional cells of the matrix (e.g., from Domination and Circumvention). The Ideal Design Cycle. Moving from Innovation to Equilibrium mandates an ongoing process of user centred design. Ongoing design recognizes that design and development does not end at the first delivery of the system. User centred design entails requirements analysis and design specification that takes account of how users actually carry out their day-to-day tasks (see Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998 for a full explication). This demands substantial observation of user behaviour as part of the requirements elicitation process. Moving from Equilibrium to Innovation requires some stimulus, for example through an examination of practices and systems at other locations in the firm to identify and share best practices. Moving from Domination to Equilibrium or Innovation requires the encouragement or reflection on the part of users and designers to realize the dysfunctionality. Alternatively, if the users are already aware of the dysfunctionality, they need to be empowered to either communicate it effectively to the designers or to innovate around it. 2 Moving from Circumvention to Equilibrium suggests a need for greater restrictiveness (Silver, 1990; Wheeler and Valacich, 1996) to be introduced either through system controls or training and user incentive schemes. Of course greater restrictiveness limits the ability for the users to innovate. However, the occurrence of Circumvention appropriations suggests that allowing end-users the opportunity to innovate can be dangerous (somewhat akin to the dangers of end-user computer as per Davis, 1984). From an innovation perspective, a key impediment to the successful functioning of the design cycle is the assimilation and successful application of knowledge. In the case of designers, it is knowledge of user practices (innovation to equilibrium) or within firm or industry best practices (to stimulate moving to a superior equilibrium). In the case of users it is knowledge of the dysfunctionality of the practices (e.g., Circumvention to Equilibrium), within firm or industry best practices (Equilibrium to Innovation) or the potential for innovating around the dysfunctionality (Domination to Innovation). Such a position is entirely consistent with Szulanski s (1996) finding that one of the top three impediments to the transfer of best practices within a firm is absorptive capacity (i.e., the ability to value, assimilate, and apply new knowledge successfully to commercial ends, p.31). RESEARCH APPROACH AND DESIGN In this study we adopt a multiple information sources research method (Orlikowski, 1993; DeSanctis and Poole, 1994) utilising observation and analysis, followed by semi-structured interviews. This combination of complementary research approaches focuses on studying work practices in organisational settings (i.e. Currie and Galliers, 1999), which supports our objective of developing and applying a taxonomy of appropriations. For our initial study we focused on two small-to-medium sized Parks, A and B, recruited on a voluntary basis following a personal approach through Omega s headquarters. Both Parks offer similar choices in accommodation to transit and destination patrons, and utilise the same reservation system (common to about 80% of Omega s franchisees). Park A is located in metropolitan Australia, and has a relatively steady flow of patronage; whilst Park B is located in rural Australia, and experiences much more seasonal variation. 1 Or it could be that the system is outdated due to a change in the environment. 2 If designers are aware of the dysfunctionality, then the obvious question is why the dysfunctionality has not been addressed (e.g., with improved design or a bug fix) unless the negative impacts of the dysfunctionality are outweighed by substantial costs for rectifying the problem.

5 In total, two extended observation sessions involving six park staff were conducted over several weeks. Following each observation, notes and tape recordings were analysed. This assisted in the formulation of questions for the follow-up semi-structured interviews conducted with senior reception staff at each location. Observations were critical as they allowed us to study the use of features and workflow patterns in their natural setting. As non-participant-observers, we examined events as they happened (Cavana et al., 2001). We purposely chose to be led from observed behaviours to an analysis of the appropriations of the system (as opposed to focusing first on an in-depth analysis of the system itself). Subsequently, we examined the system and associated training materials to assess the spirit from the designer s perspective. Follow-up interviews with senior reception staff were more semi-structured (Coombes, 2001), and facilitated interpretation of the instances in terms of the Appropriation Matrix. PROGRESSIVE RESULTS Below we present our classification of several illustrative appropriations of reservation system features (see Table 2). To evaluate the performance outcome (functional/dysfunctional) we consider the impact of each appropriation in terms of operational efficiency, operational effectiveness, and managerial effectiveness Table 2: Classification of Appropriations of Reservation System Features Functionality/Dysfunctionality Operational Managerial Usage Instance Faithfulness Efficiency Effectiveness Effectiveness Group Bookings Park A (No use of group bookings) Group Bookings Park B (Multi-accommodation type) Group Bookings Park B (Single Payer) Appropriation Matrix Classification Unfaithful Yes Yes No Operationally Innovative Managerially Circumvention Unfaithful Yes Yes No Operationally Innovative Managerially Circumvention Faithful Yes Yes Yes Equilibrium Black List Park A and B Faithful Yes Not completely Yes for trends No for control 5 License Plate Park A and B Faithful No No Irrelevant Domination Equilibrium/Domination An Overview of Group Bookings A group booking arises when more than one site/unit is booked under the same name, meaning reservations take on a hierarchical nature: Master bookings house details of the main booking for a group it is where details pertaining to the group are recorded. From the master booking, sibling bookings are added. Sibling bookings, connected to the master booking, house information related to individual guests (i.e. individual arrival and departure dates). A design flaw exists in that, group bookings and individual bookings are separated in any search, creating problems if a user tries to do a simple search based on customer surname. 1. Group Booking (No use of the group booking feature) - Park A treats group bookings as a series of individual bookings coded as Bloggs (1), Bloggs (2), Bloggs (3) and so forth. This innovatively facilitates customer enquiries as it overcomes the abovementioned design flaw, but then results in the inability for management to analyse group booking behaviour. 2. Group Booking (Multi-accommodation type) - The group-booking feature is used innovatively in Park B for individual bookings when a customer changes accommodation type in the course of the same stay. For example, a customer may stay 4 nights in a deluxe chalet followed by 2 nights in a chalet. Here, instead of generating multiple accounts, the group-booking feature is used and results in the generation of a single account. 3. Group Booking (Single Payer) - Park B uses the group-booking feature in the intended manner when they have a clear indication of the person paying and the account is to be paid by one person (i.e. a single account is generated). 4. Black list - A black list comprises individuals who, for reasons such as declined payment(s) or unruly/disruptive behaviour, are ejected from the accommodation venue. Once action is taken against a customer, a park adds to their site black list. Black listed customers are prevented from rebooking, however operationally this is not completely effective as it black lists on name only, not on address (black listed customers have subsequently successfully re-booked using another name, e.g., that of a spouse with a different

6 surname). Both parks appear not to have attempted any workarounds for this issue. Managerially, park management are at least able to gauge trends in black listing. 5. Licence plate number - Both Parks A and B capture licence plate number as part of the check-in process. This information is called upon to help management with their day-to-day operations (i.e. a car is parked in an inappropriate location) and to address queries from authorities. Current design makes recollection of licence plate difficult as the field is not one of the five predefined searchable criteria (reservation number, group name, surname, site, phone AH). Essentially the recording of the licence plate information serves no functional purpose. As with black listing, both parks appear not to have attempted any workaround (although one could simply be done by, for example, recording licence plate details and a reservation identifier in a separate spreadsheet that could be searched). CONCLUSION While our research to date is limited (two parks, and only preliminary data collection) and is still ongoing, there are several notable outcomes from this early analysis. First, we find variation in appropriation of systems at the level of system features (none of the users appropriate the system faithfully wholesale). Second, there is variability in appropriations from site to site, and some of these appropriations are quite innovative (and thus warrant sharing within the firm). Finally, it is clear that an appropriation may be functional at an operational level but dysfunctional at a managerial level; suggesting the importance of communicating managerial information requirements to operational level staff. In our ongoing analysis we seek to understand the appropriation moves (Jasperson et al., 1999) or lack thereof as users move from the dysfunctional cells in the appropriation matrix to the functional cells and enter the ideal design cycle. REFERENCES Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1998) Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Cavana, R.Y., Delahaye, B.L., and Sekaran, U. (2001) Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Ltd, Queensland. Chin, W.W., Gopal, A., and Salisbury, W.D. (1997) Advancing the Theory of Adaptive Structuration: The Development of a Scale to Measure Faithfulness of Appropriation, Information Systems Research, 8(4), Coombes, H. (2001) Researching Using IT, Palgrave, New York. Cross, R.G. (1997) Revenue Management: Hard-Core Tactics for Market Domination, Broadway Books, New York. Currie, W.L., and Galliers, B. (1999) Introduction in W.L. Currie and B. Galliers, (eds), Rethinking Management Information Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Davern, M.J. (1996) When Good Fit is Bad: The Dynamics of Perceived Fit, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, Davis, G.B. (1984) CAUTION: User Developed Systems Can Be Dangerous to Your Organization, ACS Bulletin, July, Dennis, A.R., Wixom, B.H., and Vandenberg, R.J. (2001) Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems Via Meta-Analysis, MIS Quarterly, 25(2), DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M.S. (1994) Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science, 5(2), DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S. and Dickson, G.W. (2000) Teams and Technology: Interactions Over Time, In Griffith, T.L. Technology, Ives, B., and Learmonth, G.P. (1984) The Information System as a Competitive Weapon, Communications of the ACM, 27(12), Jasperson, J., Sambamurthy, V., and Zmud, R. (1999) Social Influence and Individual IT Use: Unraveling the Pathways of Appropriation Moves, Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, Orlikowski, W.J. (1993) CASE Tools as Organisational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Information Technology Objectives, MIS Quarterly, 24(1), Poole, M.S., and Dickson, G.W. (2000) Teams and Technology: Interactions Over Time, Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 3, Salisbury, D., Chin, W.W., Gopal, A., and Newsted, P.R. (2002) Research Report: Better Theory Through Measurement Developing a Scale to Capture Consensus on Appropriation, Information Systems Research, 13(1), Silver, M.S. (1990) Decision Support Systems: Directed and Nondirected Change, Information Systems Research, 1(1), Smith, B.C., Leimkuhler, J.F., and Darrow, R.M. (1992) Yield Management at American Airlines, Interfaces, 22(1), Szulanski, G. (1996) Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17, Wheeler, B.C., and Valacich, J.S. (1996) Facilitation, GSS, and Training as Sources of Process Restrictiveness and Guidance for Structured Group Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment, Information Systems Research, 7(4), COPYRIGHT Michael J. Davern and Carla L. Wilkin The authors assign to ACIS and educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement

7 is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to ACIS to publish this document in full in the Conference Papers and Proceedings. Those documents may be published on the World Wide Web, CD-ROM, in printed form, and on mirror sites on the World Wide Web. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.