IT Implementation process - Implementing innovations

1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 Implementing innovations

2.2.2 IT Implementation process

Another model by Zmud and Apple from 1989, introduces a model for IT implemen-tation, and it takes the perspective of technological diffusion. IT implementation in this case is defined as ‘an organizational effort directed toward diffusing appropriate information technology within a user community’. (Cooper and Zmud, 1990: 124).

The process consists of six stages including initiation, adoption, adaption, acceptance, routinization and infusion. Initiation refers to scanning the organizational problems and opportunities. Here, pressure to change evolves from organizational need, techno-logical innovation or from a combination of both. Adoption stage of the process in-cludes negotiations to ensure the support for the change, while adaption refers to re-vising and developing the organizational procedures as the IT application is installed and maintained. Acceptance stage includes committing organizational members to the usage of the application. The last stage of the process, infusion refers to increased organizational effectiveness that is accomplished through the usage of the technology (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

This model was founded on Lewin’s change model. The initiation stage can be asso-ciated with the first stage of Lewin’s model, unfreezing. Furthermore, adaption can be related to the phase of change, while the last stages can be associated with the refreez-ing stage of the model. (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

The technology acceptance model was developed to examine the computer-usage be-havior by Davis in 1989. It adapts a theory of reasoned actions (by Fishbein and Ajzen) to an acceptance model of IT users. The theory of reasoned actions suggests

that beliefs influence attitudes. This is proposed to lead into intentions, which are seen to guide or generate behaviors. However, it is seen that this model has been quite rarely tested among professionals. (Hu et al., 1999).

Figure 2. Technology acceptance model: adapted from Davis, 1989

According to Vuonovirta (2011), the model explains the factors affecting the ac-ceptance and usage of information technology. The model suggests that perceived easiness of use and perceived usefulness are the primary factors affecting the attitudes toward using and behavioral intention to use an information technology. This is illus-trated in Figure 2 below. This model has been further developed to Technology ac-ceptance model 2. This model expanded the number of variables affecting the atti-tudes toward using and behavioral intention to use an information technology. This model considered also the effects of voluntariness, subjective norms, image, job rele-vance, output quality and result demonstrability. Here social norms refer to the expec-tations and attitudes in the community.

This model expands our understanding of the implementation of innovations. It sheds light to some of the important issues to be considered when introducing a new techno-logical innovation – the model emphasizes different factors that people value in order to decide their attitudes and intentions towards the usage of a technology.

21 2.3 Commitment

The research in change management has mainly focused on identifying critical factors affecting the success or failure of a change process. However, there is still need for more research on explaining the importance of various factors to successful change (Luoma, 2015). It has been noted that the role of employees – including the attitudes and behaviors towards the change – has been shown critical for successful change attempts (Shin et al., 2012; Arikoski and Sallinen, 2007). One of the essential ele-ments contributing to successful organizational change is commitment (Shin et al., 2012; Arikoski and Sallinen, 2007; Meyers et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2007; Iverson 1996). However, Shin et al. (2012) suggest that commitment to change can be chal-lenging to achieve since changes may be experienced as intriguing and disturbing the routines and social relationships that have been the key supports in the daily work.

There have been various definitions for commitment. In this study, the definition by Meyer and Herchovitch (2001) is used. Meyer and Herchovitch (2001:299) define commitment as ‘a force that binds individual to a course of action of relevance to a target’ and that it ‘can be accompanied by different mind-sets that play a role in shap-ing behavior’. The work of Mayer and Herchovitch (2001) has been widely cited by other scholars. They developed a general model for workplace commitment, and were among the first scholars to tap on this topic. They developed three characterizations of three types of commitment that have been widely used by other researchers. There were categorized based on different mind-sets of employees. These categories includ-ed affective attachment to the organization, perceivinclud-ed cost of leaving and obligation to remain. They suggested that commitment may be accompanied by any of these three mind-sets, which were labelled as affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment.

Iverson (1996) notes that scholars have disagreed over the definition of organizational commitment. However, scholars seem to agree that commitment as a term can be used to describe both attitudinal and behavioral commitment. These two terms are seen as distinct but related. Attitudinal commitment is seen to represent ‘the degree of loyalty an individual has for an organization’, while behavioral commitment reflects ‘the pro-cess by which individuals link themselves to an organization and focuses on the

ac-22

tions of the individuals’ (p. 128-129). It seems that common to these theories is that they reflect a link between the individuals and the organizations.

2.3.1 Commitment to change

It has been highly noted, that commitment is an essential element contributing to a successful organizational change (e.g. Brown, 2007; Meyers et al., 2007; Sidle, 2003;

Iverson, 1996). However, Meyers et al. (2007) note that there is only little empirical evidence to support this common claim.

Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) developed a model of commitment to organizational changes, which was used for systemic investigation of commitment in this context.

This model was based on Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) general theory of workplace commitment, which was introduced above. In their study Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), they proposed that commitment could take different forms and have different implications for the nature and level of employees’ behavioral support for a change.

In their study, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) found evidence to support both their hypotheses when studying primarily female hospital nurses. In their study, they found that the nature of commitment is important in explaining why employees go beyond the minimum requirements of the organization and the change process. Employees with strong affective commitment (those who believe in the change and want to con-tribute to its success) or with high normative commitment (those who feel a sense of obligation to support the change) should be willing to do more than what is required.

This happens even if this requires some personal sacrifice. However, it was also found, that employees with high continuance commitment (those whose commitment is based on perceived cost of failing to support the change) would contribute only a little more than what is required.

Meyer et al. (2007) built on this study. In their research, they chose a very different change context and sample, bringing generalizability to the findings. However, they also found, that commitment to the change itself was a better predictor of behavioral support to the change when compared to commitment to the organization. They con-cluded that employee commitment is a key factor in implementing organizational

changes. Furthermore, they extended this idea by suggesting that commitment to the change initiative might be even more important as compared to commitment to the organization itself.

In the study conducted by Iverson (1996), organizational commitment was also found to be one of the most important determinants of organizational change. Furthermore, organizational commitment was found instrumental in achieving organizational change as it was found to be an intervening variable for determinants in the model studied. Thus, it was suggested, that, as a determinant and mediator, organizational commitment should be integral to any change strategy.

Implementing information systems has also been widely researched as a process. Ac-cording to Brown (2007), this process is seen to progress as stages from initiation to infusion. Brown et al (2007) extended the study by Iverson (1996) by studying the role of five broad factors, which have been repeatedly associated with success and failure in the implementation process, in the process of implementing information systems. The items were selected though reviewing the existing literature. There five factors include 1) commitment, 2) knowledge, 3) communication, 4) planning and 5) infrastructure. In their study they identified commitment as the resources that were dedicated to IT and as the dedication to changing the procedures of the organization.

The resources included both financial and human resources.

Brown (2007) found that commitment is one of the main factors affecting successful implementation of information systems. In the study, communications and commit-ment was found as most important factors, as they were most frequently cited in the existing literature. Commitment gained importance steadily throughout the process, and it was found to be the most important factor in the stage of acceptance.

Arikoski and Sallinen (2007) show a model for individuals’ commitment to change.

This model is divided in eight stages: sabotage, resistance, resignation, neutrality, empowerment, acceptance, acting, cooperation and commitment. This model resem-bles a common view that individuals have a tendency to resist changes at first, but then people start to accept the changes and reorganize the attitude and practices.

24 2.3.2 Affecting commitment to change

According to Burke (2008), the reactions of the individuals can be affected. It is sug-gested that the ease of change is dependent on how much individuals believe they can define and execute the change. Thus, it is seen, that to reduce resistance to change, it is important that individuals feel they participate to the change process and can affect to the change. Thus, top-down approach to change is seen to increase resistance and it should be avoided.

This thesis views commitment to change from the perspective of employees. Along-side with the sensemaking process, the thesis examines the factors affecting success-ful change process. Whelan and Somerville (2010) note that changes in organizations are actually about changes at the individual level, as change takes place in the behav-ior, practices, values and attitudes of the individual employees.

Various scholars have studied the factors that affect employees’ commitment to change, that should be considered during the change process. Some of the factors af-fecting to commitment are found for example as communications, sense of procedural justice (Sidle, 2003) and leadership (Hill et al., 2012; Neves, 2011). This section pro-vides an overview of the factors that have been found to affect the commitment in the literature.

Parrish et al (2008) note various aspects that affect the commitment to change. Firstly, the change must be in alignment with the strategic vision of the organization. Fur-thermore, they see that the quality of the employee-leader relationship affects the level of commitment. Furthermore, they saw that the work motivation and the level of in-dependence in the work of the employees affect the commitment. Thus, they suggest for example, that the more motivated the employee is, the more likely the employee is to commit to both the organization and the change itself. These four issues were seen to affect affective and normative commitment positively and were seen as enablers for these types of commitments.

Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010) suggest that participation in change process deepens the understanding about the change, and may lead to increased commitment.

Foster (2010) supports this view and suggests actions by which participation can be

increased. These measures include dialogues, interviews and forums, which all en-courage sharing the visions and emotions of the individual. Brabant et al. (2007) ex-amine committing employees to reorganization, and suggest that making employees participate is important, but as important is to appreciate the employees that are un-willing to participate in the change process.

Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) as well as Brabant et al. (2007) see that employ-ees are valuable assets for the changes – the ideas of the employemploy-ees should not only be listened, but managers and leaders should also act upon those ideas in the planning and execution stages. Brabant et al. (2007) further suggest that openness is in a key position for accepting reorganization and committing to the changes. Accepting and committing to the change was seen easier when employees are enabled to participate to the planning and execution of the change. Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011) see that participation can decrease the anxiety and uncertainty of the employees, which increases the sense of control and trust towards the future. Furthermore, it is suggested that employees who feel they can individually affect the change – the education and training, scheduling etc. - are expected to possess affective or normative commitment to change (Parish et al., 2008).

Parish et al. (2008) note some further factors affecting to the commitment, which in-cludes consistency with the vision, the relationship between the employee and leader, motivation and feeling of independence. They suggest that good relationship with the supervisor and motivation towards the change results in less feelings of being coerced to implement the change. They also suggest that independence in work role makes individuals more committed to change.

Another factor affecting to commitment to change is suggested to be justice, both be-tween individuals and regarding knowledge (Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011;

Foster, 2010; Whelan-Berry and Somerville, 2010). The justice is reflected especially in the communications between the employees and supervisors. Communications should be detailed, timely and individual, explaining every stage of the change pro-cess. Here again, participation through education and feedback forums are suggested.

(Rissanen and Lammintakanen, 2011; Foster, 2010)

The importance of communications is also noticed by Whelan-Berry and Somerville (2010), who state that communications directed towards understanding the need for

change is essential. Regular communications can increase understanding about the change, resulting in increased commitment. Furthermore, they note the importance of two-way communications, which includes sharing information and listening to others.

According to Rissanen and Lammintakanen (2011), healthcare sector varies from oth-er fields in that often decisions are made extoth-ernally of the organizations, which often means the political decision makers of the municipalities. Thus, the changes in the field of health care are often involuntary at least to some extent. They further note that the specific features of the health care organizations, such as large size, hierarchy and competing interests of different professional groups, bring challenges to managing change. They note that the sense of justice is dependent on the level of knowledge employees have about the change, participation and cooperation. Commitment to change can be enforced by feeling of togetherness, equality, sense of safety and mutu-al trust. Especimutu-ally the role of trust is highlighted – sense of justice leads to trust and trust requires sense of justice.

Hill et al. (2012) highlight the importance of the communications in commitment to change. They studied how hierarchy and transformational leadership affect the affec-tive and normaaffec-tive commitment of the employees. Transformational leadership style is often related especially to change situations and it refers leaders that create and communicate a vision, create empowering opportunities and stimulate people intellec-tually, and have personal credibility that affect in trust and admire (Herold et al., 2008). Hill et al. (2012) suggested that the effectiveness in communicating the change at the upper management levels has an important role. This was in both top-down and bottom-up communications. Top-down communications was found important for en-hancing the level of affective commitment, and it played an important role especially in the early stages of the change process.

Sidle (2003) studied the importance of commitment during the change processes. The findings supported the findings from other scholars introduced before. Increasing commitment was seen to require communications, for example regarding the purpose of the change early in the process. The feelings of justice were seen to affect the atti-tudes and behaviors of employees. Overlooking employee perceptions over procedur-al justice in the planning stage may affect the employees’ trust in executives

negative-27

ly, their willingness to stay in the company and the sense of psychological contract to the company, referring to mutual obligations binding employees to the company.

Hill et al. (2012) studied the effects of direct leaders in the change context. Most of the research has been conducted focusing on top level or middle level managers. They found that the leadership style affected the level of affective and normative commit-ment especially at the early stages of the process. At first stages, employees reported higher levels of affective and normative commitment, when the leader used trans-formative leadership style. Hill et al. (2012) further suggest that when commitment is established through transformational leadership, the level of commitment may remain unchanged throughout the process.

Finally, related to leadership, Neves (2011) studied the relationship between supervi-sor competence and support and commitment to change. It was noted that supervisupervi-sors, as change agents, play a key role in implementing the change successfully. Their study found that perceived supervisor support mediated a positive relationship be-tween competence and affective and normative commitment to change. However, supervisor competence was found to be negatively related to continuance commit-ment.

2.4 Sensemaking

Sensemaking refers to the ‘site where meanings materialize that inform and constrain identity and action’ (Weick et al., 2005: 407). As a term it is self-explanatory as it simply means marking sense of events. Materializing in this context refers to sense-making being an issue of language, talk and communication as for example situations are brought into existence through talk (Weick et al., 2005). Weick (1995) explains that people generate sense in their words through conversations. This takes place when people convey something about their ongoing experiences. According to Pek-karinen (2015), the ideal result of a sensemaking process is realizing the meaning of the event.

According to Weick (1995), sensemaking simply means the making of sense. The conceptualization of sensemaking has been examined from the perspectives of

strate-28

gy and socialization. From the strategic perspective, sensemaking has been seen as a framework and directive force in interpretations (e.g. Westley, 1990; Goleman, 1985;

Dunbar, 1981). In comparison, socialization perspective sensemaking is a thinking process - or a recurring cycle - that uses retrospective accounts in explaining surpris-ing events (Louis, 1980). Accordsurpris-ing to the latter perspective sensemaksurpris-ing starts when individuals make predictions about future events. After this people experience the events and the experiences may differ from the predictions. These surprises then trig-ger a need for explanation and for a process through which interpretations of the dis-crepancies can be developed (Louis, 1980).

Weick (1995) notes that sensemaking exists everywhere, since people can make sense of everything. Sensemaking has been examined in organizational contexts. Weick (1995) notes that in organizations sensemaking occurs especially in two common oc-casions: in cases of ambiguity or uncertainty. These two cases engage people in sensemaking due either being confused by too many interpretations (ambiguity) or being ignorant of any interpretations (confusion).

Sensemaking must be separated from interpreting. According to Weick (1995:13),

‘sensemaking is about the ways people generate what they interpret’. Furthermore, sensemaking consists of actions, activities and creation that lay down traces that are then interpreted and probably reinterpreted. This categorization suggests that sense-making is about activities or processes, while interpretation can be a process or a

In document Making sense of commitment to change : case of implementing information systems in health care (sivua 20-0)