You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Computer Science » Kling Or Fleck

Free Essays - Computer Science Essays

A number of analysts have produced frameworks for socio-technical analysis (e.g. Kling's web of computing, and Fleck's technology complex). Using examples from the case studies discussed during the course of the module, critically compare either Kling or Fleck's approach with more traditional managerial frameworks such as that proposed by O'Hara et al. to account fortechnology-led change in organisations?

Klings web model makes a connection betweentechnology and the social aspects of its application. It considers computerisedsystems as a social organisation interconnected at every level, not actingindependently but as an interconnected entity depending on social relations andinteractions between participants, infrastructure and history. In this instancethe system cannot be analysed as a discrete set of components. The shape of thesystem is dependent on the social relationships and not jus the informationsystem requirements.

The web model is process oriented which seeks to harmonize thesocial aspects of a system with the technical by considering all things infrastructure.Here infrastructure is defined as a collection of resources includingelectricity, space, equipment, communications and skilled people. An analogy toIT systems would be a film, the visible parts are the actors and sets, the nonvisible parts without which the film would not be possible are things such aslighting, costumes, coach actors. From the 80's onwards film credits started torecognise these people because the whole would not be possible without the sumof the parts. This concept also applies to IT systems, providing the technologywill not lead to a complete or useful IT system, it needs to do useful work forpeople and so needs to be considered in a social context.

In O'Hara's approach the framework is split into two and thereis a division between the technology and social aspects. This is further brokeninto 3 levels depending on the complexity and level of change and resourcesavailable. These 3 levels in O'Hara's framework for change are known as alpha,beta and gamma level.

This approach seeks to maximise the interaction between thesocial and the technical and identify the level of change required. Thus aninformed decision can be taken as to the amount of resources that need toassigned in order to make the project a success. .

The alpha level change is task oriented and is basedprimarily just on the technology. Beta and gamma levels are process oriented,as they involve role and organisational interactions. There are fewer projectsthat are now alpha level (task oriented) and this reflects positively onKling's web model which treat the organisation as a social whole rather thantwo separate parts as O'Hara does.

O'Hara's framework can be considered a traditionalsocio-technical approach, where users are included in the change process andcan contribute ideas and preferences. However users are not aware of thedesign, infrastructure or resources available, and so solutions are developedto solve specific problems identified by the user without consideration ofthese factors.

By considering available resources and infrastructure Kling'sweb model extends this concept to help users to better identify theirpreferences and what they want from an IT system by increasing their competenceand understanding. Through this users are more informed as to what isrealistically possible with the resources they have. In Kling's model computinginfrastructure is as important as the technology to provide a workable ITsystem.

A concluding example would be the choice of RDBMS in thecase study. Although Dbase111 was the market leader, funding was limited, henceparadox was chosen as it also fulfilled the requirement. This is anillustration of considering the available infrastructure to make the bestchoice.

Question 2

Evaluate the extent to which theory such as the SocialShaping of Technology may enhance our understanding of I.T related change?

Social shaping of technology (SST) can offer importantinsights into how IT and technology brings about change in our society. Thechange can be at many levels including Work, Home and

Business. SST goes beyond understanding or highlighting thesocial impact of new technology and tries to identify early in the technologicalcycle what social impact that new technology will have and why , SST studiesshow that technology is a social product , patterned by the condition of its creationand use( Williams R 1997).

New technology and its effects are not really understood bythe majority and particularly new innovations and its effects on society arenot really understood even by the creators. Currently the social effects anddirection of new technology are unknown until the technology matures and thereis wider adoption of it. It can then be adapted to fit more naturally andprovide value.

For example the internet was created over 30 years ago, itwas not until the early 90's that it was becoming mainstream but even then itwas still slow and text based and available only to privileged few. By the late90's it had been adapted and become mature enough to provide real value tousers with audio/video capability and broadband being affordable

The evolution of the internet can be seen as an example of areactive and defensive response to technology. Security threats and virusissues were only addressed and given priority when they became problematic anda major issue. SST would aim to overcome this issue by enabling a morepro-active role and identifying these kinds of issues.

The linear model of innovation is where an invention is innovated andsent to the market place. SST works to extend this to an interactive' model ofinnovation which advocates that implementation is an important part ofinnovation. The term 'Innofusion' (Fleck 1998a in Williams R 1997) encompassesthe fact development of technology is not black box and is achieved throughdeterminate processes of technological design, trial and exploration, in whichuser needs and requirements are discovered and incorporated to enable thetechnology to be useful. Crucial innovations take place both at the design andat the implementation stages, and are continually fed back into future roundsof technological change. Innovation is seen as a iterative social process.

Although there is no formal model for SST it has been used to goodeffect to research the social effects of technology in a number of areas withinIT such as hardware, software discrete and integrated IT applications. Thecommon theme is that user requirements are not being captured or their needsbeing met.

A classic example would be of the PC, it was developed as a tool fordoing useful work like word processing, but hijacked by young boys to playgames which subsequently drove an explosion in the home pc games market. Thisrecently has extended to downloading music and communicating through online chat.SST needs to be evolved further so that it can try to answer or explain some ofthe questions its raises.

Question 3

O'Hara et al present a three-tier framework to account fortechnology-led organisational change. Critically evaluate this framework fromthe point of view

• of a manager and
• of a researcher

O'Hara's framework considers that change in a work system needs to goes beyondjust technological change and consider numerous social factors which arecritical for project success. These factors include management style, projectteam characteristics and organisation and how they are affected by thetechnology and level of change.

The framework for organisational work change consists ofthree levels, alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha being the lowest and Gamma being thehighest level of change. The magnitude of change required will affect thesuccess factors for the system and have differing consequences for the numerousactors involved with the system. The framework provides an insight into how achange affects each part of the work system and focuses attention on thecharacteristics that are required to make a project a success.

The effects for the manager and researcher (user/organisation)are described below:

The Manager

The Higher the complexity and level of change, the greaterthe level of understanding and knowledge required on the part of the manager. Thisextends to both a business and technical understanding on the part of themanager. In an alpha level change as the change is technological only, thiswill not require deep business knowledge and only sufficient technicalknowledge. In a beta level change which is task, technology and people, themanager will require a deeper business insight as roles are changing. Themanager will need to assist people in identifying roles and redesigning jobsand this function will be critical to the success of the project. A gamma levelchange involves people, tasks, technology and structure, the manger needs tohave a deep understanding of the business and a management style which empowerspeople and teams to redesign their work roles and organizational structure. Dependingon the level of change, management will need to adapt their styles in order tomake the project implementation a success through its take up by ateam/organisation

The Researcher/User

In an alpha level change, as the researcher is a specialisthe will be concerned with the technology , his role will not change at all buthe may be able to do his research quicker or better. The reason for the changemay need to be explained to generate a better understanding. If training isrequired it will only need to be at a task level i.e. how to use the newsystem.

At the Beta level the complexity increases and there may bea new way of accomplishing work. Typically training sessions may be used togenerate a positive attitude towards the change. As well as task level trainingan extension to workflow training needs to be made as work and roles havechanged.

A gamma level change will still require the above beta levelconsiderations in terms of the job role and tasks. In addition theorganizational change and the reasons for doing it need to be communicated viaperhaps change seminars. This will enable buy in by users to the proposedchanges.

Question 4

It can be argued that the popularity of approaches to ICTrelated transformation such as BPR or X-engineering reflects a tradition in managementthinking that considers such change to be both predictable and controllable.Discuss this viewpoint, using case study examples to support your argument?

The business landscape haschanged, the popularity of BPR and X-engineering reflect a change in managementthinking that these approaches must be adopted in order to make theirorganizations more efficient and responsive to change and business needs. Thethinking is not to control or predict, but to make the organization better ableto respond to a constantly changing and evolving business world.

For the past 100 years companystructure and operation has been based around Smith's division of labour. Workis based around tasks which are specialised and clearly defined and measured.The company structure is hierarchical. This makes each task predictable and allowsmanagement control over workers. However this is yesterday's paradigm as theold ways of doing business simply do not work anymore. Today businesses arefaced with a different world in which there are no boundaries, information isfreely available, new technology is changing the business landscape and customersare more intelligent. Businesses and organizations need to learn to workdifferently.

BPR and X-engineering stipulate that work should be processoriented and not task oriented as in traditional thinking. They promote a viewin terms of organization, that rather than looking inwards and upwards whichkills innovation and efficiency, the need is to look outwards.

A typical example of this would be say, at 4pm it comes to light that an aircraft needs engine repairs in Germany and it will take anhour to fix, however the engineer is based in London. Rather than sending himto repair it straight away his manger sends him the next morning thus avoidingthe 100 overnight stay in a hotel. In this scenario the manager has donenothing wrong, he has controlled his budget, however in the widerorganisational picture the company has lost 1000's with a grounded aircraft. Abetter approach would be to develop a process that moves more decision makingto the engineer and enables the manager to recoup the expenses easily frommaybe a central pool of budget.

Through these approaches organisations can be analysed and processescan be developed and put in place that make the organization work better andmore able to respond to changes. In today's environment the business cycle isno longer predictable or controllable. In fact the only constant is change.Customers hold the power, competition is intense and change is the norm,speeded up by new technology.

The emphasis is on process, as reengineering theorganization around processes will make it more efficient with managers incharge of processes not people or tasks. This leads to more open managementwith delegation of control further down into the organisation and widerco-operation, as the goal of the process is the driving factor not the task. Thislends itself to an organization that as hierarchy that is flatter and not topdown and based on collaboration not control.

To conclude, today ICT related change is normal, it cannotbe controlled or predicted as technology is evolving constantly. However byemploying redesign techniques and developing good processes organizations canposition themselves to better adapt and compete in the new world.

References

Fleck J, Howells (2001) Technology, the technology complex,and the paradox of Technological Determinism. Technology Analysis and strategicmanagement.

Kling R (1992) Behind the terminal: The critical role ofcomputing infrastructure in effective information systems development and use.

Williams R (1997) The Social Shaping of information andcommunications technologies. In: Kubicek,Herbert, Dutton, William H. and Williams, Robin (eds). The social shaping ofinformation superhighways: European and American roads to the informationsociety. Frankfurt Campus, p299-338.

O'Hara MT, Kavan CB, Watson RT (2000)Information Systems

Implementation and organisational change: ASocio-technical Approach. In: CoakesE, Willis D, LIoyd-Jones R (eds) The New Socio-tech: Graffiti on the Long Wall.

London: Springer- Verlag. Chapter 14. Pp 149-159.

Knights D, Wilmott H (2000) The Reengineering Revolution?An introduction.

In: Knights D, Wilmott H (eds.) The ReengineeringRevolution: Critical Studies of Corporate Change. London: Sage. Pp 1 -25.

Michael Hammer, James Champy (1995)Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto forBusiness Revolution

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: