The use of information systems in organisations presents one of the early signs of success. Hundreds of studies have generated a wealth of knowledge on systems use across a broad range of technologies and theoretical approaches. However, new types of technologies and organisations continue to pose challenges to systems use. The case of open systems that are offered to users on a voluntary basis presents one of those challenges for two reasons: 1) the systems are open in the sense that they could be configured in many ways depending on users finding use cases and possible applications; 2) the system use is voluntary and hence there is no organisational push. They bring users’ choice and active finding of use cases to the centre of their success. This study questions why and how users choose to engage (or not to engage) with open technology on a voluntary basis and how and why its use options and potential unfold? It examines a longitudinal case study (1994–2012) on the voluntary use of telemedicine. The findings reveal that users’ perception of open technology in a voluntary setting is formed through a continuous interplay between users’ technology mental models, professional identity, institutional traditions and arrangements and work practices. If perceived to be in contradiction with professional identity, institutional traditions and arrangements or work practices, users’ technology mental models are fixated on the misfit and the misfit is thereby reinforced. Hence, users do not try to find use cases or think of possible applications. However, institutional entrepreneurs could break this self-fulfilling prophecy by influencing both the technology mental models of users and the institutional arrangements.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bhattacherjee, A. (1998). Management of emerging technologies experiences and lessons learned at US West. Information and Management, 33, 263–272.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds. Possible Worlds: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Chreim, S., Williams, B. E. B., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2007). Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role identity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1515–1539.
Connor, P. E., Lake, L. K., & Stackman, R. W. (1988). Managing organizational change. New York: Praeger.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretive systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.
Damsgaard, J., & Scheepers, R. (2000). Managing the crises in intranet implementation: A stage model. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 131–149.
Davidson, E. J. (2002). Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26, 329–358.
Davidson, E. J. (2006). A technological frame perspective on information technology and organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 23–39.
Davidson, E. J., & Pai, D. (2004). Making sense of technological frames: Promise, progress, and potential. Information Systems Research, 143, 473–491.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.
DeLone, W. D., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Eisenhardt, M. K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Ekeland, A. G. (2007). Teleradiologiske parksiser i Nord Norge 1996-2001 (Tele-radiology praxises in Northen Norway 1996-2001, PhD thesis), University of Tromsø, Department of Sociology: Tromsø, Norway.
Elbanna, A. R. (2010). From intention to use to actual rejection: The journey of an e-procurement system. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(1), 81–99.
Elbanna, A. (2012). Making business sense of ambiguous technology: The case of second life. In: European Conference of Information Systems Barcelona, Barcelona, http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/52.
Elbanna, A., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2013). Tracing success in the voluntary use of open technology in organisational setting. In Y. K. Dwivedi, H. Z. Henriksen, D. Wastell, & R. De (Eds.), International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) 8.6, Grand successes and failures in IT. Public and Private Sectors, Bangalore, India (pp. 89–104). Berlin: Springer.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state—Information technology and institutional change. Washinghton: The Brookings Institution.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957.
Gephart, R. (2004). Sensemaking and the newmedia at work. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 479–495.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational experience, in the thinking organization (pp. 49–74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472–488.
Henfridsson, O. (1999). IT-adaptation as sensemaking: inventing new meaning for technology in organizations. (PdDthesis) University of Umeå, Department of Informatics: Umeå, Sweden.
Henfridsson, O. (2000). Ambiguity in IT adaptation: making sense of First Class in a social work setting. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 87–104.
Jennings, P. D., & Greenwood, R. (2003). Constructing the iron cage: Institutional theory and enactment. In R. Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 195–207). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Jensen, T. B., Kjærgaard, A., & Svejvig, P. (2009). Using institutional theory with sensemaking theory: A case study of information system implementation in healthcare. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 343–353.
Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.
Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191–204.
Lin, A., & Conford, T. (2000). Framing implementation management. Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, 2000, 197–205.
Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 49–59.
Linderoth, H. C. J. (2002). Fiery spirits and supporting programs of action—Keys to exploration and exploitation of open technologies. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 4(3/4), 319–332.
Lucas, H. C. (1981). Implementation: The key to successful information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moez, L., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737.
Nan, N. (2011). Capturing bottom-up information technology use processes: A complex adaptive systems model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2).
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organisational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–207.
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2006). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 236–263.
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236–263.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonimic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive com-munities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.
Ramiller, N. C., & Pentland, B. T. (2009). Management implications in information systems research: The untold story. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(6).
Rau, D., & Haerem, T. (2010). Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(3), 287–297.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The free press.
Tscherning, H., Damsgaard, J., Berna-dos, A. M., Casar, J. R., Kautz, K., & DeGross, J. I. (2008). Understanding the diffusion and adoption of tele-communication innovations: What we know and what we don’t know. In G. Leon (Ed.), Open IT-based innovation: Moving towards cooperative IT transfer and knowledge diffusion. IFIP AICT (Vol. 287, pp. 39–60). Boston: Springer.
Tyre, M.J., & Orlikowski, W.J. (1991). Windows of opportunity: Creating occasions for technological adaptation in organizations, Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, 1–42. MIT.
Urquhart, C. (1997). Exploring analyst-client interaction communication: Using grounded theory techniques to investigate interaction in informal requirements gathering. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 149–181). London: Chapman & Hall.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Walsham, G. (1995a). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376–394.
Walsham, G. (1995b). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81.
Wastell, D., & Newman, M. (1993). The behavioral dynamics of information system development: A stress perspective. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 3(2), 121–148.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Enactment processes in organizations. In B. S. Staw & G. R. Salacik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger.
Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301–313.
Weick, K. E. (2009). Enacting an environment: The infrastructure of organizing. In R. Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating organization: Point-counterpoint in organization studies (pp. 184–195). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989). An assessment of the contingency theory of management information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 59–85.
Wu, J., & Lederer, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432.
An earlier version of this study was presented at IFIP WG 8.6 2013, please see (Elbanna and Linderoth 2013) for full details.
About this article
Cite this article
Elbanna, A., Linderoth, H.C.J. The formation of technology mental models: the case of voluntary use of technology in organizational setting. Inf Syst Front 17, 95–108 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9513-6
- Open technology
- Mental models
- Institutional setting
- Voluntary use