The affordance research described in the previous sections has resulted in refinements and extensions in the affordance nomological network first postulated by Gibson (1977; 1979). However, it is argued that further refinement is necessary to successfully use affordance theory in the study of information systems. A focused specification of information systems (IS) affordances is a starting point for bridging affordance theory and information systems research.
25
Based on the argument made earlier that there is value in maintaining the distinct characteristics of technology, Chemero‟s (2003) definition of affordances is suggested as the most appropriate foundation to construct a specification for IS affordances. Specifically, the use of affordance theory in IS research would be better served by distinguishing between information systems and other elements of the environment within which information systems operate. Therefore, it is proposed that in using Chemero‟s definition, features of the environment should be limited to those of the information system with the rest of the environment repositioned as the context within which features of information systems and abilities of organisms relate to produce affordances. This change in the specification of IS affordances maintains the influence of the environmental context while emphasizing the role of the information system and more distinctly theorizing the IT artifact.
A second change to Chemero‟s definition of affordances involves the organisms of interest to information systems. Since the only organisms that typically interact with information systems are humans, abilities can be narrowed to those of people. Therefore, the term individual will be used in place of organism. These modification to Chemero‟s (2003) version of
affordances would result in a specification for IS affordance in which the relationship between the abilities of an individual and the features of an information system produce affordances within the context of the environment in which they function.
With this initial framing, we can begin to explore a more detailed view of technology affordances. An initial step in this process is to begin classifying affordances based on relevant criteria. In much of the affordance literature, affordances are described as enablers of behavior and a majority of the examples in that literature represent enabling relationships. However, throughout the literature there is often a pairing of affordances and constraints and some
26
researchers assert that the affordance concept should include both enablers of and constraints on behavior (Stoffregen 2003). Based on this assertion, a typology of affordances should
distinguish between enabling affordances and constraining affordances. At one level, the characterization of enabling affordances and constraining affordances might be considered trivial, but the argument will be made that this distinction promotes the concept of paired affordances in designed technology.
The concept of a paired affordance is potentially useful in IS research because frequently technology design results in affordance pairs, one enabling behavior and the other constraining behavior. For example, a firewall provides an enabling affordance of security for users behind the firewall while simultaneously providing a constraining affordance for prospective intruders outside the firewall. In this case the paired affordances are recognized and desirable for the organization implementing the technology. However, in other situations paired affordances may not be recognized and could have undesirable effects. For example, an organization may chose to implement an ERP system to enable common business practices across the firm, but in the process constrain individual business units by limiting their ability to adapt to local
opportunities. In this case the goal of improving organizational efficiency may actually result in reduced efficiency for certain units. Therefore, understanding the nature and consequences of paired affordances may be critical to the effectiveness of information systems in specific environments.
Constraining affordances are also important to recognize and understand because human agents may act to circumvent constraining technology. For example, Malato and Kim (2004) studied the implementation of a computerized medication dispensing system for use by
27
dispensing of medications through use of a fingerprint scanner to reduce costs associated with undocumented medication dispersal and medication errors. An important feature of the system was that even though a nurse had to specify a particular medication for retrieval, once her fingerprint was validated she could access all the prescribed medications for her patients. The nurses were only supposed to take medications to be used at that moment and return later for additional medications as they were needed, but Malato and Kim (2004) found that the perceived inefficiencies of using the system in the way it was designed prompted RNs to circumvent the system by taking all the medications they would need for an entire shift or keeping a secret supply of medications to avoid using the system altogether. This is just one example of a specific association between affordances and human agency that will need to be considered and assessed in this research. This is not, however, a call to re-theorize human agency. There is an entire body of literature on agency concepts like reinvention, enactment, adaptation, etc. (Boudreau and Robey 2005; Johnson and Rice 1987) that have been developed, which may be used to inform and complement this research.
A special characteristic of information systems may also engender an important potential distinction in developing a theory of affordances for IS research. The environment, along with many technologies in the environment, provides direct affordances to individuals through their physical characteristics (e.g. cell phones and laptops have weight and size that afford varying degrees of portability). In contrast, information systems provide certain affordances by
mediating between users and the environment. For example, air traffic control systems afford air traffic controllers the ability to manage airspace along with the airplanes in that space. Without the information system, the air traffic controller would have to observe the airspace directly. Instead, the information system provides a model of that airspace and its associated airplanes
28
with which the controllers can interact (Mathiassen et al. 2000). This mediating aspect of information systems means that a theory of IS affordances may need to distinguish between direct affordances and mediating affordances to adequately theorize the ways in which information system enable and constrain behavior.
These potential classifications of affordances along with the proposed theoretical
specification for IS affordances represent a starting point from which to develop a more complete and useful theory of IS affordances. This theory development effort was carried out using the methodology described in the next section.
29