The technological frames of reference strand of social shaping of technology theory is used to overlay the issues arising from a case study looking at noncompliance with information systems. A recent review of the theory suggests that although frame content is often addressed, frame structure, the process of framing, and the characteristics and outcomes of frames are largely overlooked. This paper attempts to address this shortfall by applying the indicators identified by case study research to the frames of different groups and using them to highlight differing perceptions and attitudes. In this way, the author suggests that issues surrounding noncompliance should not be dismissed as resistance but instead should be further studied by managers and developers, leading to accommodation of differing views. Further examination of frame incongruence reveals dependence on inefficient or ineffective organizational situations and thus these indicators can be useful in future studies to identify and address procedural, acceptance and cultural issues leading to acts of noncompliance.


Social shaping technological frames resistance workaround 


  1. Bain, P., and Taylor, P. 2000. “Entrapped by the ‘Electronic Panopticon’? Worker Resistance in the Call Center,” New Technology Work and Employment (15:1), pp. 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskerville, R., and Pries-Heje, J. 1997. “IT Diffusion and Innovation Models: The Conceptual Domains,” in Facilitating Technology Transfer Through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research, T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E. B. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell (eds.), London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
  3. Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, J., Button, G., and Sharrock, W. 1995. “Workflow from Within and Without: Technology and Co-operative Work on the Print Industry Shopfloor,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, and K. Schmidt (eds.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
  5. Callaghan, G., and Thompson, P. 2001. “Edwards Revisited: Technical Control and Call Centers,” Economic and Industrial Democracy (22:1), pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiasson, M., and Davidson, E. 2005. “Taking Industry Seriously in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly (29:4), pp. 599–606.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, E. 2006. “A Technological Frames Perspective on Information Technology and Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (42:1), pp. 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, E., and Pai, D. 2004. “Making sense of Technology Frames: Promise, Progress and Potential,” Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, B. Kaplan, D. Truex, D. Wastell, T. Wood Harper and J.I. DeGross. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 473–491.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, C., and Hufnagel, E. 2007. “Through the Eyes of Experts: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective on the Automation of Fingerprint Work,” MIS Quarterly (31:4), pp. 681–703.Google Scholar
  10. Dunlop, C., and Kling, R. 1991. Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ferneley, E., and Sobreperez, P. 2006. “Resist, Comply or Workaround: An Examination of Different Facets of User Engagement with Information Systems,” European Journal of Information Systems (15:4), pp. 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferneley, E., Sobreperez, P., and Wilson, F. A. 2005. “Tricks or Trompe L’Oeil? An Examination of Workplace Resistance in an Information Rich Managerial Environment,” in Proceedings of the 13 th European Conference on Information Systems, D. Bartmann, F. Rajola, J. Kallinikos, D. Avison, R. Winter, P. Ein_Dor, J. Becker, F. Bodendorf, and C. Weinhardt (eds.), Regensberg, Germany, pp. 484–494 (http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20050041.pdf).
  13. Fincham, R., Fleck, J., Procter, R., Scarborough, H., Tierney, M., and Williams, R. 1995. Expertise and Innovation: Information Strategies in the Financial Services Sector, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fleck, J. 1988. “Innofusion or Diffusation? The Nature of Technological Development in Robotics,” Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No 4, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  15. Franz, C. R., and Robey, D. 1984. “An Investigation ofUser-Led Systems Design: Rationaland Political Perspectives,” Communications of the ACM (27:12), pp. 1202–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gioia, D.A. 1986. “Symbols, Scripts and Sensemaking: Creating Meaning in the Organizational Experience,” The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, H. P. Sims, Jr., D. A. Gioia, and Associates (eds.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 49–74.Google Scholar
  17. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. 1989. “Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development,” Communications of the ACM (32:10), pp. 1199–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirschheim, R. A., and Newman, M. 1988. “Information Systems and User Resistance: Theory and Practice,” Computer Journal (31:5), pp. 398–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iivari, N., and Abrahamsson, P. 2002. “The Interaction Between Organizational Subcultures and User-Centered Design: A Case Study of an Implementation Effort,” in Proceedings of the 35 th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  20. Khoo, M. 2001. “Community Design of DLESE’s Collections Review Policy: A Technological Frames Analysis,” in Proceedings of the First ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Roanoke, VA, pp. 157–164.Google Scholar
  21. Kobayashi, M., Fussell, S., Xiao, Y., and Seagull, J. 2005. “Work Coordination, Workflow and Workarounds in a Medical Context,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, pp. 1561–1564.Google Scholar
  22. Lankshear, G., Cook, P., Mason, D.,Coates, S., and Graham, B. 2001. “Call Center Employees’ Responses to Electronic Monitoring: Some Research Findings,” Work, Employment and Society (15:3), pp. 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lapointe, L., and Rivard, S. 2005. “A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation,” MIS Quarterly (29:3), pp. 461–491.Google Scholar
  24. Leonard, D. A., and Swap, W. C. 1999. When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  25. Levine, L. 1997. “An Ecology of Resistance,” Facilitating Technology Transfer through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research. T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E. B. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 163–174.Google Scholar
  26. Lin, A., and Cornford, T. 2000. “Framing Implementation Management,” in Proceedings of the 21 st International Conference on Information Systems, W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Krcmar, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
  27. Lin, A., and Silva, L. 2005. “The Social and Political Construction of Technological Frames,” European Journal of Information Systems (14:1), pp. 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyytinen, K., and Hirschheim, R. 1987. “Information Systems Failures: A Survey and Classification of the Empirical Literature,” Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, Volume 4, P. Zorkoczy (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–309.Google Scholar
  29. Marakas, G. M., and Hornik, S. 1996. “Passive Resistance Misuse: Overt Support and Covert Recalcitrance in IS Implementation,” European Journal of Information Systems (5:3), pp. 208–220.Google Scholar
  30. Markus, M. L. 1983. “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM (26:6), pp. 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martinko, M. J., Henry, J. W.,and Zmud, R. W. 1996. “An Attributional Explanation of Individual Resistance to the Introduction of Information Technologies in the Workplace,” Behavior & Information Technology (15:5), pp. 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGovern, T., and Hicks, C. 2004. “How Political Processes Shaped the IT Adoption by a Small Make-to-Order Company: A Case Study in the Insulated Wire and Cable Industry,” Information and Management (42:1), pp. 243–257.Google Scholar
  33. Mumford, E., Land, F., and Hawgood, J. 1978. “A Participative Approach to Planning and Designing Computer Systems and Procedures to Assist This,” Impact of Science on Society (28:3), pp. 235–253.Google Scholar
  34. Orlikowski, W. J., and Gash, D. C. 1994. “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (12:2), pp. 669–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petrides, L. A., McClelland, S. I., and Nodine, T. R. 2004. “Costs and Benefits of the Work-around: Inventive Solution or Costly Alternative,” International Journal of Educational Management (18:2), pp. 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., and Baden Fuller, C. 1989. “Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities: The Case of Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers,” Journal of Management Studies (26:4), pp. 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.), New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sewell, G., and Wilkinson, B. 1992. “‘Someone to Watch over Me’: Surveillance, Discipline and the Just-in-Time Labor Process,” Sociology (26:2), pp. 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Timmons, S. 2003. “A Failed Panopticon: Surveillance of Nursing Practice via New Technology,” New Technology Work and Employment (18:2), pp. 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Maanen, J., and Schein, E. 1979. “Towards a Theory of Organizational Socialization,” Research in Organizational Behavior (1), B. M. Staw (ed.), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 209–264.Google Scholar
  41. Walsh, J. P. 1995. “Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane,” Organization Science (6:3), pp. 280–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Polly Sobreperez
    • 1
  1. 1.Salford Business SchoolUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations