Organizational Metaphors

nanaz2005

paper_1.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Organizational Metaphors

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 1

abstraCt

This paper describes our use of Morgan’s (1997) metaphors for making sense of end-user attitudes and be- havior in an information systems development project, in a UK National Health Service hospital. We employ a case study approach, within which we elicit the attitudes using a questionnaire and infer the behavior using observations and interviews. We present the results in the form of a journey, tracking the metaphori- cal shift for each end-user, over the project duration. We show how individual journeys can be combined to capture organizations’ shift in metaphorical position. Our results show that within a space of eighteen months the organization’s overall metaphorical stance shifted from the organism to the machine metaphor. This reflects the end-user’s initial optimism for the change to enable ease of working to that of efficiency dictated by the senior management towards the end. We also found that this shift was due to organizational conditional factors. [Article copies are available for purchase from InfoSci-on-Demand.com]

Keywords: Information Systems Development; Metaphors; Organizational Factors; Paradigms

introduCtion

Metaphors are useful communication devices in our daily conversations. They are conceptual tools that we use to make sense of the world and interpret meaning (Ortony, 1975; Oswick

& Grant, 1996; Pepper, 1942; Smith & Sim- mons, 1983). Using analogies, metaphors create mental pictures that help to interpret the world, such as viewing the working of an organization as a machine. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Morgan (1986) believe that by

using Metaphors for Making sense of end-user attitudes

and behavior during information systems development

Zahid Hussain, University of Bradford, UK

Khalid Hafeez, The University of York, UK

IGI PUBLISHING

701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey PA 17033-1240, USA Tel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.igi-global.com

ITJ 4816

2 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

creating certain types of realities within our minds metaphors assist us to contextualize the world in ways that we may not have envisaged before. Morgan (1986) provides eight metaphors for organizations: machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instruments of domi- nation. A detailed description of these is given in Appendix 1. These metaphors help to make sense of organizational structure, manage- ment control, management style and behavior by associating certain meanings to them. On the other hand, these metaphors encapsulate perceptions of individuals by expressing their motives, desires, attitudes, needs and dedication towards the organization.

Orlikowski and Gash (1994) suggest that attitudes, mental frames or cognitive structures have a key effect in shaping the information system development (ISD) related behavior of individuals. End-user involvement and satisfaction is crucial for system success (Adams, 2004; Butler & Fitzgerald, 2001; Harris, 2000; McGill, 2004) especially in public sector organi- zations (Aladwani, 2002; Lau & Herbert, 2001). However, understanding of end-user attitudes and behavior during their involve- ment in ISD is a difficult and complex task, as end-users’ views can be deep-rooted or hidden (Shaw & Lee-Partidge, 2003) while they are still learning about the system and its proposed use (Stein & Vandenbosch, 1996; Tiwana & McLean, 2005; Wagner, 2000). We believe that metaphors can be very useful in dealing with such complexi- ties (Xia & Lee, 2005). In the past, meta- phors have been used by IS researchers in making sense of organizational context. However, most researchers only used one or two metaphors in their study (see for example, Boland & Greenberg, 1992; Heiskanen, 1993; Kling & Iacono, 1984; Mumford & Weir, 1979; Wilson, 1994). However, we concur with Walsham (1991,

1993) and Oates and Fitzgerald (2007) that applying several metaphors would help in making a better sense of the research situation.

Therefore, in this research we use all eight of Morgan’s (1986, 1997) metaphors in making sense of the attitudes and behav- iors of end-users, during their involvement in an ISD project, in a UK National Health Service (NHS) hospital. Using our research instrument (Appendix 1) we mapped Mor- gan’s (1986, 1997) eight metaphors onto Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms. This enabled us to link each of these eight metaphors to their philosophical underpin- ning. We conducted a gap analysis between the underlying attitudes and behavior of several key end-users at the beginning and towards the end of the project. This allowed us to identify a metaphorical journey, for each end-user, during the ISD. For the purpose of this research we define attitudes as the mental concepts (constructs) or as- sumptions of end-users. Whereas behavior relates to any demonstrable physical actions as well as decision-making observed by us or narrated by the end-users (as a reflective or experiential account of the situation). We explain the choice of particular metaphors for each end-user and track their journey by using graphical representation. We use Walsham’s (1993) organizational condi- tional factors (namely, context, process and content or nature of the system) in explain- ing the metaphorical choices of end-users, hence their metaphorical journey.

The structure of this article is as fol- lows: Section 2 provides a literature review on the use of metaphors in the IS field. Section 3 provides a brief overview of the case organization. Section 4 describes the research methodology, data collection and analyses. The subsequent sections comprise: research results, discussion,

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 �

implications for research and practice, and conclusions.

Metaphors and inforMation systeMs: a literature review

Many researchers have used metaphors to un- derstand and explore beliefs and perceptions of organizational stakeholders. For example, Gibson and Zeller-Bruhen (2001) use metaphors to explain organizational teamwork in different contexts. Polley (1997) uses the metaphors of bifurcation and mathematical chaos to explain organizational dynamics. Sushil (2001) uses 10 metaphors to describe managerial flexibility. Morgan (1980) and Bryant (1993) employ metaphors as problem solving devices and for making general sense of organizations. Morgan (1986, 1997), of course, uses eight metaphors as to capture human presuppositions and as- sumptive structure regarding the nature of organizations.

The popularity of the metaphor is reasoned as a way of conveying meaning in a powerful, imagery-rich manner (Ricoeur, 1978; Sacks, 1978). Within metaphors, thought, emotion, social action space and time are interwoven, making the metaphor a powerful means to cap- ture some or many aspects of multidimensional meaning, and importantly, meaning making. Morgan (1986, 1997) stresses the significance of the metaphor, not just as a device for em- bellishing discourse, but the use of metaphor implies a way of thinking and a way of seeing that pervades how we understand the world generally.

Metaphors and is

Metaphors are recognized in the (IS) literature (Kendall & Kendall, 1993; Oates & Fitzgerald, 2007; Walsham, 1991) as mental constructs that express the minds and the behavior of end-us- ers. Metaphors may relate to the organization’s social reality, such as IS goals and the role of stakeholders, or choice and performing of IS

activities, and so forth. Metaphors also come into play when there is a possible conflict of fit between the developers’ underlying attitudes, against which the system is developed, and the perceptions and behavior of end users (see for example, Adams et al., 2004; Shaw & Lee-Par- tidge, 2003). Some other examples of metaphor use in IS research are provided in Table 1.

organizational Conditional factors

Walsham (1993) advocates the importance of interpretivism and social behavior approaches (like metaphors) for evaluating the role of IS and its development in organizations. He empha- sizes three conditional factors that could affect attitudes and behavior of end-users, namely, content, context and process. Content concerns the problem being addressed, such as the nature of the system in question. Context concerns the environment within which something would take place. This may include hindering and enabling factors in the organization (Constan- tinides & Barrett, 2006) like organizational culture (Heracleous, 2001). Whereas, process concerns the logic in which something would happen, such as developing IS. According to Walsham, these conditional factors interact with one another and a combination of these then determine the outcome, for example develop- ment and use of IS.

Doherty and King (1998), on the other hand, emphasize the need to understand the influence of technology on the organization and its contextual factors. For instance, the generation of a new power structure in an organization, as a result of the acquired IS, could reveal the impact of IS on organizational factors (Bloomfield & Coombs, 1992; Hussain & Taylor, 2007; Nadan, 1997). In this research we also focus on the role of conditional factors in influencing the mindsets and behavior of end-users as developers.

burrell and Morgan’s paradigms

Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) work on organiza- tional paradigms has had an important impact

� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

on Morgan’s (1980, 1986, 1997) work on metaphors. In this article, we use both Burrell and Morgan’s organizational paradigms and Morgan’s metaphorical images, in order to make a better sense of end-user attitudes and behav- iors. We aim to use Burrell and Morgan’s orga- nizational paradigms for classifying Morgan’s metaphors based on their orientation.

Burrell and Morgan (1979) put forward four organizational paradigms using five sets of assumptions that are prevalent in organiza- tion studies. The first of the five assumptions is ontological, and concerns the nature of the social world. On one hand the social world is

considered external to the individual: ”reality” is objective (realism). On the other hand, the social world is considered to be the product of individual consciousness: “reality” is subjec- tive (nominalism). The second assumption is epistemological, which concerns the grounds of knowledge. At one end, knowledge is real and tangible: it can be communicated explicitly (positivism). At the other end, knowledge is soft, subjective, and spiritual: it can only be experienced (antipositivism). The third is hu- man nature and associated human relationships within the social environment. At one extreme, human beings are viewed as being conditioned

Researchers Applications

Kling (1978) Looks at how a mechanistic metaphor may be used for understanding com- puter-based technologies and systems.

Kling & Iacono (1984)

Look at the use of power and social relationships in implementing manufac- turing requirements purchasing system. They use a political system metaphor to explain key behavioral aspects, such as campaigns for building support and quieting opposition to maintain their control over system development.

Madsen (1989) Uses metaphors in assisting system design by enabling organizational par- ticipants to reflect upon and “break down” their work into simpler tasks.

Baskerville (1991)

Uses a model of knowledge acquisition attitudes, based on a continuum con- sisting of instinctive (nonpositivist) to mechanistic (positivist) dimensions, to classify the philosophical assumptions of IS designers from their com- ments and behavior.

Hirschheim & Newman (1991) Describe ways of developing systems that may be understood by means of metaphors.

Keys (1991) Uses metaphors to look at Operational Research and its role in organiza- tions.

Boland & Greenberg (1992) Employ machine and organism metaphors to show how they can influence an IS design.

Couger, Higgins, & McIntyre (1993)

Illustrates how metaphors may assist IS designers to be more creative in problem-solving.

Kendall & Kendall (1993)

Use metaphors to analyze several well-known ISD methodologies using six metaphors, namely: journey, war, game, organism, society and machine. They concluded that the IS developers should choose appropriate ISD meth- odology to suit the metaphors of eventual system users.

Wilson (1994) Uses the brain metaphor to design IS in their research organization.

Kaarst-Brown & Robey (1999) Use metaphors to reveal assumptions (i.e., how the use of IT may unearth any cultural differences across the organization).

Porra, Hirschheim, & Parks (2005)

Use mechanistic, organic and colonial metaphors within a General Systems Theory framework to investigate inconsistencies between the deployment of IT resources and the mismatch with organizational operations at Texaco.

Table 1. Use of metaphors by information systems researchers

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 �

by their environment (determinism). At the other extreme, human beings are viewed as the creators of their environment as they possess free will (voluntarism). The fourth assump- tion concerns the method used to investigate and obtain knowledge of the social world. At one extreme, method views the social world as external consisting of objective reality (no- mothetic). At the other extreme, method views the social world as created by the subjective experience of individuals (ideographic). The fifth assumption concerns the nature of society and the degree of regulation: whether or not the social world is stable, cohesive and integrated with underlying unity.

These assumptions underpin four organiza- tional paradigms: interpretivism, functionalism, radical humanism and radical structuralism, which provide the foundation for 16 original metaphors by Morgan (1980), and now the ubiquitous “images of organization” (Morgan, 1986, 1997) containing eight metaphorical im- ages that provide an important springboard for the use of metaphors in organizational research, looking at IS.

Case orGanization

Our research organization, referred to as New- town hospital, is a UK National Health Service (NHS) hospital. The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, with over 1.3 million staff. Over the last ten years, the NHS has un- dergone rapid changes to meet the requirements of a variety of stakeholders (e.g., government, legal, professional, and consumer). IS has been identified as a key agent for achieving radical change. Newtown hospital is located in a major northern city in the UK comprising around 5,000 staff, including full time professionals and part- time contract staff. The hospital experienced a series of organizational changes over the years, dictated by NHS reforms. As with other NHS trust hospitals IS is considered either a key driver or a key agent for these changes. For example, within the pharmacy department the system would change its processes. The

pharmacy department investigated comprised 36 full time staff. The project was to replace an outdated system with a new system. We re- cruited nine end-users for our case study, seven of which were the primary end-users and two were secondary or technical end-users (the IT Manager and the Project Manager).

project Context

The project concerned the development of a new information system for the pharmacy de- partment (the pharmacy) of the organization. This was to replace an old outdated system, which was incapable of dealing with the current service standard and the volume of work. The old system was bought in 1985 from another hospital and was already out-of-date at the time of purchase. Furthermore, due to the growth in the number of patients, the pharmacy had recruited more staff over the years. The trans- action traffic on this nonupgradeable system had increased dramatically, resulting in regular system shutdowns or at best a very slow system response. The Pharmacy Management, under stress due to lack of workspace, storage space, a high amount of wastage and the slow response of IS, expressed their concern to the Strategic Management. The Pharmacy Management were asked to present a business case highlighting general improvements to be met by the new IS. Eventually, the Strategic Management approved the business case, and the pharmacy was granted permission to raise a tender document for the new information system.

The project began as a replacement for an old pharmacy system; however, it resulted in the initiation of wider changes to the pharmacy. The project involved (1) implementation of new pharmacy system, (2) a general change in the pharmacy set-up/layout and (3) a change in its current work procedures and routines. Firstly, the new system had to perform all the tasks performed by the old system, such as print- ing labels, stock keeping and producing basic financial statements. However, all new systems available in the market offered much more advanced functions, hence the Pharmacy Man-

� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

agement decided to rethink the processes and reconsider their initial requirements. Embrac- ing the extra functionality offered by the new system would involve a change in the current methods of dispensing, stock control, ordering, generating reports and financial statements and other tasks. It would, therefore, affect how staff (especially the administration staff) performed their daily duties. The Pharmacy Management therefore concluded that the new IS would form the backbone of a new administration system by supporting the daily tasks of all subsections of the pharmacy.

Secondly, acquiring the new IS would result in changing the pharmacy layout. For example, the new system would cut down the stock levels by automating and ordering nearer the time. It required placing computer terminals at different locations of the pharmacy to accommodate the speedier processing of customer prescriptions. The way a prescription was received and the way the related hospital ward was to be notified had to be changed. This required placing terminals in each of the ward. Such change affected staff working practices, whereby some staff members were affected more than others.

Thirdly, due to added functionality of the new system, this led to different kinds of resource and other management controls. The management could now access to up-to-the- minute information on staffing, stock levels, consultants, patients and even orders placed with particular supplier. The new system also affected the pharmacist role in checking the prescription, selecting different ingredients in drug preparation, and checking the prescription against the patient’s profile for accurate dispens- ing. In all, the entire project had much wider implications than originally planned. In many respects, the new IS system led to reengineering working practices.

As part of our research, we gained access to a number of policy and administrative docu- mentation associated with this project, such as, IS procurement policy, IS strategy, IT architec- ture, health and safety, and so forth. We found that all stakeholders (including end-users) had to conform to appropriate NHS and Newtown

standards and procedures. A list of the key stakeholders (including end-users) involved with the project together with a summary of their underlying aims in relation to the new system are provided in Table 2:

The decision to purchase a new system was largely the responsibility of the Chief Pharmacist and the Pharmacy Manager. They were the authors of IS requirements for the new system. The final IS requirements were gathered from three main sources: (1) looking at the old system and its use in the pharmacy, (2) visits to local hospitals, and (3) vendor suggestions. Initially, they only sought a simple system that would allow them to print labels, manage stock, allow order production and print certain types of financial and management reports. After tendering the functional need, they found that the systems in the market offered much more than they expected. Therefore they were encour- aged to reconsider the functional requirements. They then followed the prescription handling process from start to end. The IS was to be used for prescription handling, stock control, order management, financial control, drug manufacturing, prescription checking, referring to the drugs dictionary and referencing, and so forth. As far as the usability is concerned the old IS had no graphical outputs. It was there- fore acknowledged that most of the end-users would like the new graphical features. However, they were cautious about having a technically advanced system with an abundance of new functionalities—as most of these end-users were IT illiterate.

The Chief Pharmacist and the Pharmacy Manager initially specified the IS requirements in a narrative form, which were then rewritten by the Project Manager, with their assistance, using the POISE (Procurement of Informa- tion Systems Effectively) format. POISE is a structured systems development methodology in which requirements are rationally constructed and formally written so that the customers and their vendor can check through this specifica- tion and tick off the elements that they could fulfill. POISE is sequential in nature and requires a step-by-step completion of tasks. It

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 7

requires high volumes of documentation to be kept with justification for future clarity, thus it takes longer to develop IS and also costs more. With this project, POISE was divided into two parts—schedules A and B. Schedule A was used as an initial discussion document between the hospital and the vendor supplying the system. Once the requirements were final- ized, schedule B was produced detailing other refined requirements.

researCh MethodoloGy

We employ a longitudinal case study approach that is interpretivist in nature in order to obtain knowledge of the participants’ social constructs (Constantinides & Barrett, 2006). According to Walsham (1993): “An interpretive perspective seeks to understand social contexts and how this relates to the reasons why an actor takes a particular course of action.” Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991, p.15) also suggest: “The [interpretive] empirical work is based on the as-

Key Stakeholders (end-users) Aims/assumptions

Strategic Management (Managing Director, Medical Director, Execu- tive Director of Nursing, Executive Director Finance and Business Planning, Executive Director Personnel, Director of Estates, Direc- tor of Management Contracts, Director of Contracts and Information)

Initially, to expedite this project over other pending proj- ects. Get the most cost effective solution to replace the existing system. Help the pharmacy department to save costs in the long run. Monitor the quality of prescriptions and costs incurred through carelessness of medical staff.

Pharmacy Management (primary end-users) (Chief Pharmacist and Pharmacy Manager)

Replace the existing pharmacy system to minimize system downtimes and resulting disruptions. Save costs in the long run through IS. Monitor the workforce more closely. Monitor the quality of prescriptions. ‘Prepare’ special drugs more quickly with the help of IS.

Pharmacy Workers (primary end-users) (Pharmacists, Pharmacy Technicians, Phar- macy Assistants, Administration Staff, Ward Workers involved in ordering drugs)

Avoid system downtime problems and switching back to the manual system. Use the system if it is easy to use, and if sufficient training is provided. Not to appear as hindering the objectives of the Pharmacy Management.

IT Management (secondary end-users) (IT Manager, Contracts Manager)

Acquire a system that links well with the main organiza- tional systems. Provide a minimum input into the project. Dedicate minimum resources to the pharmacy processes. Provide basic help in maintaining the new system.

External Stakeholders (Project Manager (secondary end-user), Ven- dors, Local Organizations, Researchers, NHS Executive (Headquarters))

Project manager to ensure success by setting milestones. Document requirements systematically using POISE methodology. Draw up a purchase contract between the organization and the vendor.

Customers (Internal and external)

Quicker service and processing of prescriptions. Better quality service and more accurate dispensing. Better checks on those involved in prescribing and process- ing a prescription.

Table 2. Aims of the key stakeholders at Newtown

� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

sumptions that people create and associate their own subjective and inter-subjective meanings as they interact with the world around them.” Therefore, an interpretivist case study approach is commonly used by IS researchers in obtain- ing deeper insights. For example, Wagner and Newell (2006, p. 44) used the longitudinal case study approach along with conceptual ideas of Fuller (1978) to look at controversial episodes during the implementation of IT (Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP)) in an organi- zation. Wagner and Newell’s (2006) experience of using this research approach suggests that: “… narrative data are helpful when exploring controversies because individual stories of negotiation speak on behalf of a network of interests and highlight conflicting agendas at work. So when analyzing the visionary nar- ratives of a powerful stakeholder, one would interpret his or her words as representing a particular ontological network.” Harley et al. (2006) employed case study approach to look at attitudes and reactions of management during technology (ERP) led organizational change in two research organizations.

So we chose the case study approach to focus on organizational conditional factors and evaluate the impact of these on the attitudes and behavior of end-users, as project stakeholders over longitudinal period. We use Morgan’s (1997) metaphors as sensitizing devices and theory generation tools (Eisenhardt, 1989).

research framework

In this case study we employ two key data collec- tion approaches, the first involving operation- alization of Morgan’s metaphors to investigate end-users’ attitudes. The second involving ap- plication of Morgan’s metaphorical definitions to the research situation in order to make sense of end-users’ behavior. Subsequently, the results of both applications are compared to determine whether or not the metaphorical assumptions held by end-users influence their behavior. We recognize that given the highly subjective nature of metaphors, they can be misinterpreted. In our view this is why Morgan (1980) himself related

his metaphors to the organizational paradigms of Burrell & Morgan (1979). So for this research we mapped Morgan’s (1986, 1997) metaphors to paradigms to help us devise an effective tool for data generation and analyses. We map Morgan’s (1986, 1997) metaphors against Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms by matching the individual characteristics of each metaphor with paradigms (see Appendix 1). Figure 1 shows an account of this mapping based on our understanding. This allows us to illustrate and map particular ontological and epistemological positions of Morgan’s metaphors. For example, we place the -machine (M), psychic prison (Ps) and brain (B) metaphors in the Functionalism quadrant of Burrell & Morgan. We also take into account the relative strength of Objec- tive-Subjective and Order-Conflict aspects in positioning them in their respective quadrant. Similarly, the culture (C) metaphor is placed in the Interpretivism quadrant, the instrument of domination (IofD) in the Radical Structuralism quadrant, and the—flux and transformation (F+T), organism (O) and political system (Po) metaphors are placed in the Radical Humanism quadrant. We aim to generate data concerning end-users’ attitudes and behavior and represent it on this metaphor map, as explained in the subsequent subsections.

Elicitation of Metaphorical Attitudes of End-Users

A questionnaire was developed to ascertain met- aphorical attitudes held by end-users (Boland & Greenberg, 1992). It contained five questions based on ontological, epistemological, human nature (subjective-objective dimension), change and conflict (order-conflict dimension) assump- tions (see Appendix 2) of Burrell and Morgan (1979). We prepared a reference answer as a response for each metaphor in each of the five questions. Each response was to represent an end-user’s viewpoint and experience of their involvement in the project, encapsulating the “real” world situation. Each end-user was in- terviewed individually by, first explaining the purpose of our research, followed by a discus-

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 9

sion about their association and experiences with the organization, and challenges in their present job role. Subsequently, the specific role of the IS in their work was discussed. Each respondent filled-in the research questionnaire, and where required, sought clarifications. This operation- alization exercise was conducted twice, first at the requirement construction stage and subse- quently the system implementation stage. This time duration helped us to investigate the change in end-user attitude. In order to get an unbiased response (and cooperation), each end-user was informed about the confidentiality, anonymity, academic value and nonmanagement involve- ment in this piece of research.

Elicitation of Metaphorical Behavior of End-Users

We employed a range of methods in looking at end-user behavior. As Table 3 shows observa- tions of end-users’ behavior and inferences of actions were made throughout the research period by attending project-related in/formal meetings, discussions, seminars and other events. We also used interviews and previous minutes of project meetings and other related documents. This use of multiple methods al-

lowed for triangulation, where we could compare, for example, documented evidence against observed actions. However, we gave higher importance to data generated through interviews and meetings, as these contained the explicit use of metaphorical discourse by individual end-users.

We conducted 55 interviews over a period of 18 months. In these interviews we posed different scenarios to illustrate various aspects of ISD-related activities (Hirschheim, Klein, & Lyytinen, 1995) with end-users. We followed the thread of conversations by asking further explanations to unfold relevant actions, issues and viewpoints. This use of a range of behavior elicitation methods enabled us to develop rich insights. Subsequently, we analyzed words and phrases to elicit the metaphors according to a data codification scheme, as explained in the subsequent section.

To assist us in matching appropriate metaphors to end-user behavior, we used metaphorical definitions created from Morgan (1986, 1997) and took into account Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms. Because the latter have influenced Morgan’s (1980, 1986, 1997) work. For example, Morgan (1980) locates his machine metaphor within Burrell

Figure 1. Mapping Morgan’s (1997) metaphors onto Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) paradigms

Key: M - Machine, O - Organism, B - Brain, C - Culture, Po - Political system, Ps - Psychic prison, F+T - Flux and transformation, IofD - Instrument of domination

10 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

and Morgan’s (1979) functionalist paradigm, which also fits into the functionalist paradigm of Hirschheim et al. (1995). We illustrate the metaphorical behavior using four ISD-related activities of Hirschheim et al. (1995), namely, the role of IS designer, objectives for design and use of IS, control of users and organizational implementation.

Data Codification

Data codification in interpretive research usually serves to classify the acquired responses under different categories (Harley, Wright, Hall, & Dery, 2006). In this research, a comprehensive data classification regime was followed. The data, collected using observations (of meet- ings, seminars, events and discussion) and questionnaires (end-user profiles, records and project evaluation documents), were codified and mapped against Morgan’s description of metaphors. A key criterion for this classification was to make sense of the ISD-related activities using metaphors. Where the data collection was carried out by a single researcher, the data was checked and classified with help of an- other researcher. Here the researchers ascribed theoretical meanings to attitudes and behavior. Sometimes an end-user response conformed to more than one metaphor. In such a scenario we rechecked the meaning against the text of Mor- gan (1986, 1997) and even Burrell & Morgan (1979) while using Morgan’s (1980) previous work as a guide. At times we also arranged fur-

ther meetings to clarify and confirm any aspect of behavior that we found ambiguous in order to provide a “best approximation to truth.”

For example, Golden-Biddle and Locke (1993) suggest that research validity is the “best approximation to truth” and helps to make sure that data is reliable and the findings are valid (Bryman, 2001). Klein and Myers (1999) propose a number of principles for evaluating interpretive field research, especially case studies. These include contextualization, interaction between the researchers and the subjects, abstraction and generalization, dia- logical reasoning, multiple interpretations and suspicion. These were applied for validating our case study research. Furthermore, we carried out research validity checks on 33% of the research subjects to ensure data quality.

researCh results

Metaphorical Attitudes of end-users

The metaphorical attitudes of end-users, elic- ited at the requirement construction stage and at the project implementation stage of ISD are provided, respectively, in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 shows predominance of the organism metaphor followed by the brain metaphor at the requirement construction stage. Table 5 shows the predominance of the machine metaphor followed by the brain metaphor at

Data Source Method Description

Formal project meetings Observation Project related meetings attended by developers and one researcher attending as an observer.

Pre-arranged interviews Unstructured questioning Attended by individual developers and the researcher.

Informal meetings, events and scenarios

Observation, unstructured questioning

Spontaneous meetings attended by one or more developers and the researcher.

Documents Content analysis Project documents, minutes and meetings.

Table 3. Data collection for measuring metaphorical behavior

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 11

the implementation stage. The “predominant metaphor” for each respondent (see Table 4, Table 5) was determined after looking at the metaphorical choices made by each respondent for Q1 to Q5 (see Appendix 1) and counting across horizontally. The predominance of the “overall” organizational metaphor was deter- mined by counting the predominant metaphors of end-users (see Table 4, Table 5).

The pharmacy had a long history, over three decades, in the hospital environment. During this period the number of staff increased dra- matically. The choice of the organism metaphor by end-users represents a genuine belief that the need for a new system had evolved naturally, since the old system had become outdated and inefficient. So a point was reached where a change was deemed essential to sustain the pharmacy. The brain metaphor was the second

most dominant choice at the requirements stage, where a high degree of control and coordina- tion was seen as important, for example, the Pharmacy Management observed the pharmacy operations, visited other hospital pharmacies and took advice from the software vendors.

During the second operationalization (at the IS implementation stage) the predominant metaphor changed. The initial “optimism” of the organism metaphor that the required changes would evolve naturally without any specific interventions had to give way to the machine and the brain metaphors. This can be linked to the added functionality aimed at yielding greater value. The new system would serve as a technical backbone to support the pharmacy processes and raise efficiency. The system was also intended to provide information to help management plan and coordinate their activities and auto-

End-users Q 1

Ontology Q 2

Epistemology Q 3

Order Q 4

Conflict Q 5

Determinism Predominant

Metaphor

A: Pharmacy Manager (MD)

O/F Po O Po O O

B: Ordering Clerk (AM)

B M O O B O/B

C: Clerical Officer (JH)

B IofD O O O O

D: IT Manager (KT) O IofD B B B B

E: Project Manager (PM)

M B O C O O

F: Chief Pharmacist (DM)

O/Po C F O O O

G: Pharmacy Techni- cian (DJ)

M M F IofD B M

H: Pharmacist (SM) B M F Po B B

I: Assistant Adminis- tration Officer (CR)

O B C O B O

Overall O

Key: M - Machine, O - Organism, B - Brain, C - Culture, Po - Political system, Ps - Psychic prison, F+T - Flux and transformation, IofD - Instrument of domination

Table 4. Metaphorical attitudes in the case organization: The requirements stage

12 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

mate management tasks, such as reporting and checking the accuracy of prescriptions. For example, with the new system the intervention of a pharmacist is required only if a mistake is identified in the prescription.

Finally, the concept of a “predominant” metaphor is useful in understanding the ways in which end-users perceive organizational situations; the social context within which IS is developed (Couger et al., 1993). The predomi- nant metaphors may bear close relationships to value systems as advocated by Jayaratna (1996), and may explain why end-users view a particular situation problematic.

Metaphorical Change Overtime

As mentioned earlier, we used Burrell and Mor- gan’s paradigms for mapping out metaphorical journeys of different end-users. Figure 2 (A-H) illustrates the metaphorical journeys of the eight end-users involved in the IS project over eighteen months (starting at the requirement construction stage and finishing at the project implementation stage). One exception is the Assistant Administration Officer (CR) who left the organization before the project implementa- tion stage. Relevant data for each end-user is also provided in Figure 2. The tail (or the start point) of the arrow indicates the predominant metaphorical position of an end-user at the start (the requirement construction stage) of the project. The head of the arrow indicates the

End-users Q 1

Ontology Q 2

Epistemology Q 3

Order Q 4

Conflict Q 5

Determinism Predominant

metaphor

A: Pharmacy Manager (MD)

Ps M F M M M

B: Ordering Clerk (AM)

M M B B M M

C: Clerical Officer (JH)

M M B O O M/O

D: IT Manager (KT)

M M F B O M

E: Project Manager (PM)

B B M M F B/M

F: Chief Pharma- cist (DM)

M C F F F F

G: Pharmacy Tech- nician (DJ)

M B B O B B

H: Pharmacist (SM)

M Po F Po Po Po

I: Assistant Ad- ministration Officer (CR)

X X X X X X

Overall M

Table 5. Metaphorical attitudes in the case organization: The implementation stage

Key: M - Machine, O - Organism, B - Brain, C - Culture, Po - Political system, Ps - Psychic prison, F+T - Flux and transformation, IofD - Instrument of domination; X - Not involved or absent

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 1�

Figure 2. Individual journey maps

[Key: M - Machine, O - Organism, B - Brain, C - Culture, Po - Political system, Ps - Psychic prison, F+T - Flux and transformation, IofD - Instrument of domination] Note: No journey for end-user “I” due to absence of the end-user at the final operationalization stage.

(a)

(b)

(c)

1� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

(d)

Figure 2. continued

(f)

(e)

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 1�

predominant metaphorical position of the end- user at the end (project implementation stage). The shape of the arrow line indicates the strength (or influence) of other metaphors during this start-to-end metaphorical journey. The overall direction of the journey is determined after taking into account the metaphorical choices made during both operationalizations.

Due to space limitations, we only describe the journey of a few end-users in more detail. For example, Figure 2(A) provides the metaphorical journey undertaken by the Pharmacy Manager

(MD). As indicated in Table 4, at the start of the project, the Pharmacy Manager had a bias towards the organism metaphor as he believed that (at least) the functioning of the pharmacy was made up of social beliefs (see Q1) and the change was necessary to meet the changing needs of the pharmacy and its aging technology (see Q3). He was under the impression that he had maneuverability with regards to decision- making for ensuring smooth operations. How- ever, he was conscious of the political needs (the Political systems metaphor (Po)) for the

Figure 2. continued

(g)

(h) [Key: M - Machine, O - Organism, B - Brain, C - Culture, Po - Political system, Ps - Psychic prison, F+T - Flux and transformation, IofD - Instrument of domination] Note: No journey for end-user “I” due to absence of the end-user at the final operationalization stage.

1� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

pharmacy to collaborate and communicate with other parts of the hospital to operate effectively (see Q2). For him “conflict” with other parts of the organization was positive and healthy for improving the working of the system as shown in the top left hand quadrant of the Burrell and Morgan paradigm (Figure 2-A). As an illustra- tion, the relative shape and direction of the arrow from different metaphors in the quadrants gives a rough measure of the respective metaphorical influences on his metaphorical journey.

As shown, at the implementation stage, the Pharmacy Manager’s behavior conforms to the machine metaphor (Figure 2-A, bottom-right quadrant). This was due to him having to follow the set rules, procedures, and processes aimed at yielding maximum efficiency and cost savings (see Q2 in Table 5). However, this experience reinforced his beliefs further that change is highly desirable (especially at the top level) to achieve greater organizational effectiveness (see Q3 in Table 5). He soon realized that the top management does not encourage conflict, for example, considering an alternative plan for a situation (see Q4) by the junior staff. Also it became evident that with regards to IT implementation he and other pharmacy staff had to sacrifice the freedom they had enjoyed for many years and in future they would have little choice to determine their own ways of work- ing (Q5). Thus he felt that Newtown at times was like a psychic prison (Ps) with little room to maneuver in the lower right hand quadrant in Figure 2-A).

Similarly the metaphorical journey for the other end-users can be explained. For example, Figure 2(C) shows that the Clerical Officer’s (JH) predominant starting metaphor was organism. Her final destination was also the organism (O) metaphor, although her meta- phorical journey draws upon the influences of other metaphors during the different phases of the project. For example, JH’s second most influencing metaphor was machine (M); how- ever, the brain metaphor had some influence on her choice. Whereas, Figure 2-G indicates the attitudes of the Pharmacy Technician (DJ) selecting the machine metaphor as predomi-

nant at the requirements stage and ultimately choosing the brain (B) metaphor at the imple- mentation stage. Also during this transition he was somewhat exposed to the - instrument of domination (IofD), organism (O), and flux and transformation (F+T) metaphors. Therefore, the journey loop (arrow skewed upward towards IofD) illustrates these influences.

The metaphorical journey for the Chief Pharmacist (DM), shifted from the organism (O) to the flux and transformation metaphor, while there was also an influence of the machine (M) metaphor. However, the metaphorical journey of the Pharmacist (Figure 2-H) shows more dramatic shift, from the brain (b) metaphor inspired by logic and order, to that of the politi- cal system (Po) metaphor. One explanation for this may be that the Pharmacist felt the biggest impact from this system being a regular user. Before the automation, she was the most active member of the pharmacy in decision-making for prescriptions, and related affairs. A loss of control over the situation, and perhaps more im- portantly, profound change to her work practices where she was no longer needed to make routine decisions, made her role less important in the organization, or at least to her. In this context, she felt that political maneuvering was necessary to remind others of her worthiness.

Overall Metaphorical Journey

The individual journeys (provided in Figure 2A- H) were subsequently combined to determine the overall change in metaphorical position (Figure 3). Figure 3, shows that the journey started at the organism (O) metaphor and ended at the machine (M) metaphor, while being influ- enced by other metaphors, for example, the flux and transformation (F+T) and the instrument of domination (IofD), with relatively marginal sensitivity to the culture (C) and the political system (Ps) metaphors. In fact the predominant metaphor column of Tables 4 and 5 explains how the individual metaphors shaped the metaphoric stance for the whole organization. This shift occurred over a period of 18 months and was

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 17

influenced by various organizational conditional factors (to be explained shortly).

Metaphorical Behavior of end-users

Role of IS Designer

There were three senior end-users involved in the pharmacy project: the Chief Pharmacist (DM), the Pharmacy Manager (MD) and the Project Manager (PM) as an external consultant. At the beginning of the project, the behavior of these end-users conformed to the organism metaphor, as the development of this system required a lot of mental and practical changes and planning involving vertical and horizontal communications. The need for communication and meticulous planning became essential when it was realized that the purpose of the project had changed a little, as it was now not only go- ing to replace the old information system, but to substitute it with a much more sophisticated system that would automate a large part of the pharmacy. As the Pharmacy Manager (MD) indicated: “Although the process of acquiring the system seems simple and straightforward, it was complex and difficult; for example, it involved selling the idea to workers and man- agement [the Strategic Management], and then planning the pharmacy change while taking into account a large number of internal and external factors.” In fact the adoption of the new system resulted in a number of changes to the pharmacy processes and workings of its staff.

At the end of the project, the behavior of most end-users conformed to the machine metaphor. As a considerable amount of atten- tion was paid to streamling the work processes in order to facilitate integration between the pharmacy processes to yield efficiency. Also, the end-users were concerned with the system functionality to be able to run the pharmacy once the old system ceased working. This involved following the prescription handling process from start to finish, in order to analyze, simplify and automate these. This could relate to efficiency driven success measures of the

project, as all efforts were made to transfer old data, as quickly and efficiently as possible. As the Chief Pharmacist (DM) said: “We had little room to discuss anything other than the processes that needed to be computerized; on the other hand, workers lacked the knowledge required to undertake such change”.

Objectives for the Design and Use of IS Initially, the organism metaphor was ap-

plicable at the requirement construction stage, as the need to replace the existing pharmacy system had evolved naturally. This was the main justification put forward by the Pharmacy Management for replacing the old system which was inefficient and slow. Most of the end-us- ers that we interviewed, understood the then need for a new system, and agreed with the Pharmacy Management’s concerns. Although, as per Newtown’s norms, senior management asked the Pharmacy Management to present and justify the business case, which was approved without much deliberation. At the implemen- tation stage the objectives for adopting the new system became very much mechanistic, as the Pharmacy Management had to quantify the benefits in business terms, by making the main objectives precise and measurable. The final (post implementation) use of the system was mechanistic as well, with emphases placed on quicker processing of prescriptions through computerized routines and mechanistic deci- sion-making. As the Clerical Officer (JH) told us: “The system has replaced what little thinking we used to do, even the pharmacists seem to do less than they used to.” The system replaced the most routine decision-making for workers, and streamlined the pharmacy operations to process prescriptions much more quickly.

Control of Users

The machine metaphor described the degree of control over lower-level end-users throughout the project. They had little choice but to use this system to keep the pharmacy running. The system gave them very little allowance for decision-making. It reinforced the established organizational hierarchy by acting as a monitor-

1� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

ing and control tool for pharmacy operations. One repercussion of this regime was that the senior pharmacy staff became more distanced and had considerably reduced interaction with the junior staff, as the former could make the changes such as resource allocation on-line, without needing any face to face interaction. As the Chief Pharmacist suggested: “The system is comprehensive and if used more fully it can help us to manage more effectively as well as enabling the pharmacy tasks.”

Organizational Implementation

A systematic implementation was undertaken to verify the output of the new systems with the old system. Once the new system was imple- mented, a lot of effort was put into conducting data integrity checks. In our view, therefore, the prevalence of the machine metaphor is justified as the bulk of the end-users’ efforts were focused on checking and aligning the system outputs, while paying little attention to social factors and user training needs. As the Pharmacy Manager remarked at the post implementation stage: “We had to carry out a tremendous amount of checking with help from staff to make sure that the same output was produced by the old and the new systems. We did find lots of problems that were corrected.”

Comparison of Attitudes and Behavior

The predominance of the organism metaphor at the requirement construction stage confirms the end-users’ initial attitudes and behavior repre- senting their views that the change had evolved naturally to overcome IS related problems, as well as other departmental inefficiencies. But as the project progressed, most end-users became skeptical about the way the project was man- aged, as much attention was focused towards the physical set-up and running of the pharmacy with a particular focus on costs. Hence we found that the machine metaphor influenced the attitudes and behavior of the end-users at the implementation stage because little attention

was paid to social aspects. However, at both stages of the project, the second most dominant metaphor was the brain metaphor, reflecting the fact that the project was planned while adhering to and communicating appropriate organizational “norms” and practices.

disCussion

In general there was a transition in the attitude from the predominant organism and brain meta- phors at the requirements stage to the machine metaphor at the implementation stage. This was matched by a similar transition for behavior, as shown in Table 6.

The selection of the machine metaphor was due to overwhelming emphasis being placed on making sure that new system worked correctly, while, neglecting the social issues such as the impact of work practice changes on individu- als. Consequently, it expressed the fact that the end-users were dissatisfied with the new system, as they were:

• Compelled by the Pharmacy Management to use the new system. The end-users were told that the system was needed for the es- sential operations of the Department and also to make much needed improvements to meet Newtown’s overall efficiency drive.

• The Pharmacy Management was to use the system as a control device (although this was not an explicit). The Pharmacy Management asked the vendor to provide the “prescription monitoring functionality” to allow them to monitor their subordinates. Therefore exercise greater management and control.

End-users had to learn new IT skills at their own initiative and deal with usability problems. Furthermore, as the efficiency goals of the new system became evident, it was realized that they needed to recruit a new system manager to exploit the system more fully and to identify how to automate additional pharmacy processes.

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 19

Subsequently, the Chief Pharmacist advertised the new post. Overall the end-users viewed it as a senior management tool to further their monitoring and control regimes.

One metaphor, albeit apparent to the re- searchers from behavior and observation, but rarely selected by end-users, was the political system. The majority of the end-users partici- pated did not select this metaphor as perhaps politics were taken for granted; or they thought that this (despite constant reassurance) might be conveyed to the management or outside world (Walsham, 1993). Another plausible explana- tion for this could be that there seems to be a negative connotation attached with this word, and being aware of this the individuals’ made a cautious effort not to relate to this. This could possibly raise a question concerning the selec- tion (or the lack) of other, similarly “radical”

metaphors, such as the instrument of domination metaphor. It would be a challenge to devise appropriate questions to capture the existence of such metaphors, if present.

However, we believe that the key factors affecting end-users’ attitudes and behavior were organizational conditional factors, such as the organizational context, the process and the system or its content. In our view, there were a number of contextual factors affecting the IS project in Newtown, such as its long history (more than five decades), the rigid structure, strong top-down leadership, its narrowly defined IS strategy and a strong culture with many sub- cultures. The key process factors affecting the development of the system were: the standard ISD methodology and procedures, minimum user involvement and drive for efficiency. In addition, the IS nature or content related aspects

Project Stage Predominant Metaphor

Attitude Requirements Stage 1. Organism, 2. Brain

Implementation Stage 1. Machine, 2. Brain

Behavior Requirements Stage 1. Organism, 2. Brain, 3. Machine

Implementation Stage 1. Machine

Table 6. Summary of predominant metaphorical attitudes and behavior

Conditions Factors that impact metaphor change

Context (Cx)

Cx1: Organizational history, rituals and stories, culture. (Interpretivist) Cx2: Organizational structure. (Functionalist) Cx3: Organizational leadership. (Functionalist) Cx4: Organizational and IS strategy and organizational policies. (Functionalist) Cx5: End-user norms and values. (Radical structuralist)

Process (P)

P1: IS methodology followed. (Functionalist) P2: IS related policies and procedures. (Functionalist) P3: Publicity and user involvement in IS project. (Functionalist) P4: Legitimation of IS project for end-user. (Radical structuralist)

Content (Co)

Co1: Automation of particular work processes. (Functionalist) Co2: Type of systems and its different uses at different levels. (Functionalist) Co3: Personal domination or the IT expertise resulting from system use and adoption. (Radical structuralist) Co4: Impact of IS on jobs. (Functionalist)

Table 7. Conditional factors and paradigmatic categorization (Source: Walsham 1993)

20 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

were: the fluid scope of the system, automation of tasks, and much enhanced monitoring and control. Therefore, we suggest that the course of the end-users’ metaphorical journey was influenced by the organization conditional factors. The conditional factors are detailed in Table 7, where each factor is classified using paradigmatic labels used in Figures 1, 2 and 3 for classifying metaphors.

So Table 7 shows that most of the or- ganizational context, process and content factors for our case organization had the functionalist orientation. This is where the machine and brain metaphors are located (as shown in Figure 1). Thus, the predominance of the machine and the brain metaphors, illustrated in Figure 4.

We believe that the presence of these fac- tors in a particular paradigm could help us to extrapolate the impact of conditional factors on metaphorical journey. As we see, most of the conditional factors for Newtown map onto the functionalist paradigm. This could explain why the main organizational emphases were on achieving efficiency and effectiveness, rather than pursuing end-user satisfaction. For example, being a typical NHS hospital this organization was based on clearly defined rules, well regulated policies, procedures and strategies. It was very tightly controlled like a machine. The lines of hierarchy were clearly

followed and functional operations were given a priority. The system was developed using a structured methodology that involved creating a business plan, followed by analysis, technical design and implementation. There was limited worker involvement at the initial stages, where the Chief Pharmacist promised them better pharmacy and work related improvements. However, subsequently the system objectives moved towards efficiency orientation aimed at saving time while automating the work pro- cesses. Furthermore the system would monitor and even control the work and check worker efficiency. It was used as a device to automate and streamline the processes.

iMpliCations for researCh and praCtiCe

implications for research

We noted that one of the key reasons why the end-users changed their metaphorical position over time is due to the organizational conditional factors. Under the circumstances, perhaps, a metaphor in itself does not express a fixed, normative stance, but merely reflects upon end-users’ current perceptions of the social situation (Davidson, 2006). So, subsequently, in this context, it would be interesting to track end-users’ changing metaphors in a longitudinal

Figure 4. Mapping context, process and content to paradigms

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 21

study (and perhaps over several projects), ask- ing at different stages, what was their perceived reason for the change in their attitude and be- havior. This may further reveal the underlying dynamics and change associated with metaphor selection over a time period, which we noted in our research.

Further research is also required in other voluntary as well as commercial organizations. An investigation as to which metaphors end- users perceive as contradictory, and which they perceive as (partially) overlapping, may lead to refinement of the original set of eight metaphors (McCourt, 1997). This would help to understand how different, and sometimes contradictory, metaphors coexist within an end-user’s mind; and would investigate whether an end-user pri- oritizes between different metaphors, or whether the end-user only prioritizes when s/he perceives contradictions between metaphors.

implications for practice

Our findings have a number of implications for practice. Firstly, those undertaking change would gain a better understanding of organi- zational context and underlying metaphorical attitudes and behavior of end-users. They can then plan and strategize how to move from the current situation to a desired position. This would require formulating appropriate interventions and actions; while weighing up the needed measures and resources. Secondly, those in-charge of managing IS led change could use appropriate metaphors in their discourse to explain the need for change; and thereby moti- vate the end-users by affecting their interpretive schemes (Bartunek, 1984; Scroggins, 2006). Furthermore, the metaphors can serve as de- vices for communicating the need for change. Therefore metaphors can help to legitimate the need for the change and help to increase end- user’s ownership of change, thereby enhancing the chances of success.

ConClusion

We found that metaphors are powerful tools for making sense of organizations and in revealing complexities. In this research we revealed the attitudes and behavior of end-users involved in the development of a new pharmacy system. We also reveal the metaphorical journey of end-us- ers where their overall metaphor shifted from the organism to the machine; while having an influence of the flux and transformation, cul- ture, political system and brain metaphors. We believe that this journey was largely affected by organizational conditional factors, which had a strong functionalist orientation.

Our use of metaphors, to unearth end-users’ attitudes and behavior, in an explicit manner, is rare but useful. We believe that our systemic approach can serve as a method for other re- searchers and practitioners in making sense of the end-user biases during ISD. It would also better equip them in dealing with organizational conditional factors.

aCknowledGMent

The authors would like to thank the Edi- tor—Professor Mahmood and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that have made this article more readable and pertinent to readership.

referenCes Adams, B., Berner, E. S., & Rousse, J. (2004). Ap- plying strategies to overcome user resistance in a group of clinical managers to a business software applications: A case study. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(4), 55-64.

Aladwani, A. M. (2002). Organizational actions, computer attitudes, and end-user satisfaction in public organizations: An empirical study. Journal of End User Computing, 14(1), 42-49.

Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The ex-

22 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

ample of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372.

Baskerville, R. (1991). Practitioner autonomy and the bias of methods and tools. In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein., & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 673-697). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Bloomfield, B. P. & Coombs, R. (1992). Information technology, control and power: The centralization and decentralization debate revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 459-484.

Boland, R. J. & Greenberg, R. H. (1992). Method and metaphor in organizational analysis. Account- ing, Management and Information Technology, 2(2), 117-141.

Bryant, J. (1993). OR Enactment: The theatrical metaphor as an analytical framework. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(6), 551-561.

Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.

Butler, T. & Fitzgerald, B. (2001). The relationship between user participation and the management of change surrounding the development of information systems: A European perspective. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 12-25.

Constantinides, P. & Barrett, M. (2006). Large- scale ICT innovation, power, and organizational change: The case of a regional health information network. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 76-90.

Couger, J. D., Higgins, L. F., & McIntyre, S. C. (1993). (Un)Structured creativity in information systems organizations. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 375-397.

Davidson, E. (2006). A technological frames perspec- tive on information technology and organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 23-39.

Doherty, N. F. & King, M. (1998). The importance of organizational issues in systems development. Information Technology & People, 11(2), 104-123.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Gibson, C. B. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Admin. Science Quarterly, 46(2), 274-303.

Golden-Biddle, K. & Locke, K. (1993). Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4, 595-616.

Harley, B., Wright, C., Hall, R., & Dery, K. (2006). Management reactions to technological change: The example of enterprise resource planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 58-75.

Harris, R. W. (2000). Schools of thought in research into end-user computing success. Journal of End User Computing, 12(1), 24-34.

Heiskanen, A. (1993). Organizational metaphors and information systems practice: A case example of implementation strategy formulation. In D. Avi- son, J. E. Kendall, & J. I. DeGross (Eds), Human, organizational, and social dimensions of information systems development (pp. 399-417). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Heracleous, L. (2001). An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(4), 426-446.

Hirschheim, R. & Newman, M. (1991). Symbol- ism and information systems development: Myth, metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 29-62.

Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information systems development and data modeling. Chichester: Cambridge University Press.

Hussain, Z. & Taylor, A. (2007). Evaluating the behaviour of information systems developers: The relevance and utility of paradigms. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(3), 221-236.

Jayaratna, N. (1996, September 12-14). Choice of a methodology for information systems development! In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the British Computer Society Information Systems Methodolo- gies Specialist Group (pp. 23-28). Cork, Ireland.

Kaarst-Brown, M. L. & Robey, D. (1999). More on myth, magic and metaphor: Cultural insights

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 2�

into the management of information technology in organizations. Information Technology & People, 12(2), 192-217.

Kendall, J. E. & Kendall, K. E. (1993). Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems machine. MIS Quarterly, 17(2), 149-168.

Keys, P. (1991). Operational research in organiza- tions: A metaphorical analysis. Journal of Res. Soc, 42(6), 435-446.

Klein, H. K. & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of prin- ciples for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93.

Kling, R. & Iacono, S. (1984). The control of infor- mation systems developments after implementation. Communications of the ACM, 24(12), 1218-1226.

Kling, R. (1978). Automated welfare client-track- ing and service integration: The political economy of computing. Communications of the ACM, 21(6), 484-493.

Kling, R. (1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computing Survey, 12(1), 61-110.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lau, F. & Herbert, M. (2001). Experiences from health information system implementation projects reported in Canada between 1991 and 1997. Journal of End User Computing, 13(4), 17-25.

Madsen, K. H. (1989). Breakthrough by breakdown: Metaphors and structured domains. In H.K. Klein & K. Kumar (Eds.), Systems development for human progress (pp. 41-53). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

McCourt, W. (1997). Discussion note: Using meta- phors to understand and to change organizations: A critique of Gareth Morgan’s approach. Organization Studies, 18(3), 511-522.

McGill, T. (2004). The effect of end user development on end user success. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 41-58.

Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 25(4), 605-622.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. USA: Sage Publications.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. New edition, USA: Sage Publications.

Mumford, E. & Weir, M. (1979). Computer systems in work design: The ETHICS method. New York: Wiley.

Nadan, R. K. (1997). The dialectic of management control: The case of the Fiji Development Bank (Unpublished doctoral Thesis), Bristol University, UK.

Oates, B. J. & Fitzgerald, B. (2007). Multi-metaphor method: Organizational metaphors in information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 17(4), 421–449.

Orlikowski, W. J. & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, pp.1-28.

Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technologi- cal frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207.

Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45-53.

Oswick, C. & Grant, D. (1996). Organisation develop- ment - metaphorical exploration. London: Pitman.

Pepper, S. (1942). World Hypotheses: A study in evi- dence. California: University of California Press.

Polley, D. (1997). Turbulence in organizations: New metaphors for organizational research. Organization Science, 8(5), 445-457.

Porra, J., Hirschheim, R., & Parks, M. S. (2005). The history of Texaco’s corporate information technology function: A general systems theoretical interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 721-746.

Ricoeur, P. (1978). The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination and feeling. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sacks, S. (Ed.). (1978). On metaphors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scroggins, W.A. (2006). Managing meaning for strategic change: The role of perception and meaning congruence. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 29(1), 83-103.

2� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

Shaw, N. & Lee-Partidge, J.-E. (2003). Understand- ing the hidden dissatisfaction of users towards end- user computing. Journal of End User Computing, 15(2), 1-22.

Smith, K. K. & Simmons, V. M. (1983). A Rum- pelstiltskin organization: Metaphors or metaphors in field research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 377-392.

Stein, E. W. & Vandenbosch, B. (1996). Organization- al learning during advanced systems development: Opportunities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 115-136.

Sushil. (2001). Flexibility metaphors. Systems Re- search and Behavioural Science, 18, 569-575.

Tiwana, A. & McLean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13-44.

Wagner, C. (2000). End user as expert developer? Journal of End User Computing, 12(3), 3-13.

Wagner, E. L. & Newell, S. (2006). Repairing ERP: Producing social order to create a working informa- tion system. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 40-57.

Walsham, G. (1991). Organizational metaphors and information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(2), 83-94.

Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Wilson, F. A. (1994). Computer-based systems and organizational structures: Designing the ghost in the machine. In R. Baskerville, O. Ngwenyama, S. Smithson, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Transforming organizations with information technology (pp. 343- 355). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Xia, W. & Lee, G. (2005). Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development. Journal of Manage- ment Information Systems, 22(1), 45-83.

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 2�

Q ue

st io

ns M

ac hi

(M )

O rg

an is

m (O

) B

ra in

(B )

C ul

tu re

(C )

P ol

it ic

Sy st

em (P

P sy

ch ic

ri so

n (P

s) F

lu x

an d

Tr an

s- fo

rm at

io n

(F +T

)

In st

ru m

en t o

f D

om in

at io

n (I

of D

)

O nt

ol og

y Q

1: D

o yo

u se

e yo

or ga

ni za

tio n

as h

av in

g a

re la

tiv el

y ob

je ct

iv e

ex is

- te

nc e

or a

s a

co lle

ct io

n of

lie fs

a nd

v al

ue s

of th

e in

di vi

du al

s w

ho c

on tr

th e

or ga

ni za

tio n?

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

co nc

re te

e nt

ity

th at

is o

rg an

iz ed

y ie

ld m

os t

va lu

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

ad e

up o

f s oc

ia l

be lie

fs a

nd v

al ue

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

co nc

re te

e nt

ity th

is s

ys te

m at

ic al

or ga

ni ze

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

m ad

e up

o f

gr ou

p be

lie fs

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

ad e

up o

f p o-

lit ic

al b

el ie

fs .

O rg

an iz

a- tio

n is

co nc

re te

tit y

th at

tr ap

s pe

op le

ith in

it .

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

en a

s ch

an gi

pa tte

rn s

of b

el ie

O rg

an iz

at io

n is

a c

on cr

et e

en tit

y th

ex pl

oi ts

th e

w or

ke rs

a nd

vi ro

nm en

E pi

st em

ol og

y Q

2: D

o yo

u vi

ew th

e na

- tu

re o

f k no

w le

dg e

in y

ou r

or ga

ni za

tio n

as ta

ng ib

or in

ta ng

ib le

K no

w le

dg e

ta ng

ib le

a nd

ou ld

o nl

y be

ce ss

ed b

y th

os e

hi gh

er u

p th

e hi

er ar

ch y.

K no

w le

dg e

in ta

ng ib

le a

nd is

ea te

d an

d le

ar nt

ro ug

h co

m m

un i-

ca tio

K no

w le

dg e

ta ng

ib le

a nd

h as

b e

ob ta

in ed

in a

st em

at ic

w ay

K no

w le

dg e

in ta

ng ib

le a

ha s

to b

e le

ar nt

ith in

c ul

tu ra

l fr

am ew

or k.

K no

w le

dg e

is in

ta ng

ib le

d th

e m

or e

kn ow

le dg

e on

e ha

s th

e m

or e

po w

er w

ill o

ha ve

K no

w le

dg e

is ta

ng ib

w ith

li m

- ite

d ac

ce ss

K no

w le

dg e

in ta

ng ib

le a

nd is

da te

d re

gu la

rl y

to m

at ch

th e

en -

vi ro

nm en

t a nd

cr ea

se c

ho ic

e of

rv iv

al .

K no

w le

dg e

is ta

ng ib

an d

ca n

on ly

o bt

ai ne

d by

th os

e hi

gh er

u p

th e

or ga

ni za

tio na

l hi

er ar

ch y.

O rd

er Q

3: D

o yo

u se

e yo

or ga

ni za

tio n

as o

ne w

he re

nd am

en ta

l c ha

ng es

cu r f

re qu

en tly

o r o

nl y

ra re

ly ?

C ha

ng e

is s

ee n

as n

eg at

iv e

an d

st ab

ili ty

is a

si c

ne ce

ss ity

C ha

ng e

is n

at ur

an d

is n

ec es

sa ry

fo r

st ab

ili ty

C ha

ng e

is p

la nn

by s

tr at

eg ic

m an

- ag

em en

It m

ay b

e di

f- fic

ul t t

o ch

an ge

ga ni

za tio

na l

cu ltu

re .

C ha

ng e

lik el

y du

e to

w er

s hi

ft s.

C ha

ng e

is h

ig hl

y di

sc ou

r- ag

ed .

C ha

ng e

is h

ig hl

y va

lu ed

a s

it re

su lts

g re

at er

e ffi

ci en

- ci

es .

C ha

ng e

al lo

w ed

fo r

th at

p re

se rv

or ga

ni za

tio na

l go

al s.

C on

fli ct

Q 4:

W ha

t r ol

e do

co nfl

ic t p

la y

w ith

in y

ou r

or ga

ni za

tio n?

C on

fli ct

is h

ig hl

y un

de si

ra bl

e an

d sh

ou ld

b e

el im

i- na

te d

at e

ve ry

ag e.

C on

fli ct

is p

os iti

be ca

us e

it ca

n en

- co

ur ag

e gr

ou ps

im pr

ov e

si tu

at io

ns .

C on

fli ct

is s

ee n

as n

eg at

iv e

an d

sh ou

ld b

e re

so lv

st ra

te gi

ca lly

C on

fli ct

un de

si ra

bl e

bu t s

ho ul

d be

an ag

ed .

C on

fli ct

s ee

n as

a sp

ir at

io n

fo r c

ha ng

C on

fli ct

h ig

hl y

di sc

ou r-

ag ed

C on

fli ct

is h

ig hl

y de

si ra

bl e

as it

g en

- er

at es

n ec

es sa

ch an

ge .

C on

fli ct

pr es

se d

bu t t

he re

lik el

y to

b e

hi gh

le ve

l of

im pl

ic it

co nfl

ic t.

D et

er m

in is

m Q

5: H

ow im

po rt

an t i

s it

fo r w

or ke

rs to

d et

er m

in e

so m

e or

a ll

as pe

ct s

th ei

r w or

k at

y ou

r o rg

a- ni

za tio

W or

ke rs

s ho

ul d

no t h

av e

a ri

gh t

to d

et er

m in

e th

ei r o

w n

w or

A llo

w a

g re

de gr

ee o

f fl ex

ib ili

(o ft

en in

d ec

en tr

al -

iz ed

o rg

an iz

at io

ns )

W or

ke rs

c an

no t d

e- te

rm in

e th

ei r o

w n

ac tio

ns s

uc ce

ss -

fu lly

b ut

le ar

ni ng

en co

ur ag

ed .

So m

e cu

ltu re

s gi

ve g

re at

re sp

on si

bi lit

y to

w or

ke rs

th an

he rs

d o.

M os

t p ol

iti ca

l si

tu at

io ns

n ot

a llo

w or

ke rs

de te

rm in

e th

ei r

ow n

w or

W or

ke rs

ou ld

n ot

te rm

in e

th ei

r o w

n w

or k.

U su

al ly

w or

ke rs

e gi

ve n

a de

gr ee

in iti

at iv

T he

w or

ke r

sh ou

ld n

be a

llo w

ed to

nt ro

l a ny

pe ct

o f t

he ir

or k.

appendiX 1

Questions used for operationalization of Morgan’s Metaphors

2� Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009

appendiX 2

four paradigms of burrell and Morgan (1979)

OBJECTIVE

CHANGE

REGULATION

Radical humanist

Radical structuralist

Interpretivist Functionalist

SUBJECTIVE

A summary of the paradigms characteristics used to interpret the conditional fac- tors..

Functionalist Interpretivist Radical Structuralist Radical Humanist

Realist, positivist, de- terminist, nomothetic. Status quo. Social order. Consensus. Social integration. Solidarity. Need satisfaction, for example, functional needs. Actuality. Structural set-up of society and organiza- tions. Value of scientific enquiry.

Nominalist, antipositivist, voluntarist, ideographic. Implicit links with sociol- ogy of regulation. Status quo. Social order. Social Integration, cohe- sion and consensus. Solidarity. Actuality. Understand social desires causes and effects. Reality is made up of collective human beliefs and values. Consciousness. Language and communi- cation.

Realist, positivist, deter- minist, nomothetic. Radical change built into the structure of society and it happens through political and economic crises. Emancipation. Potentiality. Structural relationships. Structural conflict. Mode(s) of domination. Contradiction. Deprivation through objec- tively determined tools and mechanisms, for example, machinery.

Nominalist, anti- positivist, voluntarist, ideographic. Continuous change. Mode(s) of domination. Emancipation. Deprivation. Potentiality. Human consciousness (self-consciousness). Need for self-represen- tation. Language and com- munication.

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(2), 1-27, April-June 2009 27

Zahid Hussain has a BA in management, an MSc in HRM, an MSc in IS, an MA in learning and teaching, and a PhD in IS. He has a research background in information systems development in the UK National Health Service and has worked for several private organisations as a technical consultant. Currently, he teaches information systems at the University of Bradford where his research interests include the applica- tion and development of IS, IS planning and relevance of social behaviour approaches in looking at IS use in organizations. Some of his recent publications/accepted paper are in: Information Systmes Journal, Information & Management, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management; Behaviour & Information Technology, and Journal of Information Science, International Journal of Business Information Systems.

Khalid Hafeez is professor of entrepreneurship and management systems, Director of External Partnerships and Knowledge Transfer, and lead the Management Systems Research Group at the York Management School, the University of York, UK. Previously, he was the founding Director for the Centre for Ethnic Entrepreneurship and Management at the University of Bradford Management School, UK. He is a Fel- low of the UK National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurs (NCGE), and part of the Harvard Business School and European Forum for Entrepreneurship Research Network of over 50 participant Universities. Hafeez has supervised many PhD students in the area of knowledge management, total quality management (TQM), e-business and supply chain management. His case studies include SMEs as well as large public sector organisations such as DWP and NHS. Hafeez has published technical articles in reputed journals including IEEE Engineering Management, Journal of Operations Research Society (JORS), International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE) and Journal of Computers & Operations Research. Khalid is a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt holder, Certified Project Manager and a Certified Process Manager and a Certified EFQM European Assessor.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.