Orlikowski and Iacono's different views of technology provide a good framework through which technology can and should be viewed. I think that these views can be very useful tobuild holistic technology systems that do not ignore certain aspects of the technology that may be critical to its success.Being aware of and understanding these views helps me look at things from a different perspective. It is often that i find myself in a discussion around opposite views of aparticular technology with someone... what these views provide me with is the ability to look at the background of where the opposing view is coming from and in so doingunderstand why the opposing view may or may not be valid. It also then gives me a way to better explain my perspective.. in saying "well from a computational view such and sucha technology is great, but from a proxy view i can see why it still needs some enhancement..."
The research paper by Hsiao, Wu and Hou also presents a very interesting and relevant view of how technology can be not only be viewed differently but also used and exploiteddifferently depending on how it is perceived. The article higlights quite nicely how the social aspect of the users of the technology plays a vital role in how that technologyis used and how that could be so different from the way in which the designers of that technology envisaged the technology to be used.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
SA Airlink Case
Unfortunately missed the discussion around this due to my absense, but here are some of my views...
An aircraft is a highly sophisticated machine with a host of different technologies that complete it. However overall i think that the aircraft is the technology in this case. I am leaning toward the thought that this case presents somewhat of an abuse of technology. Abuse in the sense that the warning signs of the requirement for maintenance must surely have been there given the sophistication of the technology used to monitor an aircraft and it components, but somehow the maintenance was neglected.
The case presents a good example of how technology on its own cannot be effective. Processes and the interaction of people with the technology is a vital part of any technologies success of failure. The aircraft in the case failed on both a obejctive and subjective view because processes that were meant to be followed in termsof the maintenance were not followed.
Another issue that this case raises is how often it is that we wait for technology to break before we fix it. The famous saying that "If it aint broke, why fix it?" what we forget is the impact of the breaking of that piece of technology. Again this leads to my question of whether business people fully understand the impact of technology in their businesses and lives. Perhaps the question is extended beyond just non-technical business people, because the airlink case presents an example when surely even technical people were aware of the need for maintenance on the aircraft but yet it was neglected and the effects of the technology failing were not seriously considered.
Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) in their paper "...Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research..." put it well when they mention "The IT artifact tends to disappear from view, be taken for granted, or is presumed to be unproblematic once it is built and installed." How true this is...
An aircraft is a highly sophisticated machine with a host of different technologies that complete it. However overall i think that the aircraft is the technology in this case. I am leaning toward the thought that this case presents somewhat of an abuse of technology. Abuse in the sense that the warning signs of the requirement for maintenance must surely have been there given the sophistication of the technology used to monitor an aircraft and it components, but somehow the maintenance was neglected.
The case presents a good example of how technology on its own cannot be effective. Processes and the interaction of people with the technology is a vital part of any technologies success of failure. The aircraft in the case failed on both a obejctive and subjective view because processes that were meant to be followed in termsof the maintenance were not followed.
Another issue that this case raises is how often it is that we wait for technology to break before we fix it. The famous saying that "If it aint broke, why fix it?" what we forget is the impact of the breaking of that piece of technology. Again this leads to my question of whether business people fully understand the impact of technology in their businesses and lives. Perhaps the question is extended beyond just non-technical business people, because the airlink case presents an example when surely even technical people were aware of the need for maintenance on the aircraft but yet it was neglected and the effects of the technology failing were not seriously considered.
Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) in their paper "...Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research..." put it well when they mention "The IT artifact tends to disappear from view, be taken for granted, or is presumed to be unproblematic once it is built and installed." How true this is...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obective or Subjective.... That is the Question
Really enjoyed the debate around the objectivist vs. subjectivist views of technology...
The most insightful finding for me was that we view technology almost by nature subjectively. This was evident in how we found it difficult to understand that taking an objective view meant that both systems in the intranet and online publishing examples from the Kling 2000 article were actually successful... but as far as we were concerned the one had failed because we viewed it in context (subjectively).
Yet... yet... we almost take an object view when building and even sometimes in measuring the success of these same systems from an insider standpoint.
This has definately something that i will take directly into my line of work and ensure that we always try our best to use a subjective view when implementing systems.
Perhaps this argument takes a first stab at answering my question as well... It could be the objectivity of the business managers that prevent seeing the full impact of technology in the business. If there is a working system... they cannot see the value in enhancing or replacing it with something that would be more fit for the new or changed context within which they operate.
Perhaps a start would be to bring the 'Subjective' awareness of technology to these business managers??
The most insightful finding for me was that we view technology almost by nature subjectively. This was evident in how we found it difficult to understand that taking an objective view meant that both systems in the intranet and online publishing examples from the Kling 2000 article were actually successful... but as far as we were concerned the one had failed because we viewed it in context (subjectively).
Yet... yet... we almost take an object view when building and even sometimes in measuring the success of these same systems from an insider standpoint.
This has definately something that i will take directly into my line of work and ensure that we always try our best to use a subjective view when implementing systems.
Perhaps this argument takes a first stab at answering my question as well... It could be the objectivity of the business managers that prevent seeing the full impact of technology in the business. If there is a working system... they cannot see the value in enhancing or replacing it with something that would be more fit for the new or changed context within which they operate.
Perhaps a start would be to bring the 'Subjective' awareness of technology to these business managers??
Muzzi's Q
So, was what was meant to be my first post was regarding the question that I raised on day 1...
Do non technical business people fully understand the importance and impact of technology?
I ask this because in my experience in the field of designing and developing technology solutions, it is ever so often a tug of war between technology project priorities and daily business function priorities... One in which technology is always drawing the short straw.
This however only to be played out in the all so familiar scenario and statement in technology project circles, "... but the system is not doing what it is meant to do", fogetting that a third of the functionality was de-prioritised because of 'business critical' issues...
So following on from the initial question is... Why is it that technology projects are not given enough priority to be buffered up, so that if business critical issues do come up... there is not fight for resources and a need to de-prioritise?
Which leads to this... How do we get non-technical business resources to appreciate and fully understand the impact of technology in the larger context of the business?
Anyway... these are just some views and questions
Perhaps business managers and leaders do fully understand the impact... and again, perhaps they do not...
Personally I would like to see business systems as a piece/component/node in the business process model diagram. One of the fuctions that defines the way in which business is done rather than just a medium by which the business is carried out.
I will take a check point at the end of this course as to whether i have somewhat answered my questions...
What are your views??
Do non technical business people fully understand the importance and impact of technology?
I ask this because in my experience in the field of designing and developing technology solutions, it is ever so often a tug of war between technology project priorities and daily business function priorities... One in which technology is always drawing the short straw.
This however only to be played out in the all so familiar scenario and statement in technology project circles, "... but the system is not doing what it is meant to do", fogetting that a third of the functionality was de-prioritised because of 'business critical' issues...
So following on from the initial question is... Why is it that technology projects are not given enough priority to be buffered up, so that if business critical issues do come up... there is not fight for resources and a need to de-prioritise?
Which leads to this... How do we get non-technical business resources to appreciate and fully understand the impact of technology in the larger context of the business?
Anyway... these are just some views and questions
Perhaps business managers and leaders do fully understand the impact... and again, perhaps they do not...
Personally I would like to see business systems as a piece/component/node in the business process model diagram. One of the fuctions that defines the way in which business is done rather than just a medium by which the business is carried out.
I will take a check point at the end of this course as to whether i have somewhat answered my questions...
What are your views??
Monday, April 19, 2010
3rd time lucky
So blogging started off with some frustration...
This was not my first post... in fact this was not even my second...
I typed out my first post, a long well thought out post... but somehow managed to wipe it out... TWICE!!
So here's a post into the "avoid doing this" section of "blogging for dummies"...
Avoid highlighting the entire text that you have typed and then clicking on one of the arrow keys... IT DELETES ALL THE TEXT!! and CtrlZ does not work...
I guess this is technologies friendly reminder at the start of the course that we are not in full control....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)