Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The formation of technology mental models: the case of voluntary use of technology in organizational setting

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhattacherjee, A. (1998). Management of emerging technologies experiences and lessons learned at US West. Information and Management, 33, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds. Possible Worlds: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, P. E., Lake, L. K., & Stackman, R. W. (1988). Managing organizational change. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Towards a model of organizations as interpretive systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damsgaard, J., & Scheepers, R. (2000). Managing the crises in intranet implementation: A stage model. Information Systems Journal, 10(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. J. (2002). Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26, 329–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. J. (2006). A technological frame perspective on information technology and organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. J., & Pai, D. (2004). Making sense of technological frames: Promise, progress, and potential. Information Systems Research, 143, 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state—Information technology and institutional change. Washinghton: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. (2004). Sensemaking and the newmedia at work. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 479–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, H. C. (1981). Implementation: The key to successful information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2006). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 236–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonimic mental models in competitor definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The free press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995a). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995b). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wastell, D., & Newman, M. (1993). The behavioral dynamics of information system development: A stress perspective. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 3(2), 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this study was presented at IFIP WG 8.6 2013, please see (Elbanna and Linderoth 2013) for full details.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Surrey, UK

    Amany Elbanna

  2. School of Engineering, University of Jönköping, P.O. Box 1026, 551 11, Jönköping, Sweden

    Henrik C. J. Linderoth

Authors
  1. Amany Elbanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henrik C. J. Linderoth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik C. J. Linderoth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9513-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation