Up to this point, I have proceeded additively. That is, I have striven to describe all the many moving parts involved in my process conceptualization of IT encountering, without really trying to distill clusters within it. For example, I have discussed various
manifestations of resource constraints and several kinds of response cycles, but I have not attempted to establish, within the confines of the data, which particular resource
constraints seem more strongly connected with certain kinds of response cycles. The main reason why I have not done so is that my cross-case examination of the data10 suggests that such clusters are fragile. At any time, they can be overridden by new ecological change, leading to emergent behaviours not fitting into the pattern.
However, considering that these clusters, as a softer form of ideal types, can act as “models that assist in thinking about social phenomena” (Barley 1996 p. 407), I will present four of them. I label these clusters archetypal wisdoms to stress two aspects about them. First, these clusters are archetypal because they are grounded in typical instances present in the data, yet they condense and simplify those instances to convey a neater
10
For conducting cross-case analyses, I followed a case-oriented strategy (Miles and Huberman 1994), and looked at whether certain themes found about attention and interpretation (e.g., time constraints) would correspond closely with specific responses (e.g., boundary spanning) across several sequences of events, based on emergent theorizing. Cross-case analyses were supplementary, not part of the main analytical strategy. This is why they were not mentioned in Chapter Five.
picture. Second, they are called wisdoms to highlight that cause maps take centre stage in them, these wisdoms are little capsules of causal, ‘if-then’, knowledge acquired on the basis of experience, which are retained and exploited as needed, whose use appears sensible to the individual, and which can be self-reinforcing (Weick, 1979). These four archetypal wisdoms are to the IT encountering model what leitmotifs are to a musical composition: They are small, yet salient and recurrent patterns (of attention-
interpretation-responses) which have their own identity and are located within a broader structure.
To denote the everyday nature of these wisdoms, I will present them in form of well- known proverbs or idiomatic expressions taken from the English language. Readers will recognize these sayings, will likely be able to take themselves back to situations of any sort where the saying echoes, at least to some extent, their own interpretation and responses to the situation, and will perhaps appreciate what participants are trying to do when their thinking and action follows the logic of any of these archetypal wisdoms.
Use it up, wear it out, make it do: Minimizing expenses
This wisdom uses thriftiness as the guiding principle for action. The if-then clause at play is straightforward, and it is actually contained in common definitions of this proverb: If a person does not have a lot of money, then they should try to extend the useful life of what they have. This archetypal wisdom connects several aspects of the model. As cues are interpreted, the situation is defined as a small problem, one which can be fixed with available means. The key constraint is money, and this is why frugality becomes the key parameter to define the suitability of a course of action. Interpretations of this kind go
together with shunning cycles, in which business owners will attempt to tinker with their technologies, stretch or make do, so as to minimize expenses.
I did not identify any typical outcomes resulting from the application of this wisdom. Sometimes mending efforts work and stabilize, sometimes they do not. Further research could try to distinguish characteristics that distinguish successful from unsuccessful shunning responses. Yet, it is worth noting that the proverb describes an attitude towards perishable items, and in fact it is commonly thought that it originated from a World War II public campaign encouraging citizens to prolong the life of manufactured goods. Similarly, it is likely that this wisdom, as applied to the IT encountering phenomenon, carries an underlying meaning of temporality in the shunning responses undertaken.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: Staying away from unnecessary changes
This wisdom involves exerting discerning capacity to distinguish between changes that must be carried out and changes that do not. The former are needed because the current set-up is insufficient and fails to meet expectations, the latter are not needed for the opposite reason. Implicit in this assessment is the intuition that all changes entail risks, hence unnecessary changes trigger unnecessary risks. The if-then clause is slightly more complex, as it involves two ‘ifs’ and one ‘then’ premises: if the business owner is being prompted to change their IT set-up and if they are also convinced that their current set-up still works sufficiently well, then they should eschew prompts and keep what they have unchanged. This wisdom connects various components of the model as follows: cues suggesting change ‘for its own sake’ conflict with indications that things are going well. Business owners disambiguate messages by assessing the advantages and disadvantages
of both inaction and change, they conclude that benefits pale in comparison to risks. Benefits can only be marginal, because the core of their current choice still works. The largest risk is not being able to put back together a working environment as reliable as the one they have now. Business owners need to enter an engaging cycle in order to reach that assessment. Even if before they enter this cycle they already know that what they have ‘ain’t broke’, it is through the knowledge acquired during the engaging cycle that they learn about the risks involved in change, and that knowledge is what ultimately drives their decision not to fix what does not need fixing. Therefore, the typical outcome is non-adoption or non-switch.
A reminder about my conceptualization of information technology is important at this point. Earlier, I noted that IT products and services are multidimensional, in that most of them encompass at least two, if no more, of these elements: a manufacturer, a direct provider or reseller, a delivery mode, a licensing type, a version, an operating system or a computing platform. This multidimensionality affects the encoding of failure and
success. At any time, some dimensions might be working and some others might be failing. Therefore, this archetypal wisdom is often used selectively upon the dimensions which are not failing, with the intention of retaining them and changing the other
dimensions. For example, if the software brand works but not the version because of its age, participants will keep the brand and upgrade the version, or if the web developer works but not the website, they will keep the person and ask for changes to the website. This observation is introduced to qualify my previous argument suggesting that the typical outcome of this wisdom is non-adoption or non-switch. In these cases, the typical outcome is likely to be a partial switch.
Once bitten, twice shy: Evading failure by preventing exposure to change
This wisdom relies heavily on prior bad experiences, and discourages business owners from entertaining the thought of change, let alone trying change. The if-then clause can be formulated in these terms: If a person has had a bad experience (with a technology), then they should be careful to avoid similar courses of action in the future. This
archetypal wisdom brings together engaging cycles, tipping points, money and time constraints, and disengaging cycles. Initially, the business owner embraces change, enters an engaging cycle, explores their options and adopts or switches a technology. Then, cues start to emerge indicating that the change has not been successful. This interpretation of experience leads to a tipping point whereby the individual shifts from engagement to disengagement. Further, they are disheartened by the results, and they are unwilling to enter a new engaging cycle to try to get a better result a second time around, because they are fearful that money or time invested on finding and acquiring a new technology will be wasted again.
The typical process outcome is a severely scaled down or abandoned technology. The learning outcome is all the more discouraging, and is crisply summarized by a business owner who openly admits she has been bitten:
It is very hard when you’re trying to use the technology out there and it just keeps backfiring, you get very frustrated and so much for technology, I’ll go the old fashion way! (Participant 6)
Doing what it takes: Overcoming obstacles and facing change
In essence, this wisdom is a self-directed and rather desperate call to arms to stop the operational pain produced by the use of a malfunctioning or inappropriate technology.
The if-then clause is again straightforward: If a person has a burning problem, then they should do whatever is necessary and do not stop until they solve the problem, no matter which obstacles they might need to face. The model components more clearly clustered within this archetypal wisdom are disambiguation of cues, definition of big problems, limited knowledge and engaging cycles. Here is how they interconnect: cues might initially suggest a potential problem or a small problem, but they accumulate or aggravate so as to suggest a much worse issue. The problem gets so big that inaction, or little tinkering efforts, are not an option, there is simply too much at stake. A solution is desperately needed for the business to continue or resume normal operations, the sooner the better. To be sure, money and time are an issue but one that can be sorted out. Knowledge, or rather lack thereof, is a much more critical constraint, inasmuch as business owners know the problem, but not necessarily the solution to it. Therefore, they must embark on an engaging cycle as a means to acquire that knowledge, and then develop and follow an appropriate course of action. During the engaging cycle, doing what it takes means combining as many responses (i.e., search, experimentation, boundary spanning, screening and DIY) as necessary, until an appropriate course of action is identified. Typical outcomes are adoption and switching.