Problems of using the technology

The usability of technology is not an unambiguous concept; usability is understood differently by different users, and it is felt highly individually. Orlikowski (2000: 409) presents some aspects influencing its use:

Use of technology is strongly influenced by the user’s understandings of the properties and functionality of a technology, and these are strongly influenced by the images, descriptions, rhetorics, ideologies, and demonstrations presented by intermediaries such as vendors, journalists, consultants, champions, trainers, managers, and “power”

users.

All of these aspects, and many others too, and also the feelings and the mood of the user influence whether she/he decides to use the technology, and how it is used. The technology may not be used precisely as it was intended that it should be used, as Orlikowski (2000:

508) explains:

When a user chooses to use a technology, they are also choosing how to interact with that technology... Users may also choose not to use technology even if it is available

Users may find new ways to use technology; people may improvise their technology-in-practice, generating situated innovations in response to unexpected opportunities or challenges, such as when temporary machine workaround becomes the preferred practice because it turns out to be more effective than the original practice.

Technology does not produce anything per se, but the users, human beings, use the technology for production. Most of the failures of information system development projects have their roots in human factors and the reason for this could be that information systems are too often designed with the users and their socio-technical context being ignored. The belief in the almighty power of ICT to develop any action or transaction has been, and may still be, strong. ICT in particular is considered to be “a triumph of the progress of scientific reason”, unbounded by human traditions and untainted by the subjective human condition (Avgerou 2003: 73). Technology is perceived as being independent from its social environment, and this has caused resistance for the user to accept the system (Huysman and Wulf 2006), and partial (or total) failures in ICT implementation in information systems. The context of an organisation affects the technology strongly, as Orlikowski (1992: 421) states:

The culture of the workplace, managerial ideology, and existing bases of expertise and power significantly influence what technologies are deployed, how they are understood, and in which ways they are used.

The technologies may be designed in one organisation, then implemented by another. The user organisation, where the technology should is utilised, may be the third different organisation. And even inside the organisation the user of the technology is not necessarily the one who decides which technology is chosen. Hence, successful ISD is not only a question of the technical and social sectors, but it also has to fit the organisation. Despite the technological success the system can still fail because the technology has not been accepted among the user community. Furthermore, an IS can be both a technical and social success, but still be unsuitable for its mission in organizational form (Baskerville and Land 2004).

Thus, the technology itself does not cause obvious success; on the contrary, if it does not function as it should, it may even be seen as threatening for an organisation. The triumph of novel technologies has furthermore led to a situation where organisations’ operations are more and more dependent on the technology, and much more vulnerable to technical breakdowns (Orlikowski 1992).

Westrup (1998) presents several facts which may problematise the acceptance and use of computerised systems: familiarity with computers, ability to use a qwerty keyboard, familiarity with the WIMPS interface, the presence of system admin, and knowledge of English. The language is probably the biggest barrier to the use of new technologies, and the cause of human errors all over the non-English-speaking world. Especially when one is learning to use new technologies, the language should be familiar. Still, if the users are not native English speakers, it is very probable that they will have to learn the new technology in a foreign language. Usually, the languages available are those of Western or Eastern industrialised countries, but very few African or Asian languages, (Saunders 2007). Also, in Finland⁴ which is one of the producer and utiliser of high technology, the language is a problem. All Finns have to have at least some level of English skills to be able to learn to use new software, and although the core of the software might be in Finnish, fault prompts, for instance, which are important in use, are usually in English.

When an information system has been designed and implemented, it is in the hands of the user. In the end, it is the user who

4 Finnish is a minor language with about 5 million speakers

dictates how and when the technology is used or not. According to Orlikowski (1992: 408):

users interpret what is appropriate, and manipulate it in various ways, being influenced by a number of individual and social factors.

and ( 412)

When users do not use the technology as it was intended, that may undermine and sometimes transform the embedded rules and resources.

Users do not necessarily use the technology mechanically as originally planned, but they may find new, more suitable ways to use technology, and this may be more effective than the original plan (Orlikowski 2000).

The attitude towards new technologies has a strong influence on the use of an information system, and the perception of the usefulness of the IS, as Hanmer (2008, p. 86) confirms in her study of successful implementations of computerised hospital information systems (CHIS) in South Africa:

The attitude of users is reflected in their perception of the usefulness of a system for them. If users believe that a CHIS is useful for them, they will make an effort to ensure that the system works and will use the outputs from the system. Conversely, if there is a perception that a CHIS is not useful, there will be little or no commitment by users to ensuring that the system is used correctly and outputs from the system will not necessarily be used, especially when similar information can be obtained from other sources.

Inappropriate or malfunctioning information system in organisation causes many kinds of lost resources, such as time, money, or clients. A workable system needs organised work, and when people organise their working days, they expect the system to work fluently, they do not include time for “tinkering to get systems to work, waiting for help to come, and so on” (Kling 1999). In the end, frustration with unsatisfactory information systems cause loss of motivation, and this causes turnover of the personnel.

Anyhow, the use of information system is a social phenomenon, and when the technology is understood as a strange social environment, it may even cause conflicts between the users in the target organisation and the developers (Westrup 1998, 2000; Orlikowski and Barley 2001;

Ciborra 2004; Avgerou 2005), and the new technologies may even be seen as hostile.