The aim of chapter four was to investigated innovation adoption patterns and/or the relationship structures that encourage positive individual adoption activities in organisations. We aim to address research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 i.e.: What models identify new technology adoption misalignment? What model and relationships will help to align? How can we validate the model?
To achieve this a classification scheme is required that facilitated consideration of the interaction between individuals, organisations, and/or technologies, in context of innovation adoption. Since it was important that systems aligned to the organisational perspective, the initial classification scheme, termed the dual-aspect model. The original dual aspect model was strongly influenced by Stamper’s semiotic onion and Edward T. Hall’s ‘Crucial Trio Concept’;
with two semiotic onions (Stamper, 1993) coming together; i.e. allowing us to investigate the interaction relationships that occur (see figure 7.1a).
Figure 7.1a: Initial Dual Aspect Model Figure 7.1b: Initial Dual Alignment Framework
Within this model, the research identified three adoption routes consisting of nine points of potential conflicts. By decomposing the dual-aspect model into these nine states (see figure 7.1b), we hoped to better understand the factors influencings misalignment between two interacting systems. We evaluated our classification scheme using a survey questionnaire. As
part of this questionnaire, we included consideration of individual cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962) and technology perception (Kano et al., 1984), to allow us quantitatively determine whether the individual’s internal state was critical to systems alignment. Structured Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis was used to analyse the relationship between the classification scheme and individual attitude and perception, however empirical results did not match the meaning layers, and/or flow directions between layers, as defined in Stamper’s semiotic onion. The findings highlighted that the order and flow between norms in Stamper’s organisational semiotics onion is not evidenced within empirical data. Moreover, it soon became clear that the semiotic onion was unable to effectively represent individuals, preventing consideration of individuals as system; which was deemed as the core to the research problem.
To align with the results, we re-evaluated the work of Hall and proposed an alternative organisational onion, which was not focused on IT development, but systems (individuals, organisations, and technology) interaction and alignment. The new organisational onion (TFIC) consisted of four layers, i.e. technical (outer), formal, informal and concept (core), and significantly differs from the original Stamper’s onion. To allow consideration of core beliefs (see table 7.1), as proposed in the formal layer of Halls, we included a new concept layer (C);
to effectively consider individual cognitive dissonance state and technology perception.
Although, we continued to used Stamper’s layer definitions, as this allowed additional distinction between documented and undocumented formal structures, we changed the flow of direction between layers; i.e. so the core beliefs influence informal structure, which influence formal processes, which in turn influence use of technology (as expression in Hall, 1959). When tested, using SEM, this direction of flow matched empirical data, validating our model, and allowing consideration of interaction between any two systems (individual, organisational, or technical). Accordingly, the new version of the onion supports, and facilitates consideration of, interaction between individual, organisation and technology systems, and was validated by empirical questionnaire data.
Table 7.1: Comparison of Crucial Trio and Organisational Onion Hall’s crucial trio Stamper’s onion
Layer 1 (core) formal (f) - beliefs Technical (T)– technology, software systems Layer 2 informal (i) – behaviour, action Formal (F) – written rules, processes Layer 3 (outer) technical (t) – logics, rules, processes Informal (I) – meanings, intentions, beliefs
As well as validating our model, results showed that the importance given to the formal layer (i.e. the importance of documented formal structures) varied between companies, and that
formal structures were bypassed, i.e. technology was used informally even though not formally approved.
As a result of the changes to the onion (see figure 7.2a), the interaction points between conflicting systems needed changing to reflect the proposed TFIC layers.
Figure 7.2a: Reshaped Dual Aspect Model Figure 7.2b: Reverse Dual Alignment Framework
As a result of reshaping the dual aspect model, the dual alignment framework was also reshaped (see figure 7.2b); and seven new states were added due to the additional ‘core’ layer. The
‘reverse dual alignment framework’ was presented in our work, and an additional link (see link no. 5 in figure 7.2b) was proposed to facilitate consideration of the direct flow in the empirical data between the technical layer and the informal layer; caused as a result of organisational variation in the thickness of the formal layer.
We believe that creation of the reshaped dual-aspect addresses research questions RQ1-2, i.e.:
What models identify new technology adoption misalignment? What model and relationships will help to align? This research was able to design the classification scheme to investigate the individual and organisation dimensions; i.e. by adopting and combining the layers of the organisational onion (Stamper, 1993), with the core layer and flow structure from Hall (1959).
The reshaped dual aspect model and reverse dual alignment framework was validated using empirical data collection, thus satisfying RQ3, i.e. How can we validate the model?
The reverse dual alignment framework suggests that a number of steps are required to achieve complete systems alignment, however that total alignment at all levels may not be required, especially within business, if only formal and technical systems layers overlap. The first step is
technology misalignment/conflict, which highlights the technology customisation and amendment that is needed within systems A and B to reach alignment. The second step is process misalignment/conflict, which highlights the formal customisation and amendment that is needed in systems A and B to reach alignment. The third step is people’s behaviour misalignment/conflict, which was assessed to observe whether any changes were required in informal processes in system A or B to reach alignment.
In addition, the research was also able to investigate, and evaluate, the classification scheme to show how individual cognitive dissonance and technology perception are effectively incorporated within the reshaped dual aspect model; at the core level. The research analysed the effects of technology alignment / conflict against individual cognitive dissonance. The analysis shows how individual cognitive dissonance impacts individual technology perception.
By evaluating the interaction between systems, in connection with individual cognitive dissonance and individual technology perception, as a result from misalignment / conflict from those interactions, we argued that the newly found central layer, i.e. the Concept (C) layer allows us to reflect on how adopting technology relate to core individual/organisation beliefs.
Assessing cognitive dissonance and technology perception therefore, helps us to explain internal processes in terms of conflict and satisfaction, and helps us to understand the interplay of organisational, individual and technology systems.
Interestingly, we believe that full alignment at the conceptual layer is not required within businesses. Stamper assumes that informal and formal systems have to be aligned if technologies can be aligned, but that does not reflect the experiences of the researcher in industry. The new alignment framework assumes that technology alignment can exist between two systems without having formal or informal alignment. Moreover, it suggests that even within an organisation alignment of different formal and informal systems may not be required for them to integrate technically. It is unlikely that conceptual alignment will occur within business systems, which means that focus should be placed on the nine lower states.
Accordingly, consideration of these nine states are more functionally critical to obtaining TT, FF and II alignment within the organisation. If the systems are ‘a technology’ and ‘an organisation’, then technical, formal and informal alignment allow functional integration. If the systems are the integration of two people, or possibly an organisation and the person, in
consideration of the conceptual layer is possible, yet not essential; since two individuals do not have to align their belief systems before they are able to effectively work together.