Living with Contradictions: Complementing Activity Theory with the Notion of “Installed Base” to Address the Historical Dimension of Transformation

Abstract

This article addresses the historical dimension of the relation between information systems innovation and organizational transformation. We analyse findings from a study of ongoing transformations in the healthcare sector in Zanzibar, Tanzania. The process is described with a particular focus on instances where some contradictions in the old activity system were not resolved but inherited by the new activity system. To address this we complement the activity theory framework with the notion of "installed base" from studies of information infrastructures. This helps to illuminate the theme of unresolved and continuing contradictions, and thus contribute to the concept of historicity in CHATinformed studies.Information systems (IS) innovation and organizational transformation is arguably the key challenge facing designers, implementers and users of IS and information technologies (IT) in organization (Sarker & Lee, 1999). Observed challenges include, among other things; uncoordinated communication between the top management and employees about the innovation initiatives at hand and inadequate understanding of the complexities associated with the development and implementation of IT as well as the formal and informal organizational functional areas and procedures.Furthermore, researchers have challenged approaches to IS innovation and organizational transformation that tended to put emphasis on discrete processes, such as productivity, systems quality, and development costs. These approaches neglect the intentions and actions of key players, the process by which IS tools are adopted and used, and the organizational context within which Correspondence should be sent to

An application of the BPCM model in an e-business driven transformation agenda

“…Hence, one of the challenges in the transformation is facing is the analysis of resource implications. In many cases the boundaries between organization's departments, strategic business units are not clearly defined by conflicting systems which inhibits and may have the potential to inhibit the development and implementation of integrated systems (Igira and Aanestad, 2009;Star and Ruhleder, 1996). These difficulties in transformation context have been also addressed in calls for research (Avgerou andMcGrath, 2007, Abraham andJungs, 2011).The resource implications upon transformation can be observed in several stages (Igira and Aanestad, 2009).…”

“…This in return increasingly pressured organisations to adapt new technologies (Abraham and Junglas, 2011;Bohmer, 2010;Blumenthal, 2009;Cady and Hardalupas, 1999;Moreton, 1995). However, despite the comparable nature of e-business applications, the resultant transformation of organisations has shown a variety across and within organisations (Abraham and Jungs, 2011;Doherty and King, 2001;Orlikowski, 2000;Igira and Aanestad, 2009). The variance in e-business impact in organisational transformation have been linked to the organisation's resources (Walton and Gupta, 1999).…”

“…In the organisational transformation literature the discussion evolved, from how organisations transform, to what extent transformation takes place, and whether it is beneficial at all (Abraham and Jungs, 2011;Igira and Aanestad, 2009) informal relationships revealed a connection which "generated the same transformed bundle of resources, that is, they hold a common output" (Grandori and Soda, 2006:154). Although all former research agendas have perceived transformation as situational, Abraham and Jungs (2011) highlighted the evolutionary nature of transformation, and using the Business Process Change Model (BPCM) could provide "one of the most comprehensive frames steeply couched in the organisational transformation literature" (Abraham and Jungs, 2011:177).…”

“…Besson and Rowe (2012) note that the underlying reasons would require a multidisciplinary analysis. In transformation assessment, the multidisciplinary analysis and developmental perspective has been particularly problematic (Igira and Aanestad, 2009;Avgerou andMcGrath, 2007, Abraham andJungs, 2011). This may relate to the fact that transformation is hard to observe in productivity statistics (Gregor et al 2006) due to the fact of a time lag between investment taking place and the associated changes observed (Brynjolfsson, 1993).…”

“…This analysis allows an organisation to address its challenges and problems. The literature on transformation and its analysis is limited to analysis of; developmental stages and resource implications, with most of the case studies ratherfocusing on success and failure case studies (Igira and Aanestad, 2009;Avgerou andMcGrath, 2007, Abraham andJungs, 2011). This may relate to the fact that transformation is hard to observe in productivity statistics (Gregor et al 2006) due to the fact of a time lag between investment taking place and the associated changes observed (Brynjolfsson, 1993).…”