17

Chapter 2

Literature review

Organisational culture and information technology (IT)

implementation

2.1 Introduction The information age has arrived in full force and technology along with all of its

advancements is here to stay. Even though businesses seem to be all about numbers and

making a fast buck, companies are again realizing the immeasurable significance of

their human workforce. The recent awareness of organizational culture theory is

evidence that ‘the time has come to write meaning and emotion back into organizations’

(Gabriel 1991, p. 319).

This chapter presents a literature review on different aspects of organisation culture and

IT implementation in an organisation. It also explores selected tools used by other

researchers to assess organisational culture and level of IT implementation success. A

brief review of some works studying the relationship between organisational culture and

other aspects of an organisation in general and IT implementation in particular is also

presented in this chapter.

2.2 Organisational culture This sections looks at different aspects of organisational culture including its concepts,

definitions, its importance and components. A brief review of some tools used by other

researchers to assess organisational culture is also included.

Following their use in extant research, the two terms organisational culture and

corporate culture are used interchangeably in the present research.

2.2.1 Organisational culture

A. Concepts and definitions of organisational culture

The concept of ‘organisational culture’ has become popular since the early 1980s.

Along with the growing interest in the topic, there seems to be little agreement within

18

the literature as to what ‘organisational culture’ actually is and, therefore, there are

different definitions and perspectives on this topic. Some define organisational culture

as the observable behavioural rules in human interaction (Van Maanen 1979); some as

the dominant values in an organisation (Deal & Kennedy 1982); others as a consistent

perception within an organisation (Robbins 1998). One of the most common definitions

of organisational culture includes shared values, beliefs, or norms (Beyer & Trice 1987;

Tunstall 1983; Wilkins & Patterson 1985; Martin 1985; Barney 1986; Kerr 1991)

(Chen, CS 1994). As a summary, Yanagi (1994, p. ii) stated that organisational culture

can be defined as ‘philosophies and values shared by the members of organisations and

their behavioural patterns for translating them into practical actions’. Another often

referred-to definition of organisational culture was devised by Schein (1989, 1992).

According to Schein (1989), culture is a coherent system of assumptions and basic

values, which distinguish one group or organisation from another and orient its choices.

Hence, organisational culture implies ‘a pattern of basic assumptions – invented,

discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of

external adaptation and internal integration – that has worked well enough to be

considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems’ (Schein 1989, p. 9).

From another point of view, organisational culture might be seen as ‘a means of

stabilising behaviour’ (Graves 1986, p. 11). This view is supported by Kramer (1974)

and Foy (1974), who considered organisational culture as the glue that holds

organisations together – a means by which participants communicate and co-ordinate

their efforts – and incidentally a ring fence separating insiders from outsiders. In ‘An

allegorical view of organisational culture’ (Frost, et al. 1985), a group of organisational

researchers noted that ‘an organisation’s culture has to do with shared assumptions,

priorities, meanings and values – with patterns of beliefs among people in organisations.

Some people see such a culture as emerging to solve problems posed by situations that

people encounter in organisational settings; others see a culture as the ways in which

people cope with experience. Some talk of it as a ‘social glue’. Those who express

sensitivity to the idea of organisational culture say that what it does is sensitise people

to the softer, less tangible, more subtle aspects of organisational life. Talking about

organisational culture seems to mean talking about the importance for people of

symbolism – of rituals, myths, stories, and legends – and about the interpretation of

events, ideas and experiences that are influenced and shaped by the group within which

19

they live. This approach draws people’s attention to artefacts in organisations and the

meanings attached to them, and to an awareness of history, of the past in organisations

having a bearing on the present and the future in those organisations’. Although many

ideas about organisational culture seem to be shared by organisational researchers, there

are important differences and even disagreements. For example, some see the term

‘organisational culture’ as a metaphor – organisations are like cultures – and they try to

understand the attributes of culture that might be relevant to organisations in terms of a

symbolic process. Others see organisational culture as a thing, an objective entity

(‘organisations have cultures’) that can be examined in terms of variables (independent

and dependent) and linked to other things such as performance, satisfaction, and

organisational effectiveness. There is disagreement as to where the organisational

culture originates, whether the unconscious mind plays a role, whether there is a single

organisational culture or many cultures, whether an organisation’s culture or cultures

can be managed, whether organisations have cultures, or are places to study cultures,

whether and how organisational cultures can be studied and whether they should be

studied at all (Frost et al. 1985, pp. 17-18).

Numerous other definitions of organisational culture have been put forward which

resemble one another only in their vagueness. It seems that no single element is

detachable that might enable the organisational culture to be measured (Graves 1986).

‘The way we do things around here’ might be the most common sense and easy-to-

understand definition of organisational culture. However, it oversimplifies the concept

and misses powerful underlying concepts and processes. It is better to regard

organisational culture as referring to the shared assumptions, beliefs, values and norms,

actions as well as artefacts and language patterns in an organisation. It should be

regarded as an acquired body of knowledge about how to behave and shared meanings

and symbols, which facilitate everyone’s interpretation and understanding of how to act

within an organisation. ‘Culture is the unique whole, the heart and soul that determines

how a group of people will behave. Cultures are collective beliefs that in turn shape

behaviour’ (Organisations @ Onepine 2003). A key role for organisational culture is to

differentiate the organisation from others and provide a sense of identity for its

members. Organisational cultures do not necessarily have to always be logical or

consistent; in fact, they seldom are and can appear quite haphazard and chaotic to the

outsider. It can also have subgroups with different cultures and with varying agendas. A

20

strong culture is one that is internally consistent, is widely shared, and makes it clear

what it expects and how it wishes people to act and behave.

An important point made by some researchers while exploring the concepts and

definitions of organisational culture is the stress that culture is a dynamic, evolving

process, not at all static. Morgan (1986), for example, argued that culture must be

understood as an active, living phenomenon through which people create and recreate

their worlds. Schein (1989) also stated that organisational culture changes over time and

becomes more embedded into the ‘out-of-awareness’ functioning of an organisation.

Both Morgan and Schein’s views imply that key individuals have a crucial role to play

in shaping and refining the culture. Schein (1989, p. 2) claimed that ‘organisational

culture are created by leaders and one of the most decisive functions of leadership may

well be the creation, the management, and – if and when that may become necessary –

the destruction of culture’.

Although the main focus of this research is culture at the organisational level, it is also

important that due attention be given to the broader external societal, cultural context

within which organisations are embedded. Cultures are “layered” as stated by

researchers. Cultures permeate many levels of social life simultaneously. Some aspects

of culture are nearly universal, like the high value placed on family bonds and good

childcare. Other cultural themes are characteristic of whole regions of the world

(regional culture). A culture becomes characteristic of a specific nation (national

culture), or even of a particular social group (organisational/corporate culture), largely

because of its linkage to specific locales and experiences. Sometimes latent stereotypes

and the historical events that fostered them help to distinguish the cultural traditions of

different locals and groups (Beck & Moore 1985, pp. 335-336). Organisational culture,

therefore, has to be viewed in a broader perspective, with due consideration given to the

interrelation or the linkages between cultural themes at the regional, national,

organisational and individual levels.

Despite the various definitions and perspectives on organisational culture, one thing is

universal amongst most of them, and that is the shared nature of the beliefs,

philosophies, norms …etc. In essence, many claimed that the function of organisational

culture is to create a feeling of ‘esprit de corps’ within the organisation (Van Maanen &

21

Barley 1985, p. 39). If this is so, then we should attempt to examine why organisational

culture is regarded so important and valuable.

B. Increasing importance of organisational culture and research on organisational

culture

Organisational culture is the key to organisational excellence and the function of

leadership is the creation and management of culture (Schein 1992).

‘In general we find that outstandingly successful organisations usually have strong and

unique cultures… Unsuccessful organisations have weak indifferent sub-cultures or old

sub-cultures that become sclerosed and can actually prevent the organisation’s

adaptation to changed circumstances’ (Hofstede 1980, p. 394). This statement was

further supported by Graves’ (1986, pp.142-143) research findings which showed an

unanimous agreement by all the chief executives interviewed to the fact that: it is

essential, for business success, that the culture should be strong – that people within the

organisation should recognise and if possible adopt the values and attitudes espoused by

the leader and the senior managers (or the key influencing people within the

organisation). The researchers were able to find no case where the culture was weak but

the business successful.

Organisational researchers are becoming more aware of the importance of

understanding and enhancing the cultural life of an organisation. ‘One study of a group

of high-performance companies in North America indicated that paying attention to

organisational culture is an important ingredient in organisational success’ (Frost et al.

1985, p. 16). Looking at the ‘soft’ side of an organisation, researchers claim that

‘organisational culture might be very appropriate as a vehicle for exploring and

understanding life at work, and for making it more humane, more meaningful (Frost et

al. 1985, p. 21). Graves (1986) also affirmed the importance of corporate culture and

the need for research strategies and methods that investigate the various elements and

processes of organisation culture. He argued that culture is ‘the one thing that

distinguishes one firm from another, gives it coherence and self-confidence and

rationalises the lives of those who work for it. Culture satisfies the basic needs for

affiliation and security in attempting to describe as unified a grouping that may seem to

be random. It is life-enhancing to be different, and safe to be similar, and culture is the

concept that provides the means of accomplishing this compromise’ (p. 157).

22

Organisational learning, development and planned change cannot be understood without

considering organisational culture as the primary source of resistance to change (Schein

1992).

The ability to perceive and assess the limitations of one’s own culture and to develop

the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership (Schein 1992).

Interpreting and understanding organisational culture is an important activity for

managers, researchers and consultants because it affects strategic development,

productivity and learning at all levels. Cultural assumptions can both enable and

constrain what organisations are able to do. The organisational culture is based on a set

of attitudes and values, which have generally grown up over the years and may enhance

or interfere with the organisation’s effectiveness.

‘A consistent message coming from many people writing about organisational culture is

that mangers need to be aware of their group’s or organisation’s culture because it will

make a difference…Culture has become an important element in the managerial

equation. As applied to organisations, it extends rationality into interpersonal domains.

The rational manager needs to take culture into account’ (Smircich 1985, pp. 58-59).

Organisational culture has been shown to ‘affect workers’ commitment to and

identification with the group and organisation, as well as their sense of involvement

with their work assignments’ (Louis 1985, p. 85). With respect to the issue of change

and culture, there is solid documentation that overlooking organisational culture has

impeded efforts to change organisational functioning. Examination of past failures in

organisational development efforts points to the role of culture as a critical force to be

considered in effecting change (Beer 1980). In fact, many researchers generally see

culture as ‘a key to commitment, productivity, and profitability’ (Martin 1985, p. 95),

‘the means or the target for changes that have major commitment, control, productivity,

or even bottom-line consequences’ (Lundberg 1985, p. 169) (Wilkins 1983; Sproull

1979; Peters & Waterman 1982).

The effects of cultural misunderstanding can be painful for not only individuals but the

organisation as a whole. Embarrassments, unwitting insults, offences and failures to

accomplish individual and organisational goals are among common consequences.

23

Experience of many managers and researchers in the field of organisation theory,

strategy and organisation development all suggest that ‘an examination of cultural

issues at the organisational level is absolutely essential to a basic understanding of what

goes on in organisations, how to run them, and how to improve them’ (Schein 1989, p.

30).

The nature of the organisation culture significantly affects the way in which the

organisation operates and its effectiveness in achieving its goals; consequently, the

control of culture is a topic of great importance to those responsible for managing the

organisation. Some of the reasons why it is important to understand an organisation’s

culture are:

• It will determine the responses that an organisation will make to new problems

and challenges. It may facilitate change or be a stumbling block.

• It will determine the kinds of people who are attracted to the organisation and

who will be successful in it.

• It determines what counts as important in the organisation and so gives a clear

direction for planning training and management development programs.

Failing to understand and manage the organisational culture can lead to much time

being wasted on irrelevant activities and even to conflict between different levels in the

organisation, cynicism and disillusionment. Without control of the culture, subsidiaries,

departments and functions may take on their own culture. While some differences in

culture between groups within the same organisation may be acceptable or desirable,

there may be core values, which are vital to the success of the organisation and should

be shared by all. These core values need to be identified and embedded in the culture.

The process involves being explicit about what values are important to the organisation

and getting people to understand and commit themselves to these values (Human

Factors International 2004).

Schein (1989, p. 48) stated ‘failing to understand how culture works is just as dangerous

in the organisational world as failing to understand gravity and the atmosphere in the

physical/biological world’.

C. Different aspects of organisational culture

While exploring the ‘content’ of organisational culture, researchers seem to use a wide

variety of approaches, methods and terms to describe what organisational culture might

24

contain and/or entail. Some of the terms that have been used quite frequently are

organisational culture’s components, elements, dimensions, levels, and variables. For

example, while discussing an organisation’s culture, Schein (1989) referred to various

‘cultural elements’ such as the physical layout of an organisation’s offices, rules of

interactions that are taught to newcomers, basic values that come to be seen as the

organisation’s ideology or philosophy, and the underlying conceptual categories and

assumptions that enable people to communicate and to interpret everyday occurrences.

He distinguished among these elements by treating basic assumptions as the essence –

what culture really is – and by treating values and behaviours as observed

manifestations of the cultural essence. In a sense, he classified these elements into three

levels of culture (see Figure 2.1)

Figure 2.1 Levels of culture and their interaction

Source: Schein, EH 1989, Organisational culture and leadership, Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, p. 14.

Earlier, Lundberg (1985, p. 171-172) had offered a very similar view and distinguished

four (4) separate levels of meaning for an organisation’s culture (adapted from Schein

(1981) and Dyer (1982) (See Figure 2.2)

Artefacts and Creations Technology Art Visible and audible behaviour patterns

Values Testable in the physical environment Testable only by social consensus

Basis Assumptions Relationship to environment Nature of reality, time and space Nature of human nature Nature of human activity Nature of human relationships

Visible but often not decipherable

Greater level of awareness

Taken for grantedInvisible

Preconscious

25

Figure 2.2 Organisational culture – levels of meaning

ARTIFACTS

PERSPECTIVES

VALUES

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Source: Adapted from Lundberg, CC 1985, 'On the feasibility of cultural intervention in

organisations', Organisational Culture, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA, pp. 171-172.

At the more visible or superficial levels of culture in Schein’s and Dyer’s formulation

are artefacts. These are tangible aspects shared by members of an organisational group,

including variable verbal, behavioural and physical attributes. Also included are such

things as the language, stories and myths, rituals, symbols and ceremonies, technology

and art used by an organisation.

The next level involves perspectives: the rules and norms the members of a group or

organisation develop and share socially in any given context. Perspectives may be

viewed as the solutions to a common set of problems encountered by organisational

members from time to time. They define and interpret situations of organisational life

and prescribe the bounds of acceptable behaviour in such situations. They are relatively

concrete and members are usually aware of them

The values are the evaluation base that members of an organisation use for judging the

‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of situations, acts, objects and people. Values reflect the real

objectives, standards and goals in an organisation and define as well its transgressions,

sins, and wrongdoings. Though more abstract than perspectives, they can sometimes be

articulated by members in such statements as organisational ‘mission’ and ‘philosophy’.

At the deepest level of an organisational culture are the basic assumptions, which are

the tacit beliefs that members hold about themselves and the world, their relationships

to one another and the nature of the organisation in which they work. Largely

26

unconscious, they underpin the first three levels above. They can be viewed as the

implicit and abstract axioms that determine the values, perspectives and artefacts of an

organisation’s culture.

Another well-known author, whose ideas influence organisational work, Geert

Hofstede, has presented different approaches and perspectives on culture (at both

national and organisational level) in his numerous research and publications (Hofstede

1980, 1986, 1991, 1993, 1994). He argued that organisational cultures should be

distinguished from national cultures. Cultures manifest themselves, from superficial to

deep, in symbols, heroes, rituals and values etc. National cultures differ mostly on the

values level; while organisational cultures at the levels of symbols, heroes and rituals,

together labelled ‘practices’. Hofstede (1980) studied the differences in national cultures

for over fifty countries. The cultures show five independent dimensions of values:

power distance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity;

uncertainty avoidance; and Confucian dynamism.

• Power distance: a measure of the inequality between ‘bosses’ and inferiors, the

extent to which this is accepted.

• Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which one is comfortable with or feels

threatened by ambiguous, uncertain situations, the extent one can or cannot

tolerate uncertainty and tries to avoid it by establishing more structure.

• Individualism – Collectivism: the degree to which a culture relies on and has

allegiance to the self or the group. In other words, it is the degree to which one

thinks in terms of ‘I’ versus ‘we’; either ties between individuals are loose or

people are part of a cohesive group throughout their lives.

• Masculinity – Femininity (also known as achievement versus nurturance

orientation): the degree to which a culture values such behaviour as

assertiveness, achievement, acquisition of wealth or caring for others, social

support and quality of life.

• Confucian dynamism: this fifth dimension was later added following

Hofstede’s work with Michael Bond (Hofstede & Bond 1988) which was meant

to explain the rapid economic development of many Asian countries. This

dimension refers to the selective promotion of particular set of ethics found in

Confucian teachings. Particular teachings that lead to economic development

include thrift, perseverance, a sense of shame, and following a hierarchy. Other

Confucian teachings are less emphasised such as tradition and protecting face.

27

The impact of long-term or short-term orientation is also studied as part of this

dimension.

National culture differences are reflected not only in solutions to organisation problems

in different countries, but also in the validity of management theories in these countries.

Different national cultures have different preferred ways of structuring organisations

and different patterns of employee motivation. For example, they limit the options for

performance appraisal, management by objectives, strategic management and

humanisation of work. In his research into organisation cultures, Hofstede identified six

independent dimensions of practices:

• process-oriented versus results-oriented;

• job-oriented versus employee-oriented;

• professional versus parochial;

• open systems versus closed systems;

• tightly versus loosely controlled; and

• pragmatic versus normative

The position of an organisation on these dimensions is determined in part by the

business or industry the organisation is in. Scores on the dimensions are also related to a

number of other ‘hard’ characteristics of the organisations. These lead to conclusions

about how organisational cultures can be and cannot be managed. In the case of

international business, it means handling both national and organisational culture

differences at the same time. Hofstede argued that ‘organisational cultures are

somewhat manageable while national cultures are given facts for management; common

organisational cultures across borders are what keep multinationals together. While

defining culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the

members of one human group from another’, Hofstede (1991, 1997) emphasises that

culture is not a property of the individuals, but of groups. Country boundaries are

usually cultural boundaries, and national culture is instilled from birth. It has to do with

what is considered proper, civilised behaviour in that country: It includes, for instance,

how to act towards strangers, colleagues, family; how to address somebody, whether to

look them in the face, when to invite them home etc…

Some other researchers, while studying organisational culture, noted that an

organisation’s structure is a determinant of its culture, i.e. certain structures create

certain type of cultures, as reflected in Charles Handy’ s work. He outlines a simple

28

framework for categorising cultures. Handy also uses four (4) Greek Gods to illustrate

his basic approaches and the organisational cultures that result (Handy 1991). His four

organisational cultures are very easy for people to understand and groups easily readily

identify with them and begin to explore their culture through the models he uses:

• Role Culture: is perhaps the most readily recognised and common of all the

cultural types. It is based around the job or role rather than the personalities and

is epitomised by what we tend to think of as the traditional hierarchical

structure. As such, it is often referred to as a bureaucracy – controlled by

procedures, role descriptions and authority definitions. Co-ordination is at the

top. Job position is central. Its strengths are in its predictability, stability and

consistency while its obvious opposites of inflexibility and slowness of reaction

and adjustment are its weakness. A role culture creates a highly structured,

stable organisation – a bureaucracy – precise job descriptions, usually with a

single product. Because of the focus on the role this culture tends to be

impersonal, and by implication restrictive, suppressing individuals attempts at

improvements. It does not take much thought to work in a role culture. Change

is therefore relatively slow and is often only brought about by fear – hardly the

best atmosphere for progress.

• Task Culture: is one where management is basically concerned with the

continuous and successful solution to problems. Performance is judged in terms

of results and problems solved. Although a structure exists, it is flexible and

capable of being formed and reformed depending upon the task in hand (more

flexible and adaptable). Handy (1991) likens it to a net where the power comes

from the junctions or interstices. The organisation is therefore a more loosely

bound than the role model. It is very much a small team approach – the network

organisation – small ‘organisations’ cooperating together to deliver a project.

The emphasis is on results, problem-solving, getting things done. Individuals

empowered with discretion and control over their work. Power and respect come

from individual knowledge and talent rather than rank or position. The power

being influenced from various positions depending upon the current task.

• Power Culture: It is like a web with a ruling spider. Those in the web are

dependent on a central power source. Rays of power and influence spread out

from a central figure or group and lines of communications do not radiate out

from this centre but also link side ways across the organisation. In this type of

organisation, power derives from the top person, and a personal relationship

29

with that individual matters more than any formal title or position. The dominant

influence of the centre results in a structure that is able to move quickly and

respond to change and outside threats. This ability is gained not by formal

methods but by the selection of like-minded individuals who in key positions are

able to ‘guess what the Boss would do’ without the need for conformist systems.

This culture is often found in small entrepreneurial organisations and political

groups but will frequently breakdown as they grow since the web is more

difficult to maintain with size. Alternatively, the culture may spawn subsidiary

webs.

• Person (Star) Culture: The individual is the central point. If there is a structure,

it exists only to serve the individuals within it. The culture only exists for the

people concerned; it has no super-ordinate objective. Although not a common

culture for an entire organisation to be based, it is non the less found in small

areas of large companies. The culture is that of educated and articulate

individuals, specialists who have come together because of common interest –

solicitors, academic researchers, consultants etc… They may use some common

office services but generally operate independently. They tend to have strong

values about how they will work and are very difficult for the organisation to

manage. The organisation – the “existential” organisation exists so that

individuals can achieve their purposes e.g. universities, medical practices and

professional groupings. Charles Handy (1991- video) describes attempting to

control this type of organisation as ‘like trying to herd a group of tom cats’.

It is easily observed that while the first two cultural models focus on the role or task, the

last two place the emphasis on individuals.

While reviewing different approaches and perspectives on organisational culture,

Graves (1986) referred to a study, which argued that organisational culture consists of

five (5) variables:

Communication e.g. How receptive are those about you to your ideas and

suggestions?

Motivation e.g. How much do you look forward to coming to work each

day?

Decision-making e.g. To what extent are the persons who make decisions aware

of problems at lower levels in the company?

30

Control e.g. How much say or influence do the various levels of the

hierarchy have on what goes on in your department?

Co-ordination e.g. To what extent do persons in different departments plan

together and co-ordinate their efforts?

These 5 variables were called ‘climate variables’ which were correlated with four (4)

‘leadership variables’, as follows:

(1) Managerial support i.e. The degree to which the manager increases his

subordinates’ feeling of being worthwhile and important

people.

(2) Goal emphasis i.e. The degree to which the manager stimulates enthusiasm

for getting the work done.

(3) Work facilitation i.e. The degree to which the manager helps his subordinates

to get the work done by removing obstacles and roadblocks.

(4) Interaction facilitation i.e. The degree to which the manager builds the subordinates

group into a work team.

The researcher also pointed out that (1) and (4) deal with the employee as an

organisational participant (people-concerned variables), whilst (2) and (3) deal with the

employee as a member of a production team (production-concerned variables) (Graves

1986, pp. 9-10).

2.2.2 Some tools used to assess organisational culture

A. Diagnosis / assessment of organisational culture

Every organisation has a culture of its own; organisational culture can be positive or

negative, strong and unique or weak and indifferent. Generally, an organisation desires

a positive culture as a support for its growth and development or at least for avoiding

failure. However, organisational culture may not be shaped up in the desired direction in

every case (Rahman 1994). As presented earlier in section 2.2.1/B, outstandingly

successful organisations usually have strong and unique cultures while unsuccessful

organisations have weak and indifferent cultures (Hofstede 1980). The researchers were

unable to find a case where the culture was weak but the business successful. However,

there were cases where the culture was strong but the business was unsuccessful. This

was because the culture was inappropriate to the aims of the business (Graves 1986).

These findings inevitably lead us to the most fundamental questions: Weak culture or

31

strong? Right culture or wrong? The answers to these questions are of critical substance

to the success of an organisation and there comes the role and importance of measuring

and diagnosing the culture of the organisation.

Individual and organisational performance, and the feelings that people in an

organisation have about that organisation, cannot be understood unless one takes into

account the organisation’s culture. There are now many claims that organisational

culture can determine the degree of organisational effectiveness and individual

satisfaction, either through its ‘strength’ or through its ‘type’ (see, for example, Deal &

Kennedy 1982; Peters & Waterman 1982; Wilkins & Ouchi 1983) (Schein 1989, p. 24).

The next important question is how to define the ‘strength’ and ‘type’ of an

organisation’s culture.

It has also been acknowledged that one of the golden rules of business management is:

‘If you can not measure something you can not manage it’. Put it another way, one can

say ‘The easier and the more accurate you can measure something, the easier it is to

manage’. The more difficult, costly and questionable it is to measure an organisation’s

activities (or even the forces and causes leading to those activities), the more

management will be inclined to shy away from that activity or factor. Typical examples

of such areas are an organisation’s culture, staff morale and the existence or not of

creativity and innovation in the organisation (Conradie 2004).

‘Managers feel strongly about organisational culture but until now have had few ways

of talking about it, still less of measuring it’ (Graves 1986, p. 22). As one of the famous

authors in the field of organisational studies Schein (1989, p.136) has put it: ‘Culture

does not reveal itself easily. It is clearly there, but to articulate it and describe it requires

great patience and effort’.

B. Some tools / instruments used to assess organisational culture

Given the importance of organisational culture, many researchers, consultants and

managers have attempted to search for a valid and applicable measurement

tool/instrument to help understand, diagnose, measure and manage an organisation’s

culture. Various tools have been developed with a variety of qualitative and quantitative

approaches to measuring organisational culture, making the choice of methods a matter

of goal and purpose of the particular investigation. In some cases, qualitative measures

32

may have an advantage in the assessment of certain aspects of an organisational culture

e.g. attitudes, satisfaction. The diversity of measurement tools and approaches reflects

the diversity in perspectives on the content, levels, dimensions, typology and the

formation and development of organisational culture which ultimately dictate what

needs to be uncovered and/or measured and who need to be involved in the process. For

example, Graves (1986) started his research on diagnosing corporate culture with the

argument that ‘If it is true that you can understand a man by the company he keeps, then

a good way to understand a company is by the people it keeps. You might measure the

way groups of people from different companies react to the same stimulus – if the

reactions were observably different, it would be possible to classify the groups.

However, not all levels of an organisation are equally affected by culture: at the lower

levels, it is the rulebook, which dominates, and people move from one company to

another almost unaffected by changes in culture. It is only at the senior levels that

culture plays an important part in corporate activity – the level where ‘company

politics’ becomes a factor to be reckoned with in daily business life. Therefore, in

measuring culture we would look, for preference, at those whose job is the maintenance

of discipline and the motivation to achieve corporate goals’ (p.52). Because of this

logic, the sample of Graves’ research is the general population of senior managers – the

“high priests” of the organisational culture (p.70). These managers were at three

different levels of management: director, senior manager, middle manager and were

divided into 4 sub-groups relating to 4 different types of organisations they came from:

chain store, local government agency, manufacturing company and insurance broker.

The research tool selected by Graves was Ghiselli Self Description Inventory which

measure traits associated with successful management. The inventory is a questionnaire

consisting of sixty four pairs of personally descriptive adjectives, thirty two of equal

positive, and thirty two of equal negative value to the subject. In half of the pairs, the

respondent is asked to tick one adjective of each pair, which he believes most

characterises him, both adjectives referring to socially desirable traits. In the other half

of the pairs, he is to tick the adjective he believes least characterises him, both

adjectives in these pairs referring to socially undesirable traits. The answers are coded,

scored, computed and analysed using the statistical package for the social sciences. The

results are presented under ten (10) headings, which are the ten underlying management

traits represented by the sixty four pairs of adjectives, namely:

• Need for achievement

• Need for self-actualisation

33

• Need for power

• Need for reward

• Need for security

• Supervisory ability

• Intelligence

• Initiative

• Self-assurance

• Decisiveness

The scores for each attribute were compared between subgroups of the samples and

between levels of management. The frequency distribution and the correlations between

the traits in general were evaluated. The correlations for each type of organisation are

analysed to help identify a general model for its culture. For example, the correlations

statistics for manufacturing companies show that this is the only group where none of

the drives is associated with supervisory ability. This would seem to indicate that this

attribute is not one which is sought after by the company in a consistent manner. On the

other hand, it is the only group to relate all drives to intelligence, as if this was the

overriding requirement in company personnel; the same applies to decisiveness. The

model for the culture then becomes one of seeking to attract self-assured, decisive

people and, by means of stimulating their need for achievement and need for self-

actualisation, improve their intelligence (p. 81). The results of various comparisons,

correlations, factor analysis, discriminant analysis, coefficients…were further analysed

and synthesised to give a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the culture of each

type of the organisations investigated.

Some other assessment methods have been developed with a stress on the value of

system dynamic modelling and simulations to understand how complex interactions can

affect organisational behaviour (e.g. Bryant & Darwin 2003; Senge & Sternman 1992).

Theses approaches share the view of culture as a characteristic that emerges from the

interactions among individuals and various organisational sub-systems over time.

Therefore, culture is not a single isolated state or behavioural characteristic that can be

observed independently of the organisational context.

Schein (1989) had a different approach which was based on the argument that the

pattern of assumptions that underlie what people value and do in an organisation are the

34

basic cultural essence of that organisation. This conception led to his next argument that

you have to uncover the underlying assumptions in an organisation to reveal its cultural

paradigm. Consequently, he developed a ten-step method, which he described as a

“Joint exploration through interactive interviewing” (p. 113-126). The ten steps

involved are listed below:

1. Entry and focus on surprises

2. Systematic observation and checking

3. Locating a motivated insider

4. Revealing the surprises, puzzlements, and hunches

5. Joint exploration to find explanation

6. Formalising hypotheses

7. Systematic checking and consolidation

8. Pushing to the level of assumptions

9. Perpetual recalibration

10. Formal written description

The underlying cultural assumptions, around which the cultural paradigm of an

organisation forms, are assessed by its positions on specific dimensions. The five

dimensions for organisational culture diagnosis and analysis proposed by Schein (1989)

include:

Dimension 1: Organisation’s relationship to its nature

• Basic identity and role: who what, why…

• Relevant environments: Economic, Political, Technological, Sociocultural …

• Position vis-a`-vis those environments: e.g. dominance, submission,

harmonising, finding a niche…

Dimension 2: Nature of reality and truth, basis for decisions

• Physical, social and subjective reality: e.g. The nature of time, the nature of

space

• Criteria of verifiability – Moralism-Pragmatism: Basis for taking action: e.g.

Tradition; Religious/moral dogma; by wise man or authorities; Rational/legal

process; Conflict resolution/open debate; Trial and error; or scientific test.

Dimension 3: The nature of human nature

• Basic human nature: e.g. good, bad, neutral

• Mutability: e.g. fixed at birth or mutable and perfectible

Dimension 4: The nature of human activity

35

• Proactive, “Doing” orientation

• Reactive, “Being” orientation

• Harmonising, “Being-in-becoming” orientation

Dimension 5: The nature of human relationships

• Human relationships: e.g. Lineality-tradition, hierarchy, family; Collaterality-

group cooperation; or Individuality-competition

• Organisational relationships: power distribution, involvement, structure,

conflict resolution…

Description of the steps together with a detailed guide to interviewing methodology,

analytical methods to be used in group discussion, examples of what questions to be

asked, what to observe, to check and to look for within each step and in relation to each

specific dimension are provided. The results obtained from the whole process are

compiled, synthesised and analysed to give a description of the assumptions of a given

organisational culture. The assumptions are tested to show how they relate to each other

in a meaningful pattern – to articulate the paradigm. It could be seen that Schein’s

method is based on a process consultation approach. It is principally a qualitative tool, a

theory-based examination of artefacts, espoused values and shared basic assumptions

using a variety of semi-structured procedures and observational techniques.

The Denison organisational culture survey (Denison 1990) is another instrument for

which evidence of sensitivity to organisational change has been presented. This tool

assesses organisational culture along the four basic cultural traits, which are presented

by certain organisational dimensions. The tool consists of 60 items, which are used to

assess and measure the dimensions. Table 2.1 below gives a brief description of the

structure of the instrument.

36

Table 2.1 Denison organisational culture survey (adapted)

TRAIT DIMENSION EXAMPLES OF ITEMS

Empowerment Decisions are usually made at the level where the best information is available

Team orientation Cooperation across different parts of the organisation is actively encouraged INVOLVEMENT

Capability development There is continuous investment in the skills of employees

Core values The leaders and managers “practice what they preach”

Agreement When disagreement occur, we work hard to achieve win-win solutions CONSISTENCY

Coordination and Integration

It is easy to coordinate projects across different parts of the organisation

Creating change The way things are done is very flexible and easy to change

Customer focus Customer comments and recommendations often lead to changes ADAPTABILITY

Organisational learning We view failure as an opportunity for learning and improvement

Strategic direction & intent

There is a clear mission that gives meaning and direction to our work

Goals & objectives There is widespread agreement about goals MISSION

Vision We have a shared vision of what the organisation will be like in the future

Source: Adapted from Denison, DR 1990, Corporate culture and organisational

effectiveness, Wiley, New York.

Denison’s Organisational culture survey offers a quantitative multi-dimensional

assessment of the main organisational cultural traits. The assessment has also been

correlated with organisational performance measures. Denison (1990) argues that this

approach allows for assessment of the ways in which organisations (or sub-groups

within organisations) deal with seemingly contradictory or paradoxical goals and

demands. Denison regards the understanding of such conflicts as essential to developing

sustainable adaptive organisational behaviour, and a number of studies have reported

that the pattern of cultural traits of high-performance organisations can be clearly

distinguished from those with lower performance (Denison 1984; Denison & Mishra

1995; Fisher & Alford 2000). Under such a model, organisational culture might be

viewed as the system that permits organisations to make coordinated adaptive responses

to the numerous competing and even paradoxical demands.

37

Organisational culture profile (OCP) (O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell 1991) was

originally developed to measure person-organisation fit but later has been used

extensively in various researches as an instrument for assessing cultural characteristics

of organisations. The OCP contains 54 value statements (also called OCP items – See

Appendix 1 – Organisational culture profile item set) that can generically capture

organisational values and characteristics. The general procedure was to ask respondents

familiar with the organisation to sort the 54 items into nine categories ranging from

least to most characteristic of the organisation. Scores are allocated accordingly. The

OCP was further tested and developed which led to the identification of seven

organisational culture dimensions underlying the OCP: Innovation, Stability, Respect

for people, Outcome orientation, Detail orientation, Team orientation and

Aggressiveness. The same seven dimensions have been found to characterise firms

across various industries (Chatman & Jehn 1994) and also among a sample of

international firms (Hofstede et al. 1990). The OPC dimensions also resemble the types

of cultural knowledge that Sackmann (1992) found to exist across a single organisation.

The OCP instrument developed by O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991) was modified

and utilised by Harper and Utley (2001) in a 3-year study on 18 companies involved in

government and commercial ventures. Further to the use of 54 attributes that define an

organisation’s culture, Harper and Utley (2001, pp. 11-12) plotted the cultural styles on

a grid similar to Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. The vertical axis (ranked

from 1 to 9) gauged the degree to which an organisation’s culture exhibits concern for

people attributes (i.e., fairness, collaboration with others, enthusiasm for the job, trust),

and the horizontal axis (also ranked from 1-9) represents the degree of cultural concern

for production attributes (i.e., compliance, risk-taking, precision, competition). Within

each of the major orientations of the managerial grid, specific cultural attributes were

mapped against the cultural implications developed for those orientations, to create a

cultural attributes grid (CAG). The five grid positions from the managerial grid were

used to identify the cultural styles on the cultural attributes grid. A position of (9,9) on

the grid is the teamwork position and indicates that the organisation has high level of

concern for both people and production issues. This is seen as the optimal position,

because the organisation is seeking the best possible answer by having everyone

involved. The (9,1) position holds that this type of organisation has a high level of

concern for production issues but low level of concern for people issues. This is an

38

authoritarian-type culture. The (1,9) position defines the country club culture, where

people issues are the focus to the exclusion of production issues. The assumption here is

that happy workers are productive workers. A compromise cultural style describes the

(5,5) position. Organisations of this type try to balance the necessary evils across the

organisations in an equitable manner. The (1,1) position defines the dangerous style of

basic abdication, that of having little concern for people or production. The strategy of

this type of organisation is not to make mistakes, which is accomplished by not doing

very much.

The Competing values framework (CVF) was originally presented by Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1983) who were interested in determining the values that employees held as

valuable with regard to organisational effectiveness. Their research indicated that the

values of organisational effectiveness clustered into four groups. From this, Quinn

(1988) presented a model of organisational culture based on two dimensions: (1)

organisational process (organic vs. mechanistic) and (2) organisational orientation

(internal vs. external), which resulted in four types of organisational culture (See Figure

2.3). The ‘clan’ culture (organic, internal) is characterised by an emphasis on

cohesiveness, teamwork and commitment to the organisation where as the ‘market’

culture (mechanistic, external) is characterised by competitiveness and goal

achievement. The ‘adhocracy’ culture (organic, external) has as its focus creativity,

entrepreneurship, and dynamism. Finally, the ‘hierarchy’ culture (mechanistic, internal)

is characterised by order, rules and regulations, uniformity and efficiency. The CVF was

further developed and adapted by Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Deshpande, Farley

and Webster (1993) which allows the tool to examine organisational culture at a deeper

level and identify further implications. The four culture types Adhocracy, Clan,

Hierarchy and Market are assigned to the CVF quadrants. In Asian studies, the

researchers describe these four cultural styles respectively as Rabbit, Monkey, Elephant

and Tiger (Jacobs 2002). This concept has been used extensively by Deshpande, Farley

and Webster (1993 & 1997) in their Asian and cross-culture research. Figure 2.3

illustrates the model of Organisational culture types adapted from Quinn & Rohrbaugh

(1983), Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Deshpande, Farley and Webster (1993).

39

Figure 2.3 CVF-based model of organisational culture types

ORGANIC PROCESSES (flexibility, spontaneity)

TYPE: CLAN – MONKEY

• Dominant attributes: Cohesiveness, participation, teamwork, sense of family

• Bonding: Loyalty, tradition, interpersonal cohesion

• Strategic emphasis: Toward developing human resources, commitment, morale

TYPE: ADHOCRACY – RABBIT

• Dominant attributes: Entrepreneurship, creativity, adaptability

• Bonding: Entrepreneurship, flexibility, risk

• Strategic emphasis: Toward innovation, growth, new resources

INTERNAL MAINTENANCE(smoothing activities, integration)

EXTERNAL POSITIONING (competition, differentiation)

TYPE: HIERARCHY - ELEPHANT

• Dominant attributes: Order, rules and regulations, uniformity

• Bonding: Rules, policies and procedures

• Strategic emphasis: Toward stability, predictability, smooth operation

TYPE: MARKET – TIGER

• Dominant attributes: Competitiveness, goal achievement

• Bonding: Goal orientation, production, competition

• Strategic emphasis: Toward competitive advantage and market superiority

MECHANISTIC PROCESSES (control, order, stability)

Source: Adapted from Quinn, RE & Rohrbaugh, J 1983, 'A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organisational analysis', Management Science, iss. 29, vol. 3, pp. 363-377; Cameron, K & Freeman, S 1991, 'Organisational culture and organisational development: A competing values approach', In Woodman, RW & Pasmore, WA (Eds.), Research in organisational change and development, JAI Press, London, pp. 25-38; and Deshpande, R, Farley, JU & Webster, FE Jr 1993, 'Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis', Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, pp. 23-37.

By juxtaposing the quadrants along its two dimensions, the CVF makes it clear that

each quadrant emphasises different aspects of the organising process – people,

adaptation, task accomplishment and stability – issues that are important for every

organisation. Opposing quadrants highlight inherent dilemmas in the organising

40

process. The CVF has been widely used not only to assess organisational culture but

also to examine the relationship between organisational culture and other organisational

phenomena including organisational effectiveness (e.g. Cameron 1985, Zammuto &

Krakower 1991, Smart & St. John 1996), business performance (e.g., Deshpande,

Farley and Webster 1993), TQM implementation (e.g. Shortell et al. 2000), marketing

strategy and performance (Baker & Jon 1995).

The Human Factors International’s (2004) Organisational Culture Questionnaire (OCQ)

was designed as a practical instrument of measurement and management of

organisational culture change. It is a tool used for identifying the culture which is at

present operating in the organisation. The OCQ does not categorise the organisational

culture into a particular type but describes it in terms of its predominant characteristics,

behaviours and attitudes. The OCQ comprises 130 questions relating to 13 different

dimensions of organisational culture: Leadership, Conflict management, Productivity,

Innovation, Participation, Communication, Decision making, Organisational goal

integration, Organisation structure, HR management, Customer focus, Professionalism

and Fun. Members of an organisation are asked to decide whether the statements

describe a predominant feature of their organisation or not. A further option in the OCQ

is to choose to use a five point scale instead of the simple ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘Don’t

know’ options. Respondents are asked to rate whether the statements predominantly

describe the behaviour and/or beliefs in their organisation and are given five options

from ‘Almost always’ to ‘Rarely’. The responses can be analysed for the whole

organisation or for individual departments.

Organisational Culture Inventory (OCI) is another tool for measuring organisational

culture, which has been commercially marketed by a research, and consulting firm

Human Synergistics International. This empirically developed instrument has been used

in a wide variety of commercial, government, not-for-profit and educational

organisations throughout New Zealand and Australia (Human Synergistics International

2003). The tool was initially researched and developed by Cooke and Lafferty (1987).

Cooke and Szumal (2000) later provided an overview of how the tool can be applied.

Basically, the OCI provides a profile of an organisation’s operating culture in terms of

the behaviours that members believe are required to ‘fit in and meet expectations’

within their organisation. It measures ‘how things are done around here’. The OCI

examines how members of an organisation experience its operating culture. Through

41

members’ answers, the OCI measures twelve (12) distinct patterns or styles of

behavioural norms and expectations that members of an organisation might be expected

to adopt in carrying out their work and interacting with others. The 12 patterns are

classified into 3 groups of “styles” with Achievement, Self-actualising, Humanistic-

encouraging and Affiliative belonging to the ‘Constructive Styles’; Approval,

Conventional, Dependent and Avoidance belonging to the ‘Passive/defensive Styles’;

Oppositional, Power, Competitive and Perfectionistic belonging to the

‘Aggressive/defensive Styles’.

The 12 patterns are also categorised in terms of members’ needs: Perfectionistic,

Achievement, Self-actualising, Humanistic-encouraging, Affiliative and Approval

represent ‘Satisfaction Needs’; Conventional, Dependent, Avoidance, Oppositional,

Power and Competitive represent ‘Security Needs’. The 12 patterns are also used to

measure an organisation’s culture in terms of its orientation with some patterns are

distinctively related to the ‘People orientation’ such as Self-actualising, Humanistic-

encouraging, Affiliative and Dependent while some other patterns are related to the

‘Task orientation’ such as Competitive, Perfectionistic, and Achievement. Combined

OCI scores are then transferred to a circular graph to form a visual profile, or picture, of

an organisation’s current culture.

Given the existence of a wide variety of organisational culture measurement tools and

methods, careful selection of a relevant method should be made based on the goals,

focus and the purpose of each particular study. The best practice would seem to involve

a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches customised for the research

questions under investigation. A broad range of methods may be appropriate, ranging

from participant observation and in-depth and semi-structured interviews to some of the

of the more recently validated culture assessment tools. The good news is: the research

results to date ‘suggest that useful measures of organisational culture are feasible, even

if no one measurement strategy can yet be considered the “gold standard”’ (Boan &

Funderburk 2003, p. 12).

42

2.3 IT implementation

Introduction

Our society is being transformed by continuously evolving technologies that are

changing the way we do things at the most fundamental levels. On an individual level,

almost every aspect of our daily life is subject to technological innovations. We are

becoming more and more dependent on the flexibility, reliability, access and services

that they provide us. Information technologies, in particular, with their popular

applications such as computers, fax machines, networks, cable television, fibre optics,

and ATMs etc. have all played a pivotal role in the way we communicate, work, play

and do business. As the information age progresses we increasingly owe more of our

economic and technological progress to the free flow of ideas and knowledge.

Consequently, it becomes more important that we have access to superior and timely

information (Beaumaster 1999, p.1). The strategic importance of information

technology (IT) in transforming organisations and industries is now widely accepted.

From an organisational stance, the information age is in full swing and organisations are

experiencing an increase in the use of a variety of information technologies (ITs).

Realistically, it has become nearly impossible for an organisation to operate without the

use of one or more ITs (Beaumaster 1999).

Definitions of terms: IT & IT implementation

Information Technology: Up until the 1980s, computers made up almost all of what was

considered information technologies. Cooper and Zmud (1990, p. 123) defined

information technology as ‘any artifact whose underlying technological base is

comprised of computer or communications hardware and software’. Currently

information technology has become an umbrella term used to describe a rapidly

expanding group of equipment, services, applications and technologies (both hardware

and software) related to information access, collection, dissemination, processing and

storage. Often ITs are grouped as computers, multimedia and telecommunications. For

the purpose of this research, information technologies are defined in a broad sense and

are any of the above.

IT implementation: A standard dictionary definition of ‘implementation” states that it is

a means employed to achieve a given end, to provide a definite plan or procedure to

ensure the fulfilment of … (American Heritage Dictionary 1981). Implementation of

43

information technology is more complicated because the implementation process may

be long and drawn out, and in many instances may have vague boundaries. In the most

simplistic sense, IT implementation is the process (via a definite plan or procedure) of

getting a new or significantly changed, IT system in use for those it was intended

(Turban 1993). From a technological diffusion perspective, IT implementation is

defined as an organisational effort directed toward diffusing appropriate information

technology within a user community (Cooper & Zmud 1990).

2.3.1 Importance of IT implementation Information technology has become a mainstay in our society: it has an impact on

almost every function of our lives. We have truly become an information and

technology based society. Beaumaster (1999, p. 50) stated ‘The need for effective IT

implementation has never been more important’. From an international perspective, the

increasing global interdependencies and the accelerating pace of change demand more

flexible and adaptive organisations (Malone & Crowston 1991). Malone and Smith

(1984) have defined organisational flexibility in terms of “vulnerability” and

“adaptability”. Effective implementation of IT would decrease vulnerability by reducing

the cost of expected failures and enhancing the adaptability by reducing the cost of

adjustment (Malhotra 1993). At the organisational level, considerable pressure is placed

on most organisations to make their operational, tactical and strategic processes more

efficient and effective. An increasingly attractive means of improving these processes

lies in today’s wide variety of information technologies (Child 1987, Drucker 1987).

Presently, IT amounts to nearly one-half of U.S. firms’ annual capital expenditures and

increasingly affects how firms organise, do business, and compete (Keen 1991). In fact,

Jonscher (1983) suggests that the appropriate use of IT may be the principal source of

future growth for the U.S. economy. As business needs evolve, a solid IT infrastructure,

consisting of hardware, software, and people is the only hope for keeping up (Kwei

1998).

Beaumaster’s (1999) research results indicated that some of the most common roles of

IT in an organisation include:

• Enhancement of organisational operations (productivity/effectiveness)

• Facilitation and enhancement of information flow across the organisation and its

external environment.

44

• A tool for increasing efficiency with regard to job/task performance and

providing the ability to handle more complex tasks

• A tool for information dissemination and sharing as well as for provision of

quick, efficient resources.

• Improved service delivery

• A decision-making tool for managers and supervisors at all levels

• A tool for improvement in a wide variety of areas

From a strategic management viewpoint, Ho (1996), King (1978) and Rockart &

Morton (1984) suggested that the three major roles for IT are administrative,

operational, and competitive. The administrative role signifies the scope of IT as the

automation of accounting and control functions. This role requires the deployment of an

efficient IT platform (i.e. hardware, software, and communication systems) for

administration and control and is independent of the strategic management of the

organisation. The operations role is an extension of the first role and is distinguished by

the creation and deployment of a technology platform that creates the capacity to

automate the entire set of business processes as opposed to only the administrative

activities. In contrast, the competitive role represents a significantly different approach.

Extending beyond internal, efficiency focus, the capacity now exists for organisations to

deploy new IT applications that leverage the information and technological attributes to

obtain different sources of competitive advantages in the market place. Attention is

being increasingly paid to the potential role of IT to shape the basis of competition

(Rotemberg & Saloner 1991).

IT has become the means of delivering the goods and services in some sectors, e.g.

financial services, airlines and retailing. For a service-oriented business, IT strategy

may be synonymous of its product-market strategy. By comparison, technology is

generally emphasized in manufacturing organisations. Therefore, IT is most likely to be

used in enhancing manufacturing processes and controlling manufacturing operations.

The application of IT in manufacturing organisations either adds to efficiency and

precision of manufacturing equipment or facilitates in collecting manufacturing

environment information (Ho 1996). The strategic role of IT from a manufacturing

perspective can be referred to as technology push (Scott-Morton 1991).

45

In order to maximise the benefits from IT investments, organisations must understand

and manage their IT implementation processes. A major concern in such efforts is the

recognition by management of the critical issues to be raised and resolved for each of

the implementation stages (Cooper & Zmud 1990).

2.3.2 IT implementation in an organisation

Three eras of IT/IS evolution

This literature review grounds the study of IT implementation with its associated

development deployment processes and its underlying issues in the field of

Management Information Systems (MIS). This particular grounding serves to describe

the issue as part of a management process, which is not yet nearly as well defined as

other management processes. Grounding this study in the MIS literature provides a

historical basis, which would be unavailable through the review of IT implementation

literature only. In addition, this particular foundation places MIS and IT implementation

in its proper field of study – management (Beaumaster 1999) – while still allowing for a

tractable body of literature. The study adheres to the Management Information Systems

(MIS) and Information Resource Management (IRM) schools of thoughts, which

provide a management philosophy purporting that information is a crucial asset in the

ultimate success of an organisation and as such should be managed rigorously (Synott &

Gruber 1981, Kerr 1991). The literature on MIS has developed over a thirty-year period

and reflects the development/maturation of information technology and the attendant

management philosophy and practices. This development has been described by some

researchers in evolutionary patterns of three main eras: Data processing (1960-1970),

Management information systems (1979-1980) and Strategic information systems

(1980-1990s) (Ward 1995). While this is certainly the case to some degree, one must

understand that the transitional periods, which are delineated by decade in the text, are

actually quite fuzzy in real life, and each information system still exists in some form

today (Beaumaster 1999). It should also be noted that the timeframe and prevailing

development stage for IT/IS evolution are evidently different in developed and

developing countries. The review thus is mainly based on the Western literature.

The first era – Data processing – is primarily viewed as the era when the main focus

was on improving the efficiency of business through automation of basic information

processes. In essence, the management of actual technologies (mainly data processing

46

related) took precedence over the management of information. Data processors and

information and technology professionals were isolated from executive management

and planning arenas (Ward 1995).

The second era – management information systems – focused on the improvement of

managerial effectiveness by satisfying widespread information needs. Information

technology was no longer just for the data-processing centre. This was the time when

microcomputers were introduced, effectively changing the technical and managerial

environments of organisations as well as having a considerable impact on their external

environments. The power of computing shifted to a more decentralised situation and

with it came a shift in overall management practices. Managers at all levels of

organisations came to realise the power of information technology resources and began

to acquire their own systems to meet the needs that simple data processing could no

longer address (Marchand 1985, pp. 31-32).

The third and final era – strategic information systems – has its focus on improving

organisational or departmental competitiveness by affecting the overall business

strategies (Ward 1995; Weisman 1985; Theiruf 1994). Marchand (1985, pp. 27-34)

referred to this stage as knowledge management. Essentially, this concerns a shifting

emphasis from physical management of information and associated technologies to

management of information content and whole technology systems. The key to

managing information content is the successful application of information technology,

thereby maximising the benefits of the information. MIS at this level requires

recognition of numerous information technologies, widespread user involvement, and

significant planning and implementation strategies. One of the latest additions to MIS

literature is the concept of corporate information management (CIM) developed by

Strassman (1990). CIM stresses an organisation wide perspective on managing

information systems putting much of the responsibility in the user’s hands making IS no

longer a purely autonomous and isolated area of information specialists in the past.

Strassman (1990) lays emphasis on the need to re-examine and redesign work processes

before adopting major IT systems in an effort to reduce functions, which would hinder

the measurable value which might be produced. He reasons that the ultimate aim is to

achieve the core missions of the organisation effectively and efficiently (Strassman

1990, pp. 493-510). The strategic information systems approach to MIS makes use of

strategic management techniques in their models and focuses on structure, strategy,

47

systems, style, staff, skills and shared values, following the McKinsey 7S Model (Gluck

1986, p. 23).

IT implementation stages and levels

Beaumaster (1999, p. 53) outlined (See Figure 2.5) a simple 3-stage model of IT

implementation process based on the standard MIS process models (Davis & Olson

1985). A significant portion of the IT related literature refers to the process of IT

implementation as the “IT implementation process”. This addresses, in its most simple

context, a three-step process involving planning, procurement, and actual

implementation. In order to alleviate some confusion of titling the process “IT

implementation process” and having one of the steps of the process also labelled as

“implementation”, Beaumaster (1999) named the process “IT development and

deployment process.

Figure 2.4 IT development and deployment

IT Planning IT Procurement IT implementation

Source: Beaumaster, S 1999, Information technology implementation issues: An analysis, PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, p. 53.

The IT implementation process is viewed as a combination of three integral parts, each

of which involves a separate set of internal factors and processes. Each part is necessary

for the success of the following one yet each encapsulates its own important process. As

seen in the figure, IT planning has direct impact on the procurement process, and vice-

versa – IT procurement and acquisition capabilities are directly related to planning

efforts. Procurement affects implementation, which has a direct impact on both the

procurement and planning efforts. The first stage ‘IT planning’ provides a basic

stepping stone from which the rest of the process continues. The main focus of this

stage is generating the overall context of IT in the organisation by aligning it with

organisational directives, goals, missions, and strategies and generally includes

activities such as designing the systems, involving users etc. From the planning stage

48

the process moves on to procurement or acquisition processes. This is the first part of

the process where the ideas laid out in the planning stage begin to take shape. Some

typical activities involved in this stage are investment analysis, risk assessment,

cost/benefit analysis, life cycle planning, and system acquisitions. Once all of the

necessary facets of the IT plan have been acquired, the plan can be formalised and

implemented. The efforts will be focused on putting the systems into practice, managing

change, developing necessary skills, evaluating the relevance and effectiveness of the

new systems. Each stage of the whole process closely related to the others – failure to

plan adequately impacts both procurement and implementation. Conversely, a

breakdown in implementation may inform future planning efforts or require review and

adjustment of the original plan. Without the procurement portion of the process,

implementation would be impossible. The acquisition of the proper technologies and

budgeting for future acquisitions are integral to effective implementation of IT. Each

stage of the implementation process demands careful considerations and foresight, as

they are symbiotically related (Beaumaster 1999, p. 54).

The 6-stage model of IT implementation (Cooper & Zmud 1990)

In 1987, Kwon and Zmud proposed a stage model of IT implementation activities

founded on Lewin’s (1952) change model (Lewin’s 1952 change model: Unfreezing

Change Refreezing). This IT implementation model was later modified to

incorporate some of the post-adoption behaviours developed by Zmud and Apple (1989)

(see Table 2.2).

As mentioned earlier, the phases of this IT implementation process model relate to

different stages of Lewin’s change theory. Initiation is associated with Lewin’s

unfreezing stage; adoption and adaptation are associated with Lewin’s change stage;

and acceptance, routinisation, and infusion are associated with Lewin’s refreezing stage.

Cooper & Zmud (1990) noted that in practice, the actual implementation process may

not strictly follow this model’s stage sequence and if the stages are thought of as

activities, some of which may occur in parallel. Such a model can encompass the

variety of IT applications and IT implementation processes observed in most

organisations.

49

Table 2.2 Six-stage model of IT implementation process

PROCESS PRODUCT

STAGE 1

INITIATION

Active and/or passive scanning of organisational problems/opportunities and IT solutions are undertaken. Pressure to change evolves from either organisational need (pull), technological innovation (push), or both.

A match is found between an IT solution and its application in the organisation

STAGE 2

ADOPTION

Rational and political negotiations ensue to get organisational backing for implementation of the IT application.

A decision is reached to invest resources necessary to accommodate the implementation effort

STAGE 3

ADAPTATION

The IT application is developed, installed and maintained. Organisational members are trained both in the new procedures and in the IT application

The IT application is available for use in the organisation.

STAGE 4

ACCEPTANCE Organisational members are induced to commit to IT application usage

The IT application is employed in the organisational work.

STAGE 5

ROUTINISATION Usage of the IT application is encouraged as a normal activity

The organisation’s governance systems are adjusted to account for the IT application; the IT application is no longer perceived as something out of the ordinary.

STAGE 6

INFUSION

Increased organisational effectiveness is obtained by using the IT application in a more comprehensive and integrated manner to support higher-level aspects of organisational work.

The IT application is used within the organisation to its fullest potential.

Source: Cooper, RB & Zmud, RW 1990, 'Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach', Management Science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 124-125.

A framework for IT implementation (Walton 1989)

Walton (1989) proposed a framework for IT implementation stressing the view on

integrating IT and the organisation (see Figure 2.5). The essence of Walton’s theory is

that an extended implementation process comprises three phases. In the first phase,

management shapes the context before embarking on the development of a specific IT

system. The second phase is when the design of the IT system takes place. In the third

phase, the system is introduced, operated and diffused. The term ‘implementation’ is

given a variety of meanings in the IT related literature. Sometimes implementation is

limited to activities that introduce the systems but excludes the design process. In other

cases, implementation refers to both the design and introduction of IT systems, but not

50

to the activities that take place even earlier to create contextual conditions for a

successful employment of IT. Walton’s idea of an extended implementation process

embraces all these activities. He agued that it is necessary to manage all of these phases

of the process effectively and moreover, the phases are interrelated and overlapping

(Walton 1989, pp. 3-4).

Figure 2.5 Walton’s proposed framework for IT implementation

Phased implementation

activities

Key ingredients of effectiveness Results

Source: Walton, RE 1989, Up and running: Integrating information technology and the organisation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, p.3.

With an emphasis on the implications of the relationship between ITs and organisations,

Walton argued that there are five specific aspects that must be part of any IT

implementation process: priority attention and commitment of resources; the process

must be an extended one; the process must be inclusive; organisational values must be

an integral part of the guiding factors; and IT requirements must be developed in

Phase One Generating the context for IT, e.g., by aligning business, organisation, and IT strategies Phase Two Designing an IT system, e.g., by involving users in the process Phase Three Putting the IT system into practice, e.g., by managing the rate of change and the development of skills

Alignment Commitment/ Support/ Ownership Competence/ Mastery

Business and Human Benefits

51

conjunction and parallel with the technological and organisational aspects (Walton

1989, p. 31). The first aspect is related to the direct attention and leadership of top

management. Walton stressed that this kind of leadership should provide a distinctive

dimension to the process and that is, the critical importance of commitment of

organisational resources – not only financial resources but also those, which are

educational and personnel related as well. The second factor is related to the life cycle

of the IT implementation process. The process must extend beyond the development

and implementation of ITs in the organisation and it must ultimately continue through

the evaluation and adjustment stages as well. In the fast-changing area of IT, conditions

change throughout the development and use of information systems. In addition to

being extensive, the implementation process must also be inclusive as the impact of IT

on an organisation can be pervasive and demands the support and involvement of

individuals and groups across the entire organisation. The final two aspects deal with

the value base and on-going development of IT implementation. To be effective this

necessitates the infusion of organisational goals and missions into the process at the

very beginning. IT has such an impact on organisational outcomes that a clear

understanding of the preferred effects of the IT system is crucial. As an organisation’s

goals and objectives are not static, neither are the requirements for IT. The interaction

between IT and organisation is two way and changes over time, therefore, the

organisational and technological aspects of IT systems should be developed in parallel,

and if possible, be mutually adapted (Walton 1989, p. 31-32). Walton’s view of IT

implementation is widely adopted due to its recognition of the importance of integrating

organisational goals and garnering support at a number of different levels.

Another approach suggests that considerations for IT implementation should

systematically cover all three major aspects of Intent, Content, and Process. Many

researchers advocate that new ITs should be implemented in phases, stressing issues

like the need for experimentation, learning, overcoming resistance, adaptation, infusion,

cost control, and technology transfer (Neo 1994, p. 317).

IT implementation issues and problems

Since their inceptions, ITs have been upheld by many people as a cure-all for a variety

of organisational ills, and in many cases, viewed as an antidote to poor performance –

efficiency through the miracle of IT implementation. What is too often ignored or

52

forgotten amidst the discussions is that although ITs can provide a number of solutions

and benefits, they also introduce their own special problems and concerns into the

organisational setting. The implementation and subsequent use of ITs is a process of

interrelated steps. Faltering or mis-stepping at any of the implementation stages may

actually increase inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and promote any number of additional

uncertainties. ITs, in and of themselves, cannot solve all our problems (organisational or

otherwise), nor will they magically remove the various organisational and managerial

ills that plague us. According to Beaumaster (1999, p. 4), some of the prevalent

problems facing small and medium organisations implementing ITs are limited funds,

human resources, IT knowledge and expertise. Results of Beaumaster’s (1999) research

showed that the most problematic issues with regard to IT implementation include:

• Rapidly changing technology: The dilemma being ‘How does an organisation

plan for constantly changing and the often unknown future of information

technologies?’ (p. 94). In average, new and/or major developments in IT may

occur in 8-12 months. By the time planned for technologies are actually

introduced and utilised in the organisation, they may be well into their

obsolescence. This creates problems not just for physical hardware and software

implementation but also for the human side of the process – this issue has a

significant impact on training, individual expertise and individual resistance

levels. In addition, costs of the technologies themselves change rapidly, thereby

making fiscal planning difficult task (p. 98).

• Inadequate and uneven individual IT expertise: Each individual within an

organisation has his/her own expertise and comfort levels with regard to

information technologies. Part of the IT planning and implementation processes

must review these individual levels. Needs analysis is not just important for the

organisation as a whole but for each individual end user as well. Nothing can

destroy the implementation process faster than disgruntled users (p. 99).

• Inadequate training: As mentioned above, individuals within the organisation

are typically at different levels of individual expertise, thus making the training

process difficult to organise. The actual training process is complex, regardless

of the size and scope of the organisation. In many cases, IT training must be

outsourced through external consultants or operations. This adds an additional

expense, planning problems, and logistic problems for management with regard

to timeframes and scheduling. Training is essential to effective IT

53

implementation. Without the support and expertise of end users, no system can

achieve it full potential (p. 97).

• Lack of a strategic/formal plan: Lack of a strategic plan or use of a purely

informal plan provides little or no concrete directives for the acquisition or

implementation of ITs within an organisation.

• Fiscal/budgeting issues are particularly problematic to the IT planning and

procurement processes. Financial constraints may limit the choices of the most

suitable IT solutions and/or equipments. Information technologies generate a

variety of expenses. At the outset, their purchase can be quite expensive. In

many cases, this necessitates acquiring technology over an extended time-line,

which in turn creates compatibility, upgradability, and standardisation issues.

The two key budgeting issues with regard to IT expenses are training and

maintenance.

• Poor interdepartmental coordination: Effective IT implementation, which

enhances the organisation’s operations, demands an approach to IT which is

coordinated at all levels of the organisation. ITs impact on the organisation as a

whole. Lack of interdepartmental coordination could result in any number of

ineffective outcomes ranging from duplication of systems, incompatibility to

total system failure.

• Resistance to change: One of the biggest roadblocks in the area of IT

implementation is that ITs often represent completely new or radical changes

for the organisation and its individuals. Human beings typically reach a certain

comfort level with regard to their abilities and work processes. For most people

new technologies represent a daunting learning curve and possible downsizing

of their jobs. This perception introduces fear of the unknown and uncertainty

into the implementation process and creates significant resistance to change.

The consequences could be very serious since most ITs do not function

independently of human interaction. Effective training and internal leadership

are keys to alleviating much of the change resistance inherent in IT

implementation. Users must reach new comfort levels and develop the expertise

and skills needed to make effective use of new technologies.

With a slightly different emphasis, Wilson’s (1991) research findings indicated five top

barriers to the implementation of IT strategies as follows:

• Difficulty in recruiting or lack of appropriately qualified staff

54

• Nature of business: Either the business itself is growing and diversifying at a

faster rate than IT strategy can cope with, or the environment in which the

business operates is so turbulent and volatile as to make a virtual nonsense of IT

planning (or both of these things together).

• Difficulty in measuring benefits: Wilson (1991) stressed that, crude measures of

money benefits can hardly apply to all areas of effectiveness.

• Lack of resources for user education: Apart from financial constraints, it should

be noted that this problem might well be the results of a failure to recognise that

such resources will be needed.

• Existing IT investment, which might present additional problems and

requirements in terms of compatibility, upgradability, integration and

transitional operations. The costs are very much more than buy new hardware.

Apart from the obvious things like rewriting programs, procedures, and the

learning load on staff of a new operating system, there is also the new user-

education load.

In addition to the above, unsuitable technology, difficulty in gaining full approval for

the IT strategy and resistance to change were put forward as inhibiting factors for the

implementation of IT strategies.

The problems facing IT implementation in less-developed countries seem to vary from

those of the Western countries. In a study on information systems technology in China,

Ishman, Pegels and Sanders (1994, p. 301) reported that the major obstacles to IT were:

• User area management and others not understanding the computer and its

capabilities

• Fear of reduction of jobs and other impacts because of computer-driven

efficiency

• Lack of qualified personnel (e.g. managers with IT knowledge are in short

supply)

• Insufficient resources for investing in hardware, software and training

• Inadequate business management training

• Infrastructure obstacles: The telecommunications network is still poor, e.g. the

data transmission channels such as telephone lines are inadequate for

developing computer networks.

55

The researchers’ observations (as a result of over ten years teaching and consulting in

China) also pointed to some eminent problems facing IT implementation such as

(Ishman et al. 1994, p. 303):

• There is more than just sporadic resistance to using computer applications

packages

• Cultural, political and social barriers to new technological developments are

commonplace

• General knowledge diffusion is lacking

IT implementation success factors

While ITs are not the instant cure-all that many may view them to be, they are certainly

an asset and can provide a number of advantageous and effective solutions if properly

adopted. It is only through careful design, planning, acquisition, and implementation of

ITs that we may benefit from more effective operations and solutions to problems. The

successful implementation of ITs in any organisation depends on a multitude of

important and interrelated factors. Quite early in the history of IT, researchers

prescribed the importance of the following propositions for IT implementation: project

champions, top management support, adequate organisational resources, good

relationships between developers and user departments, user involvement,

communication, and a supportive organisational culture, for example, one that promotes

an attitude of trust (Walton 1989). These conditions continue to be important in today’s

IT environment. As researchers and managers continue to lean how to implement IT

effectively, new approaches and factors have come to light. In his book “Integrating

information technology and the organisation”, Walton (1989, pp. 4-5) proposed three

key ingredients as essential for effective IT implementation:

1) Alignment of business, organisational, and technological strategies: In the

introduction and operation phase, this factor takes the form of Operational

alignment – The system in practice is consistent with the company’s

technology, organisation, and business strategies, which are themselves

aligned.

2) Commitment of employees to and support of stakeholders for an IT system: As

implementation progresses, this ingredient becomes more specific and is

referred to as User ownership – The system in practice is owned by strongly

committed users.

56

3) Competence of employees or user mastery: The system in practice (and the

task purpose it serves) is mastered by its users, who continue to learn and who,

ideally, influence the system’s further evolution.

Walton stressed that deficiency in any of these areas can be harmful. For example,

without alignment, energy generated by system ownership and user mastery can be

misdirected and wasted. Without a feeling of commitment and support by users, the ITs

might not be fully utilised. Without users’ competence, strong commitment and

alignment may see users engage the IT system with enthusiasm and for the right

purpose, but ineffectively.

Success factors have also been identified with regard to specific stages of the extended

IT implementation process (Walton 1989). Wilson’s 1991 research pointed to two main

factors leading to successful implementation of IT/IS strategies:

1) Appropriate choice of systems: For example: a system that meets the business

needs and quickly adjusts to changed business needs or a system that has high

level of acceptability by users. To some extent, this factor refers to the

Alignment factor recommended by Walton (1989).

2) Senior management and Board support for strategies: Emphasis is made on the

need for senior management to extend their interest beyond the stage of

preparing the IT/IS strategies to subsequent stages of the IT implementation

process. Enthusiastic backing from, and the direct involvement of the senior

management is important. The senior managers have a natural inclination

towards using IT and the company is moving towards central business planning

which is fully compatible with the thinking behind the IT/IS strategies.

Thong, Yap & Raman (1997, p. 253) also stated that top management support is a key

factor for effective IT/IS implementation. In addition, he identified the external IT/IS

expertise (in the form of consultants and vendors) as the second most decisive factor for

successful IT implementation in small businesses.

2.3.3 IT implementation assessment IT/IS researchers have attempted to assess IT/IS effectiveness in various ways. The

measures range from cost-benefit analysis, system usage estimation, user satisfaction,

incremental performance in decision-making effectiveness, information economics,

57

utility analysis, and analytic hierarchy approach, to information attribute examination

(Srinivasan 1985). There seems to be no consensus among researchers on the

measurement of IT/IS effectiveness. Based on an extensive review of literature on IT/IS

effectiveness, DeLone and McLean (1992) concluded that it is unlikely that a single

convergent measure of IT/IS will emerge and they recommended multiple measures to

be used in future studies on IT/IS effectiveness.

According to Raymond (1985), the two dependent variables used as surrogate measures

of IT/IS success were user information satisfaction and level of system utilization. User

satisfaction has been judged by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) to provide the most

useful assessment of IT system effectiveness. The measurement instrument used by

Raymond (1985) for this variable is a 20-item instrument, adapted from the original 39-

item questionnaire developed and validated by Bailey and Pearson (1983). The

instrument uses 7-point semantic differential rating scales. User satisfaction is defined

as a multi-dimensional attitude towards various aspects of IT/IS such as output quality,

people-machine interface, IT staff and services, and various user constructs such as

feelings of participation and understanding. Level of utilisation was measured by two

items on which users rated their perceived frequency and regularity of IT/IS usage on a

7-point scale. In Raymond’s (1985) research, the correlation coefficient between the

two items indicated the unidimensionality of this measure. Both of these measures

related to the IT/IS in its entirety rather than to a specific application, thus enhancing

user comparability across organisations.

Walton’s (1989) 2 major criteria for assessing IT/IS effectiveness

According to Walton (1989), the assessment of IT implementation effectiveness should

be based on two major criteria: Economic results and human effects. Economic or other

commercial results are usually the most direct index of how well an implemented IT

system is realising its potential. Walton argued that human factors should also be an

essential indicator in determining the level of success of an IT implementation. The

results of an effective IT implementation, therefore, have to be twofold (p.4):

1) The economic purposes of the organisation should be well served by the

implemented IT system, for example, by improvements in productivity,

innovation, service, delivery and so forth.

2) The IT system’s effects on the organisation’s members should be positive, for

example, enhanced satisfaction and development.

58

An IT implementation assessment instrument developed based on this approach would

have two main parts with items addressing factors such as productivity, profitability,

service delivery etc listed under the Economic/Business Indicators part, and items

addressing user satisfaction, personal development etc under the Human Benefits

Indicators part.

IT implementation effectiveness measurement (Thong, Yap & Raman 1997)

In a 1997 research on the impacts of IT/IS environment factors on IT implementation

success in small businesses, Thong, Yap and Raman (1997) developed an IT/IS

effectiveness assessment instrument consisting of three main measures of user

satisfaction, organisational impact, and overall IT/IS effectiveness. The instrument is

briefly described in Table 2.3:

Table 2.3 An IT/IS assessment instrument

MEASURES INDICATORS SCALES User satisfaction 1. Convenience of access

2. Currency of reports 3. Timeliness of reports 4. Reliability of reports 5. Relevancy of reports 6. Accuracy of reports 7. Completeness of reports

Average over 7 items, each 7-point scale.

Adapted from Raymond (1987)

Organisational impact 1. Pre-tax profit 2. Sales revenue 3. Staff productivity 4. Competitive advantage 5. Operating cost 6. Quality of decision making

Average over 6 items, each 7-point scale.

Adapted from DeLone (1990)

Overall IT/IS effectiveness 1. Overall IT/IS effectiveness (overall evaluation of IT/IS

effectiveness – perceptual measure)

7-point scale

Source: Adapted from Thong, JYL; Yap, CS & Raman, KS 1997, 'Environments for information systems implementation in small businesses', Journal of organisational computing and electronic commerce, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 260.

ITP Instrument – Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (1994)

IT Profile (ITP) is another IT implementation assessment instrument developed for a

study commissioned by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the

59

National Research Council in 1991 (National Research Council 1994). The ITP looked

at a number of IT implementation areas (subcategories) across the organisation,

including:

1) Evaluation of overall payoff of IT investments

2) Existence and time horizon of an overall IT strategy

3) Decision process for IT investments

4) Types of IT investments

5) Pre-implementation and post-implementation evaluations of each type of IT

investment

6) Structural influence of IT implementation

7) User involvement

8) Performance metrics utilized

9) Primary causes of IT implementation failure

10) Other IT benefits not captured by program measures.

The instrument was used in both semi-structured interview and written survey

questionnaire forms. The results obtained were processed to give an overall assessment

of IT implementation performance and an understanding about both failures and

successes in IT implementation.

2.4 Nexus between organisational culture and IT implementation

2.4.1 Relationship between organisational culture and other aspects of an

organisation Academics, consultants and managers are increasingly interested in specifying

relationships among abstracted concepts such as culture, leadership, structure, and

strategy etc. so that they can add up in some way to organisational effectiveness

(Smircich 1985). Measures of organisational culture have been found to be related to an

organisation’s ability to adapt to rapidly changing business demands, to remain

competitive, and to sustain high levels of performance. Such models portray

organisational culture as central to the operation and function of the organisation,

providing a shared vision that can serve as an effective guide to appropriate and goal-

directed social and individual behaviours (National Academy of Sciences 2001).

However, a substantial body of work also portrays a less positive view of organisational

culture. In these models, organisational culture is viewed as a barrier to change and

often invoked as a reason for the failure of a change initiative. For example, Kotter

60

(1995) cites the inability to anchor change initiatives in the organisation’s culture as one

of the primary reasons that change efforts are not maintained. Aspects of organisational

culture such as resistance to change, ingrained attitudes, lack of understanding and poor

communication are often mentioned in the discussion of these failures. Culture, from

this vantage point, is seen as a force for organisational constancy and stabilization that

counters efforts to change. According to the Asian Productivity Organisation (APO

1994), corporate culture can influence organisational life in terms of seven basic

processes --- cooperation, decision making, control, communication, commitment,

perceptions and justification --- that lie at the heart of any organisation. Some of the

organisational culture’s manifestations may be apparent, but the underlying beliefs and

values are frequently unstated or not always obvious. Their subtle quality is easily taken

for granted. Corporate culture has its content and strength. While the content of culture

determines its effectiveness as it determines the direction in which culture influences

behaviour, its strength determines its level of influence or efficiency. As a result of the

specific content, an organisation’s culture could be positive or negative, depending upon

whether it is consistent with, and supportive to, the tasks and characteristics of the

organisation in question. A positive culture could help the organisation to (APO, p.

607):

• gain trust from the society

• make clear self identity and establish raison d’etre of the organisation

• strengthen its image

• enhance team spirit and commitment among its members

• provide members with confidence and pride towards their jobs

• guide management in decision making

• tide over difficulties and emergencies

• assimilate new employees into the organisation as members of the family

In all, the performance and chance of success of an organisation could be substantially

improved through the above-mentioned effect of having a positive organisational

culture. The following part will briefly present how organisational culture closely

interacts with and influences various other aspects of an organisation.

OC and leadership

In his book Organisational culture and leadership, Schein (1992, p. 2) claimed that

organisational culture and leadership are ‘two sides of the same coin, and neither can be

61

understood by itself’. In fact, there is a possibility that the ‘only thing of real importance

that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is

their ability to work with culture’. He also suggested that leaders have the most decisive

roles in the formation, evolution, transformation and destruction of an organisation’s

culture. Culture is created in the first instance by the actions of leaders and founders and

through the articulation of their own cultural assumptions; culture also is embedded and

strengthened by leaders. As the organisation and its culture develop, it is the leaders’

role to have an insight into the ways in which culture can aid or hinder the fulfilment of

the organisation’s mission. When culture becomes dysfunctional, leadership is needed

to intervene and make desired changes happen. Often this is done by leaders articulating

and selling new visions and concepts, or, in other words, helping the group unlearn

some of its cultural assumptions and learn new assumptions. Such transformations

require conscious and deliberate destruction of undesirable cultural elements, and it is

this aspect of cultural dynamics that makes leadership important. Schein (1992, p. 317)

went on to suggest we recognise that ‘the unique and essential function of leadership is

the manipulation of culture’.

OC and productivity / performance / effectiveness

For long, productivity increase has been attributed to the combination of such

production factors as people, technology, capital and information; organisational culture

as a determinant of productivity improvement did not receive considerations until the

1980s. In the 1980s, when rapidly changing business environment led firms to

undertake management renovations so as to stay competitive in international markets,

many firms started paying attention to organisational culture as a means of coping with

management renovations. Nowadays, the significance of organisational culture in

performance improvement has been duly recognised (Yanagi 1994). In fact, there have

been a substantial number of researches focusing on the concept of culture and many of

these works claim that organisational culture makes a major difference to organisational

effectiveness (Ouchi 1981; Pascale & Athos 1981; Peters & Waterman 1982; Deal &

Kennedy 1982; Wilkins & Ouchi 1983; Tichy 1983; Kilmann 1984; Sathe 1985;

Webster & Sundaram 1999; Fisher & Alford 2000). Conceptually, organisational

culture should have a significant impact on the long-term performance of an

organisation. In the short-term, it may be difficult to assess the performance impact of

organisational culture. However, an organisation may record spectacular success in the

62

short run, but may eventually fail if it does not build a strong, positive culture as a

support to sustain it success (Rahman 1994).

Regardless of the size, industry, type or age of the organisation, organisational culture

affects many aspects of organisational performance (Fisher & Alford 2000), including

financial performance, innovation, customer and employee satisfaction. Several studies

have shown the link between a company’s culture and its financial performance (Barney

1986; Fisher & Alford 2000; Rotemberg & Saloner 1993). Sustained superior financial

performance is associated with cultural qualities that foster innovation and flexibility

(Barney 1986). Other studies have described a dynamic connection between CEO

performance, management team behaviour, and organisational culture that relates to

financial performance as well as customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction,

innovation and adaptability. ‘Organisational culture is correlated with financial

performance. Financially successful companies are rated higher in training and

development, recognising performance, customer satisfaction, downward

communications, openness to change, job satisfaction, job design, performance

facilitation, planning and work group performance’ (Corporate Board 1997, p. 29).

Another important article addressing the linkage between organisational culture and

performance was published by Deshpande’, Farley and Webster (1993). Concentrating

on Japanese firms, these authors found that higher levels of business performance were

most closely associated with a Market culture (symbolised by the Tiger – the culture

that emphasises the values of competitive aggressiveness and outcome orientation) and

an Adhocracy culture (symbolised by the Rabbit – the culture that emphasises the

values of flexibility and innovation). In a subsequent study of various developed

markets, Deshpande’ and his colleagues also came up with an important discovery that

‘the most successful companies all shared the competitive, achievement-oriented culture

symbolised by the Tiger’ (Deshpande’ in Jacobs 2002).

Another approach to studying the impacts of organisational culture is to investigate the

ways in which organisational culture ‘fit’ together with another aspect of the

organisation to provide optimal organisational performance. One of such researches was

conducted by Baker and Hawes (1995), in which the authors searched for an optimal fit

between an organisation’s culture and its marketing strategy with regard to

organisational performance. The findings suggested that highest firm performance will

63

occur when firms fit a relatively high level of marketing strategy use with a

‘clan/adhocracy’ culture.

OC and strategy

An organisation’s culture can have decisive effects on the feasibility of its overall as

well as functional and departmental strategies. Many companies have found that they

can devise new strategies that make sense from a financial, product, or marketing point

of view, yet they cannot implement those strategies because they require assumptions,

values and ways of working that are too far out of line with the organisation’s prior

assumptions (Schein 1989). One vivid example given by Schein (1989) was an “M”

company that built its business by developing – through an intensive effort in its

research labs – ‘important’ products that were ‘useful to society’. Naturally, R&D,

expertise, specialist knowledge are highly regarded. When the company began

competing in a more diversified market, where product utility was not nearly as

important as product marketability, some managers argued for a more pragmatic

marketing strategy. Those managers wanted to decrease the research and development

budget, increase marketing expenditures, and teach their colleagues how to think like

marketers. But they were unable to convince key leaders, and therefore parts of the

company were left in a financially vulnerable position. Clearly, the traditions, values,

self-concepts, and assumptions about the nature of the business made some aspects of

the new strategy ‘unthinkable’ or unacceptable to these key leaders (Schein 1989, pp.

30-31).

OC and innovation

It has been stated in organisational studies that organisational culture is important as a

vehicle for implementing organisational change (Yeung, Brockbank & Ulrich 1991).

Although not all organisational change involves innovation, King (1990) asserted that

all organisational innovation involves change which ultimately is supported or hindered

by organisational culture. Various studies have acknowledged the existence of a

relationship between organisational culture and organisational innovation (Cherian &

Deshpande’ 1985; Kotter & Heskett 1992; Detert, Schoreder & Mauriel 2000;

Zammuto, Gifford & Goodman 2000). Another research by Obenchain, Johnson &

Dion (2002, p. 26) also affirmed that organisational culture type is correlated with

organisational innovation. The study suggests that culture types of adhocracy, market

and ‘balanced’ (i.e. no-dominant) are associated with innovation implementation. In

64

particular, the dominant culture type of adhocracy is affiliated with higher total

organisational innovation, higher technical innovation and higher administrative

innovation more than the culture designations of market, ‘no-dominant’, clan and

hierarchy.

OC and quality management

A supportive organisational culture is often cited as a key component of successful

quality improvement initiatives (Boan & Funderburk 2003). However, there is also

substantial evidence that organisational culture can account for a significant portion of

the variability in quality improvement efforts. Some authors (Weick & Sutcliffe 2001;

Chenoweth & Kilstoff 2002) assert that quality improvement generally has had modest

success because of the failure to address organisational culture. Macleod & Baxter

(2001) note the difficulty in implementing successful total quality management (TQM)

initiatives; four of five initiatives fail – despite the consensus that such efforts are

essential to long-term organisational success. It has been suggested that one of the

contributing factors to this outcome involves the stabilizing role of organisational

culture which implies that culture acts as a counter to efforts to change, even when the

change is constructive. In some other researches (Fairbairn 1997; Kekale 1999),

attempts were made to identify which TQM approach or program is best suited to a

particular type of organisational culture. Kekale (1999) suggested a theory of

“match/mismatch’ between the organisational culture types and the types of quality

tools to be used when a match means implementing the tools require no or little change

in organisational culture and mismatch means culture-based resistance is likely, or

special cultural change programs are probably needed. Kekale’s match/mismatch

working theory is presented in Figure 2.7:

65

Figure 2.6 Organisational culture & TQM tools match/mismatch working theory

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPES

TYPES OF QUALITY TOOLS

TYPE 1

“Rules orientation” type of organisation

TYPE A Those which emphasise production control

aspects such as systematic measurement and control of work, standardised quality systems,

and statistical control methods

TYPE 2

“Relationships orientation” type of organisation

TYPE B Those which include a scientific approach to one’s own job, teamwork methods. Methods designed to assess quality in an organisation-

wide, rather than task-specific meaning

TYPE 3

“Innovative leadership” type of organisation

TYPE C Those which emphasise “soft” quality

characteristics, such as open management styles, delegated customer responsibility and staff

autonomy; “customer delight” and self-assessment tools

Cultural match

Cultural mismatch

Source: Adapted from Kekale, T 1999, 'The effects of organisational culture on successes

and failures in implementation of some total quality management approaches', Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review, Issue 1, Autumn, ISSN 1468-4578.

OC and human resources management (HRM)

Interest with organisational culture has also evolved with HRM. The developments

show the refocusing on people i.e. human resource as a means of sustaining competitive

advantage. There has been a strong association between HRM and organisational

culture with many HR specialists suggesting culture is in the domain of the HR

manager. Textbooks and journals have suggested HRM to be sensitive to the beliefs,

principles, ethics of the organisational culture of their organisations and go even further

to advise that organisational culture should be managed through HR policies, practices

and systems (Alu 2003). It is logical to assume organisational culture is inevitably

entwined with HRM. In other words, organisational culture is inextricably linked to the

concerns of human resource management. Alu (2003) suggested that one of the major

roles of the centralised HR department is the development and management of

organisational culture. This would therefore imply that there is a wider range of

66

activities in HRM than in the traditional list of HRM activities and services, which

include planning the organisation’s human resource needs as well as meeting those

needs through recruitment and selection. This includes the planning and forecasting the

organisation’s short and long-term human resource requirements. This is emphasised by

generating a pool of people who fit in with the culture of the organisation. The priority

here is to be able to select people with the core competencies i.e. the relevant skills and

experience required to carry out the job, and who are compatible culturally with the

organisation. In a sense, recruitment and selection, if used properly, can be a good tool

to manage the culture of an organisation by getting the organisation employees with the

required personality attributes and skills.

Appraisal and compensation, which is another key function of HRM, could also be used

for management of organisational culture. Appraisal is a formal structured system of

measuring, evaluating and influencing employees in the conduct of their work. These

appraisal systems possess components, which can be used in a variety of ways to reflect

various cultural orientations as well as to promote the development of certain cultural

characteristics. The nature of an appraisal system’s impact depends on the nature of the

organisational culture. An organisation that desires a culture where achievement is

paramount would most likely favour a system based on results – a system used by many

organisations. This can be manifested in what is actually being appraised (e.g.

behaviours or results) and the methods of appraisal used (e.g. objective or subjective

methods). The objective methods measure outputs of workers while the subjective

evaluate their performance.

The reward system exhibits another way of influencing organisational culture. An

organisation’s reward system can be viewed as a statement of its values, beliefs and

assumptions. It plays a similar function to organisational culture in that it also specifies

rules for what employees should or should not do to receive rewards (in other words, to

be accepted, approved and appreciated) in the organisation.

The HR department handles the induction and training processes in an organisation.

Organisational culture is perpetuated through a variety of interactive mechanisms

during the early stages of employment, due to their susceptibility to new suggestions

and ideas for ways of behaving and solving problems. Facts could be made more

memorable if incorporated into a series of narratives, which are easy to identify with.

67

Some forms of training such as role-play, where employees are shown the required

course of actions expected and the values the organisation places on it, can help

strengthen the organisational culture. It is, therefore, suggested that training and

development are paramount to HRM to support and uphold the organisation’s

philosophies and values, which are obviously an important part of its culture.

OC and technology / IT

It is a common statement that we are now living in an era of rapid technology

development. The adoption and implementation of new technologies, in many cases, is

imperative not only to improve productivity, efficiency or to cater to new demand and

requirements but also to ensure the survival of the business itself. ‘The introduction of

any new technology into an occupation, organisation, or society can be seen as a

cultural change problem’ (Schein 1989, p. 36). ‘Occupations typically build their

practices, values and basic self-image around their underlying technology. Similarly, an

organisation that is successful because of its mastery of a given technology develops its

self-image around that technology. If the technology changes in a substantial fashion,

the organisation or occupation not only must learn new practices but must redefine itself

in more substantial ways that involve deep cultural assumptions’. If a broad and simple

definition of organisational culture, as mentioned earlier, is “the way we do things

around here” then the introduction of a new technology into an organisation can

radically change the way things are done in the organisation. The success or failure of

integrating a new technology in an organisation is, to a large degree, dependent on its

ability to adjust or change its culture. The creation and/or existence of a certain cultural

environment may be essential to ensure the successful implementation of a new

technology. The new technology, once has been put in use in an organisation, in turn,

will dictate further changes in the organisation’s culture. Many current examples can be

found in relation to the areas of automation and information technology. As stated by

Schein (1989), one of the strongest elements of an organisational culture is the status

system that arises out of the traditional technology, a system often based on the

possession of key information or critical skills. With the introduction of sophisticated

computerised information systems and automation, it becomes painfully obvious that in

many crucial areas the subordinates know more than the boss, or that groups who

previously had no power now have a great deal. People who are in power, with an

anticipation of such changes, realise that the best way to avoid the loss of their own

power is to resist the new technology altogether. Even if an arrangement of new power

68

redistribution is so convincing that some employees and managers can go along with the

change, a second source of cultural resistance would be the uncertainty and anxiety

associated with the transition itself. The period of transition very likely would involve

some time when the very criteria of power and status would be so ambiguous that all

people involved in the transition would be made uncomfortable, even the ones who

would in the end benefit. If the new technology is to succeed, those advocating it must

recognise from the outset that the resistance to it is not to the technology per se but to

the cultural change implications of its introduction. Information technology is usually

brought in with the argument that the organisation will become more efficient and/or be

able to handle more complex tasks, and little attention is paid to the implications for

power realignments. And even when such power issues are dealt with, too little

attention is given to still another cultural factor – namely, that the new technology

brings with it its own ‘occupational culture’. Only when change is under way do

managers realise that with the new technology comes a whole new set of assumptions,

values, and behaviour patterns developed in the organisation. Roughly said,

organisations can be assumed either to strive to use new technology according to values

built in technology and change the culture, or try to preserve the culture and use the

technology as far as it is possible without changing the values, rules or norms of the

organisation (Wastell et al. 1994). In reality, probably both are happening. However, it

argued (Juustila 1995) that for new technologies to be successfully implemented, an

organisation’s culture has to adjust to the new technology to some extent, even though

the prevailing culture is sustained as far as possible. Cultural change is – in the context

of using new technology in organisations – transforming the object of work, language

and forms of action, in addition with new values and ideologies (especially in radical

changes that affect the organisation as a whole). Information technology (IT) transforms

the organisational structure, communication, information network, business and

political activities directly in some ways, and indirectly through the technology process.

These transformations contribute to the changes in the power structures of the

organisation which are culturally formed (Harrington 1991; Kuuti 1991). In many cases,

organisational groups and individuals use technology as an instrument of power either

directly by controlling the development and use of technology, or indirectly by

controlling knowledge and information in organisations, by creating and moulding

systems of meanings from their perspectives and goals. In this sense, IT acts as a

mediator, sort of a mirror through which systems of meanings are created (Scarbrough

& Corbett 1992; Winter & Chuboda 1995).

69

2.4.2 Nexus between organizational culture and IT implementation More of the recent literature in the area of IT implementation discusses the impact of

organisational culture, which was almost absent from most of the early literature. One

of the widely held ideas with regard to organisational culture is that changes which are

most significant in an organisation will breed resistance and ultimately fail if they are

not accompanied by cultural changes (Schein 1992). Schein’s (1992) analysis of this

relationship suggests that groups in organisations typically build their culture around

their underlying technologies. Any adjustment to power (e.g., perceptions of power,

work habits or status), which may accompany IT implementation, may violate the

shared meanings and values of the organisation and thus, bringing about cultural-based

resistance. In support to this argument, Cooper (1994) refers to the relationship between

organisational culture and IT implementation as “The inertial impact of culture on IT

implementation”. According to Cooper (1994), the differences inherent in organisation

cultures can lead to resistance of IT implementation which can in turn increase the

likelihood of failed implementation. In essence, different cultures require different kinds

of information and technologies since they process information differently and they play

an important role in user satisfaction of ITs (Thompson & Wildavsky 1986; Tricker

1988; Kendall, Buffington & Kendall 1987). It should be stated that organisational

culture does not always have a negative impact on the implementation of IT. In fact, it

has been pointed out in several researches that different cultural attributes and different

organisational culture types affect IT implementation in very different ways. Some

cultural characteristics and cultural environments actually promote the chances of IT

implementation success, while some others might undermine the efforts made during

the process (Dasgupta et al. 1999; Hill et al. 1998; Harper & Utley 2001).

From a broader perspective, the relationship between organisational culture and IT

implementation may be better understood by examining the interactions between an

organisation and IT implementation in general. According to Walton (1989, pp. 29-31),

there are at least seven different ways in which IT and the organisation interact. An

analysis of these interactions explains why IT can not be implemented without

considering organisational change issues. First, for the new IT system to be effective,

new organisation policies or designs, such as a different distribution of authority, new

training programs, broader and more flexible jobs or different selection criteria, may be

required. Second, the introduction of an IT system may elicit unanticipated

70

organisational dynamics, such as new contests for power, altered patterns of

communication, or more pervasive monitoring of behaviour. Third, in many cases, IT

itself may be further elaborated and revised by end users to better suit their personal

preferences. Fourth, IT may create or promote new organisational solutions. In many

ways, IT can change organisational practices and the ways businesses operate.

Advanced ITs enable organisational members to work together across space and time,

promoting the concepts of mobile offices and home-based professionals. In a way these

changes might make the concept of a centralised or decentralised structure more relative

since with the help of IT (especially advanced IT) an organisation might be able to

enjoy the flexibility and responsiveness characteristics of a decentralised organisation

while achieving the integration and control of a centralised organisation. Fifth, IT can

accelerate and refine organisational adaptation to changing conditions by early detection

of possible problems, often achieved with the help of quick, consistent and

comprehensive information. Sixth, IT systems and organisational forms can sometimes

be considered as alternatives since each is capable of performing similar functions

(often with regard to communication and coordination). Lastly, the introduction of a

new IT system can create opportunities for introducing organisational changes that

management might view as desirable independently of the requirements or potential

effects of the system. For example, management might set higher standards of

excellence, promote a more open communication style or a more organisation-wide

versus a territorial view following the implementation of a new IT system. It can be

seen quite apparently from the above analysis that in most of these seven ways of

interactions between the organisation and IT, references can be made to aspects of

organisational culture to some extent. Therefore, organisational culture should be

viewed as a very important factor affecting the implementation of IT in an organisation.

In other words, as concluded by Walton (1989, p. 31), the IT implementation process

should be ‘guided by organisational values’.

Although increasing attention has been given to organisational culture in recent IT

implementation literature, empirical research specifically addressing the relationship

between organisational culture and IT implementation is still sparse. Some studies

merely aim to identify the social/cultural factors affecting IT implementation without

attempting to establish a model of how the relationship between these two

organisational variables work. In an extensive study by Hill et al. (1998), the following

71

factors have been viewed as having an impact on IT adoption and implementation in the

sociocultural context of the Arab world:

• Social class / status in organisation

• Educational level

• Leadership in organisation

• Personal relations in work group and between levels of organisation

• Allegiance to family and kin group

• Communal world view

• Religion

• Valuing the past

• Face-to-face interactions

Sociocultural factors considered to be impediments for IT implementation has been

identified as (Hill et al. 1998):

• Loyalty to work group and/or national traditions

• Attitudes towards outside influences

• Fear of change

• Fear of loss of identity

• Fear of being controlled

• Conflict with personal values (e.g. religious)

• Lack of worker motivation

• Lack of education

• Isolation of IT departments

The following social and cultural factors are viewed as impetus for IT implementation

(Hill et al. 1998):

• Younger generations

• Top level managers as role models for workers

• Link to world system

• Increased knowledge base

Interestingly, the research results also indicated that “Teach children” and Western

education are viewed by some as impetus for successful IT implementation.

In another research by Dasgupta et al. (1999), existing Western models are tested and

extended to organisations in a developing country. The findings of the research support

72

a model stating that IT adoption and level of IT implementation will be higher in

organisations that have ‘high performance-oriented’ cultures (as compared to

organisations that have ‘high stability-oriented’ cultures). In the study, the authors

classified organisational culture into two main types:

• Performance–oriented culture which is represented by five variables of people

orientation, team orientation, detail orientation, innovativeness and outcome

orientation.

• Stability-oriented culture which is represented by variables such as

easygoingness (or lack of aggressiveness on growth and rewards) and stability

(or lack of predisposition towards change).

The researchers found a correlation between performance-oriented culture variables and

the level of IT implementation in the organisation and went on to state that

organisations with cultures that have high performance-oriented cultural values have a

high level of IT implementation. However, no significant relationship was found

between stability-oriented cultural values and the level of IT implementation. Since the

implementation of IT brings change to an organisation and since an organisational

culture that displays high stability-oriented values would naturally resist change, it is

logical to expect that stability-oriented cultural values are negatively related to IT

implementation, but such a relationship did not find support in the research. The authors

of the study argue that probably, even stability-oriented cultures need to implement a

certain amount of IT to survive and be competitive in the current environment.

However, one of the final conclusions of the research confirms that organisational

culture is an important determinant of IT implementation in organisations and managers

should appreciate and carefully consider the role of organisational culture in adopting

and implementing ITs.

Another model of relationship between organisational culture and IT implementation

was proposed by Harper & Utley (2001) who conducted a three-year study to

investigate whether an organisation’s cultural climate and its balance of concern for

production issues vs. people issues play a role in IT implementation success. Data from

this study suggest a correlation between specific cultural attributes and the successful

implementation of information technology systems. More specifically, the authors

found that people-oriented rather than production-oriented cultural attributes exerted the

most significant influence. In the research, organisational cultures were assessed along

two parameters: (1) Degree to which an organisation’s culture exhibits concern for

73

people attributes (i.e., fairness, trust, enthusiasm for the job, collaboration with others)

and (2) Degree of cultural concern for production attributes such as precision,

compliance, risk- taking, competition etc. An analysis of the results identified 5 types of

cultural styles (see also 2.2.2 B):

• Cultural style 1: High level of concern for both people and production issues

• Cultural style 2: High level of concern for people issues but low level of concern

for production issues

• Cultural style 3: Low level of concern for people issues but high level of

concern for production issues

• Cultural style 4: A compromise cultural style described by the balance of

average concern for both people and production issues.

• Cultural style 5: Little concern for people or production

IT implementation in organisations participating in the study was assessed and an

average IT implementation success score was assigned to each organisation. The

analyses were then conducted to determine what attributes in the culture and how

different cultural styles affect IT implementation success. The researchers found that

while an organisation’s people-oriented cultural values were linearly related to the

successful implementation of IT, an organisation’s production-oriented cultural values

were not. The analyses also revealed that organisations with cultural style 1 were the

most successful in implementing IT systems. In trying to determine if a particular

cultural orientation was more successful in implementing IT, an observation was noted

by the researchers. As the people-oriented component dropped, so did the IT success

scores. The overall IT success score for organisations with cultural style 2 was higher

than that of organisations with cultural style 3 although the former’s production-

oriented component was much lower. In fact, IT success scores for organisations with

cultural style 2 were second only to those of organisations having cultural style 1. In

order to determine which specific cultural attributes contributed to the most successful

IT implementation, correlation coefficients were computed for each of the cultural

attributes and the success scores for IT implementation. The analysis revealed the

following cultural attributes (in descending order) that had a significant positive

correlation with the successful IT implementation: autonomy, trust, team-oriented work,

flexibility and sharing information freely. Likewise, the following cultural attributes (in

descending order) were shown to have a significant negative correlation with IT

implementation success: rule-orientation, compliance, carefulness, preciseness, and

74

predictability. The analysis further supported the earlier findings which asserted that

people-oriented cultural attributes dominated the successful implementation of IT.

Based on these results the researchers suggested that in essence, an organisation’s

culture should be ideally balanced with both people and productivity components.

However, the organisation culture must adequately address appropriate human elements

to successfully implement IT systems. One should identify the attributes of the existing

culture and then begin the process to lessen or remove those cultural attributes that

prevent or slow successful implementation of IT, while establishing organisational

cultural attributes that support successful IT implementation (Harper & Utley 2001, pp.

11-15).

2.5 Conclusions Good scholarship requires that the conceptual framework of any research should ideally

be underpinned by relevant theory and work already done in that area of research.

Hence, for purposes of the present research, existing literature and past researches were

perused with the intent of culling information on different aspects of organisational

culture and IT implementation in an organisation. It also necessitated exploring tools

used by other researchers to assess organisational culture and level of IT

implementation success. All this was to be looked at in the context of other works that

studied the relationship between organisational culture and other aspects of an

organisation in general and IT implementation in particular. Information from this

chapter was used to develop the research methodology in Chapter 5, explain the

findings in Chapter 6 and inform the recommendations in Chapter 7.