Appropriation of Technologies

What Role for the Organization?

Ewan Oiry

and Roxana Ologeanu-Taddeï

Institute of Labour Economics and Industrial Sociology

LEST – UMR, Université de la Méditerranée

6123 35 Avenue Jules Ferry, 13626 Aix en Provence Cedex 01, France

CREGOR Centre de Recherche en Gestion des Organisations

Université Montpellier II, France

Abstract. The concept of appropriation is frequently used in publications

concerning uses of technologies. Firstly elaborated to analyze difficulties in

diffusion of innovation, it was usually linked with characteristics of

organization where those innovations were implemented. This concept knows

great improvements in recent years. On one side, it is now common practice to

link appropriation and characteristics of technology used. This “technology

side” of appropriation is especially well described by the “Adaptative

Structuration Theory” [6]. On the other side, it is common practice too to link

appropriation with characteristics of users (interactions in groups, etc.). This

“user side” of appropriation can be treated with the “Theory of practice” [20].

But, those frameworks appear not able to take really into account the

“organization side” of appropriation. By presenting three case studies, this

paper shows that it is necessary to reintroduce this “side” to have a complete

analysis of appropriation.

1 Introduction

The concept of appropriation is frequently used in publications concerning uses of

technologies. Appropriation differs from acceptance. Acceptance [4] refers to users’s

perception of an ICT tool but not their action. Thus, individuals may accept an ICT

tool without using it. Appropriation refers to real action of persons and to their real

uses (or not uses). This concept has been initially elaborated to explain difficulties in

diffusion of innovations. In this first step, characteristics of organizations where those

innovations were elaborated were at the heart of reflection [31]. They were considered

as a major factor of explanation of success or fail of an innovation. Then, the concept

of “appropriation” knows several improvements. The “Adaptative Structuration

Theory” [6] appears as the first one. Those authors propose a strong framework that

links the nature of the technology used (structural features and spirit of technology)

and different types of appropriation of it. But this conceptualization conduces them to

underestimate the role of users in the appropriation process. Orlikowski [20] proposes

her “theory of practice” to better explain how users intervene directly in appropriation

(that she names “enactment”). Therefore, concerning appropriation, two

Oiry E. and Ologeanu-Taddeï R. (2009).

Appropriation of Technologies What Role for the Organization?.

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Human Resource Information Systems, pages 3-17

DOI: 10.5220/0002171800030017

 SciTePress

complementary ways of reflection has been explored : the “technology side” and the

“user side”.

In this paper, we highlight that those improvements are fundamental but they both

lose the link with the “organization side” of appropriation. As it was mentioned at the

beginning of the reflection on appropriation, we underline that “structural features”

and “spirit” of a technology are directly linked with the organization where the

technology is implemented and we remember that users are not simply users of a

technology. They are always members of an organization that have structures,

powers, rules, cultures, etc. that play a role in appropriation that are done of a

technology.

Our literature review details those major trend of literature on appropriation (1.).

Then we present three case studies that underline three examples of organizational

phenomena that seem to intervene in appropriation : the decentralization of power due

to a professional bureaucracy (2.1), the centralization of power in supermarket group

of stores (2.2.) and the difficulty to create a new hierarchical level (2.3). More

analyses need to be done to reintroduce organization in the concept of appropriation.

This paper just constitutes a first step in this direction.

2 Appropriation in Literature

2.1 Works Research on “Diffusion of Innovation” related to Linked

Appropriation and Characteristics of Organization

Confronted to rejection or low uses of innovations, researchers on “diffusion of

innovation” were the first to build the concept of appropriation. They measure

acceptance of an innovation by measuring adopters’ perception of the technology –

for instance, “perceived relative advantage” and “perceived ease of use”. The paper of

Downs and Mohr [7] on “instability” of the findings in innovation research engaged

the work on this theme. Dedicated to adaptation [11] and appropriation [2], several

works study thoroughly this question. They consider appropriation as a continuous

dialogic process in which technology is modified by users and, at the same time, users

do efforts to adapt their uses to what is permit by the technology. For example, Clark

considers that the appropriation requires continuous, cumulative and incremental

innovation in all its aspects [2].

In those pioneers papers, appropriation refers to the opposition between the logical

design and the logic of practice, between the prescribed uses and customs staff [21].

Thus, Perriault [21] argues that the logic of the designer of a technology is to provide

a framework and prescribing practices, while the logic of the user, as an independent,

is to invent their own uses, according to its representations, its values and its

objectives.

Works on diffusion of innovations highlight that the organization where all those

people work is an element of explanation of the nature of those representations,

values, objectives but also of the logic of designers. But they were insufficient in two

complementary aspects. First, they do not explain enough precisely what role the

technology plays in appropriation (“technology side” of appropriation). Second, they

do pay enough attention to users logics (“user side” of appropriation). More recent

works explore those two aspects. But, they progressively lose the link with the

“organizational side” of appropriation.

2.2 Adaptative Structuration Theory (AST) [6], A Powerful Framework to

Analyse the “Technology Side” of Appropriation

The “Adaptative Structuration Theory” (AST) [6] is usually considered as the most

powerfull theory of “technology side” of appropriation in IT and IS management

literature [14].

The central thesis of this conceptualisation is that social structures, whose

structures included in the technologies, are produced and reproduced by individual

members of a group, by mobilizing and adapting rules and resources over the

interactions. DeSanctis & Poole [6] characterize ICT in terms of social structures,

which may be of two types: structural features and spirit. Structural features are

composed by type of rules, resources, opportunities to use, etc.. that technology

proposes to the user. The spirit of the technology means the general orientation of the

device, it summarizes the values and objectives that the structural features can be

implemented ([6] p. 126). The spirit provides a normative framework, suggesting

appropriate behavior, but it can also participate in the trial of domination, because it

indicates the types of dynamic influence compatible with the technology, which may

favor some users detriment of others.

When technology is new, its “spirit” is being defined. Designers show how the

technology should be used, but the adoption of this technology in shaping the spirit.

Over time, the mind is less open to conflicting interpretations and becomes rigid when

the technology is stable and used by routines.

Structural features and spirit of an ICT form an potential of structure, which the

group operates to generate social structures. The structure highlighted in appropriation

is the result of a collective choice, which is even the expression of a set of factors in

the internal dynamics of the group. DeSanctis & Poole [6] propose to use a grid which

brings together four dimensions of appropriation:

- Appropriation moves, which means that “groups may choose to appropriate a

given structure in many ways” (p. 129). For example, groups may choose to directly

use the structures, to relate them to other structures, to constraint the structures as they

are used or to make judgements about the structures.

- Faithfulness of appropriation(which means that appropriation may be faithful

or unfaithful to the IT spirit),

- Instrumental uses, that are intended purposes that groups assign to technology

as they use it (for example, task activities),

- Attitudes the group displays as technology structures are appropriated [6].

Two remarks must be done upon this theory:

First, the epistemological framework of this theory is interactionism and social

constructivism. Several times many authors mention that appropriations depends on

the context and the interactions at work. But we can clearly see that they do not take

into account the organization as an all. They only consider that people locally re-

structure social structures by interactions of individuals within a group.

Second, even they consider that users play a great role in appropriation they

emphasize a lot on characteristics of the technology and give a smaller place to users.

This is especially clear with their concept of “faithfulness of appropriation”. By

evaluating the appropriation from the point of view of its “faithfulness” or

“unfaithfulness” to the spirit that designers inscribe in it, they finally do not give a

real place to users. In opposition, some authors argue that “best appropriation” can be

considered as the most innovative one (without taking into account if it is faithful or

unfaithful to the original spirit of the technology ([23]; [21]; [5]).

2.3 Practice Theory [20], A Great Framework to Analyse the “User Side” of

Appropriation

To improve analysis of the role of users, several works have been dedicated to the

investigation of the “user side” of appropriation. Users have the power and the ability

to resist, to adapt and to change uses that are imposed by top managers according to a

top-down logic. Those works all highlight that appropriation differs from assimilation

: while assimilation means “practices of accepting and regularly using a technological

artefact within an organization” ([27]), appropriation process of IT takes the form of

continuous reinvention [24], adaptation ([13]; [26]), adjustment [11], improvisation,

diversion [21], “poaching” [5] or “coping” [1].

The “Theory of practice” is actually considered as the more efficient theory to

analyse the “user side” of appropriation [20]. From Orlikowski’s point of view, the

concept of appropriation is too limited because its position is related to the structure

which was embodied into the technology by the designers. All authors mentioned

above demonstrate how the initially embodied structure has been sidestepped,

transgressed, etc. by users. So, for this author, in relation to a specific technology,

users demonstrate a much greater creativity that “social constructivists” admit. So

much so, that it is impossible to say that a technology is « stabilized », it can,

however, be said that a technology is « stabilized-for-now » [25]. The important point

is that this creativity is not in relation to the structure (because structure does not

really exist) but in relation to numerous factors, which must be identified. To

highlight these point of view, Orlikowski suggests abandoning the term appropriation

and adopting one which she takes from Weick [29], « enactment », that designates the

real use that actors make of a specific technology.

When a technology is used in recurrent social interactions, it correspond to a

« technology-in-practice » : an intangible shape which intervenes in ongoing

practices, through facilites, norms and interpretive schemes. Each type of

« technology-in-practice » therefore shapes specific facilities, norms, and interpretive

schemes which in turn transform the “technology-in-practice” that individuals enact.

By regarding “technology-in-practice” as structure ([20], p.409), Orlikowski can

then mobilize the theoretical framework of structuration and consider that:

- the structure « technology-in-practice » is in itself influenced by the other

structures in the organization (hierarchy relations, remuneration/incentive

system, etc.),

- all these structures and the interactions between structures are instantiated in

recurrent social practice that employees maintain with the other members of

the organization,

- and the structures contribute in formalizing the facilities, norms, and

interpretive schemes that shape their social interactions…

Therefore, a « technology-in-practice » can be explained by a precise analysis of

the different structures that exist in the social environment of a individual and can be

analyzed concretely through the facilities, norms and interpretive schemes by which

the structures are instantiated in practice.

Two remarks must be done upon this conceptualisation:

First, if users are correctly taken into account, “technology side” of appropriation

appears quite absent. In fact, theory of practice does not link enactment with any kind

of characteristics of technology that is used. The place of users is so important that

appropriations become too close to uses [19]. Therefore it appears necessary to

reintroduce “technology side” of appropriation in the reflection. As they belong to the

same epistemological framework, it seems possible to articulate Theory of practice

and AST by considering that “structural features” and “spirit” of technology intervene

as factors to define “technology in practice”. But this assumption would be rejected

by Orlikowski [19] because she considers that she distinguishes herself from this

previous theory.

The critical realist view on appropriation does the same kind of link [28]. In fact,

this approach links those two side of appropriation by proposing the idea that objects

(including people, material objects and social phenomena such as institutions) and

relations among objects (for instance friendship or master-slave relations) must be

taking into account to analyse appropriation.

Second, as it was the case for AST, practice theory’s epistemological framework is

interactionism and social constructivism. Orlikowski [20] mentions more precisely

than DeSanctis and Poole [6] that appropriations depends on the leadership, hierarchy

structure and incentive systems, etc. But she does not take into account the

organization as a whole. She considers that people locally re-structure social

structures by interactions of individuals within a group and she does not clearly link

the nature of appropriation with, for instance, the repartition of powers in the

organization.

Those two theories on appropriation have in common to be focused on the

individual dimension of appropriation. They focus only on the individual behaviour

and do not take into account employees behaviours within organizational context.

Even authors that study the trial of appropriation at the group level, do not report

appropriation characteristics related to organizational context.

3 Research Question: What about ICT Appropriation into

Organizations?

DeSanctis & Poole [6] consider that structures are produced and reproduced by

individual members of a group, in mobilizing and adapting the rules and resources

over the interactions. They focus on small groups and decision-making processes

within the group. Generally, authors are interested in appropriation by users like

individuals as for exemple in user appropriation of mobile technologies [30]. Thus,

they disregard organizational context. Nevertheless, in the management and

organization theory field, technolgies and ICT’s are studied in relation with

organizational contexts.

In this perspective, Joan Woodward [31] argues that technologies directly

determine differences in such organizational attributes as span of control,

centralization of authority, and the formalization of rules and procedures. Leavitt and

Whisler [12] predicted in 1958 that upper management would use ICT’s capabilities

to re-centralize their organizations. Mintzberg [16] suggests that technology is a

contingency factor that determines the structural variables of the organization. George

and King [8] and Groth [9] look specifically on the effects of technology on the

structure of organizations, and the question of whether or not the organizations

become more or less centralized with the implementation of ICTs. Groth [9] argues

that ICT at the same time can make organizations both centralized and decentralized.

The author finds that ICT increases the complexity a single manager can handle, but

at the same time the lower levels can be empowered by the information available to

them through ICT. This eliminates the need for mid-level management, and the

organization takes on a leaner structure [9].

Recently, Muhalmann [17] has shown the success (and failure) of implementation

of groupware technology is intimately linked to the nature and structure of games of

players. Precisely, these technologies come to integrate in the "tightly coupled

systems" and to structure the least part of their operations and regulation, then

they are generally rejected by the players in "loosely coupled systems” and do

not in this type of configuration change players games. Thus, the penetration of

technology in a groupware occupations are closely related to the degree of

interdependence of this context [17]. According to this author, when managers action

is supported by mechanisms of cooperation with the players, the introduction of

groupware is experienced by actors as an opportunity that is to say, as a new medium

to help the exchange. In opposite, when managers action is superimposed on a

structure of little cohesive relations, and whose way of regulation is" flexible "and not

integrated, the introduction of groupware technology is seen as a constraint by new

actors, and they are therefore generally neglected.

In sum, when management is in a position of strength the introduction of new

technologies just maintain and even reinforce an exchange already very cohesive,

while when the management is in a weak position and is off and faced with "self-

regulation" deployed by the players on the sidelines its action, the injection devices

not only alleviates lack of social interdependence between management and players.

Moreover, Muhalmann [17] argues the technologies introduced by management do

not shape the organization but are rather systematically "digested" an “embodied” by

the organization.

We may interpret this result by using Adaptative Structuration Theory [6]. In the

tightly coupled systems [22], employees relate ICT structures to other structure. In

opposite, in the loosely coupled systems, actors negate the ICT usefulness and reject

it. These are two different appropriation moves (specifically, in the second type of

situation, we may assist to an non-appropriation).

Furthermore, employees’ attitudes toward ICT are linked with the organization

structure. They perceive the technology is of value to them in their work while they

do not perceive this value in the tightly coupled systems.

We may also connect these sentence to the contingency theory and make

hypothesis that the perceived value (or utility) of Its by employees is connected to the

perceived autonomy and control the ICT provide and their need or willing to preserve

their autonomy to complete their work tasks.

In addition, we may assume the hypothesis that the comfort degree associated to

the use of an ICT or the utility of the ICT for their tasks are perceived differently by

employees according to the type of organization structure they belong to.

We suggest that ICT appropriation is related to design parameters of organization

form of structure.

The topic is not only to study the implications of information technology (IT) for

organizational structures but also the consequences of information technologies on

both organizational structures and appropriation aspects [6].

We consider that appropriation is a most suitable term than appropriations in order

to describe occupational groups (groups of players – [3] ; [16] –) behaviour and their

(relative) stability in dealing and coping with Its.

4 Three Case Studies to Highlight Role of Organization in

Appropriation

This paper proposes to reintroduce organization beside technology and user in the

analysis of appropriation. We mention above that this question is quite exploratory

because after several reflections that were linking technology and organization [31],

researchers usually disregard organizational context of technology or uses they

analyse. This phenomenon is poorly known. Its boundary and logic are uncertain.

Therefore, case study seems to be the most accurate research method [32].

Nevertheless, as appropriation is directly linked with the nature of the organization

where they appear and the technology used, we choose to develop a multiple cases

study [15]. To give examples of what this element can add in the reflection, we

analyse the use of ICT tools in three different firms. Each case underline three

different aspects of the organization that play a great role in appropriation. The first

one put forward the fact that in professional bureaucracy [16], the decentralization of

power is a great factor of explanation of low uses of a corporate HR intranet (4.1).

The second give an example of the opposite situation: a centralised power is a greater

factor of the PGI assimilation and the local autonomy allows to “force” PGI uses

(which means appropriation) (4.2) The third shows that the managing director of this

SME does not only evaluate the success of the ICT on the basis of its “functional”

results but on its capacity to help him to built a new organization (especially to create

a new level of hierarchy) (4.3).

4.1 Assembly Line Managers, «Very Managers», Less «Corporate» HR

Intranet Users

4.1.1 Case Study Methodology

Aero belongs to an international group in the Aeronautical and Space sector. In

Europe, Aero has more than 12,000 employees. It is leader in High Tech equipment.

The group’s activities occupy the complete (supplier to customer) process and range

from R&D right through to specific hands-on training sessions for end users. In 2000,

a HR decision is taken to improve the communication policy between management

and employees. One of the actions was to develop a HR intranet offering access to all

employees from the company’s web site.

To analyze uses of this intranet, we used data triangulation and saturation [15] by

employing different research methods: documentary analysis (in particular corporate

archives), semi-directive interviews and participating HR intranet project observation.

53 semi structured interviews were realized with three employee groups: department

managers or equivalent, level 1 (a department has about 200 people), sub-department

managers or equivalent, level 2 (management of about 50 people) and team leaders,

level 3 (management of about 10 people).

We used semi-directive interviews for this study because these result in a sounder

analysis of the context and the interviewees’ line of argument [15]. We use themes to

encode interviews and distribute the data over those themes. The procedure that we

use was the following one. We read all transcripts and isolate in them all phrases that

were linked with the uses of this intranet. During the post-coding, we made a certain

number of changes in the list of themes. This step is part of the interactive process

where themes may emerge from interviews [15]. A first level of encoding was used to

reduce the diversity of the data and to sum up important elements in the interviews.

Encoding then enabled us to identify the main themes arising during the interviews

[15].

4.1.2 A Low Intranet Use Explained by a Strong Decentralization of Power

Among department managers that we interview, it is particularly interesting to

analyse the case of Assembly Line Manager’s because the effect of the organization –

in this case the decentralization of power due to a professional bureaucracy – directly

explains the low appropriation of the HR intranet that we find.

Assembly Line Managers conduct us to enter a different world: the world of

production, precisely industrial workshops and manufacturing lines (airplanes,

helicopters, etc.). In « his » world, « his » workshop, the line manager is « master ».

Corporate management has little hold on this world. The line manager is generally a

charismatic leader, a man of action with a strong personality, respected for his

integrity, an excellent technician with a human dimension capable of making « fair »

decisions. Nevertheless, he is under the pressure of high production rates. Respecting

final assembly dates push him to be very demanding (overtime, Sundays, etc.) of the

different teams he manages. The work rhythm is so intense that the border between

A wider presentation of this case study can be found in [10]. All data presented here has been

gathered by Karine Guidedoni-Jourdain.

private and professional life is often over stepped. This leader must be extremely

close to his « guys » in order to achieve objectives.

« We are also top management’s representatives in the shop, so it’s our job to

maintain a positive social atmosphere, that means we have to be on the field

constantly, so the guys are happy to come to work every day. It’s also a sensitive

position, because you must be attentive: if a worker is not right or upset, you have to

go and see him quickly. Talking with him, you understand that his child is sick or his

wife left him … so, that’s when you have to take the time and support him. You have

to maintain direct contact

» (William).

He is considered as the guarantor of team spirit that can be found in the sectors

used to working with permanent urgencies

. This leader manages an average of more

than 200 workers. Generally he works his way up through the ranks. Because of that,

he usually holds the technicity of the product close to his heart.

How does this type of person consider the HR intranet? He spontaneously states:

« I feel more at home in the workshop than behind a computer » (William). Therefore,

the use of the HR intranet is rare or inexistent. The tool is seen as « a waste of time »

because « we can get the information elsewhere » (Jean).

Decentralization of power, pressure and the pace of work mean that managers

needing to find answers to HR questions prefer to contact the local HR units in

workshops and assembly lines, either in person or by telephone. This quick and easy

method of contact meets their needs. Since the trade unions have greater influence in

this world, these shop floor managers also maintain regular contacts with trade union

representatives, who generally receive HR information before them. This state of

affairs is deplored by these managers who it places them in an awkward position, but

they simply have to put up with it.

With this case study, we clearly see how a professional culture, reinforced by an

organization based on decentralization and pressure of time can directly conduct to a

very low use of an HR intranet.

4.2 Assimilation and Appropriation: The Case of a ERP

4.2.1 Case Study Methodology and Description

The business units (a store) of a group of supermarket uses the same IS command

assisted.

The group has a divisionalized form of structure [16]. Business units enjoy some

autonomy, which is greater for those franchises. However, the headquarters of the

group often seeks to increase the control at the local level. The use of a computer

system to aid in the store is the main way of control by headquarters. The ERP can

manage all the elements that make up the shop (discounts, ordering, data products /

suppliers / shops / customers, cost management, inventory, rates / prices, turnover). At

any time it is possible to publish reports of turnover, cost per day, for promotions,

etc..

The PGI manager out daily a proposed order. The major problem stems from the

current inventory. In fact, with the increasing number of products available in

departments store, the errors are many and in addition updates the test in the store.

To analyze uses of this intranet, we conducted five semi structured interviews with

the department managers (managers level 3) in the same store and a store manager.

As in the previous case, we read all transcripts of those interviews, isolate phrases that

were describing the use of intranet and distribute data over those themes. The post-

coding conduce to change certain themes [15]. A first level of encoding was used to

reduce the diversity of the data and to sum up important elements in the interviews.

Encoding then enabled us to identify the main themes arising during the interviews

[15].

According to department and store managers, the PGI has several advantages for

the Business Unit: transmission of skills, strong interaction with its environment,

controls prices and assistance for daily tasks manager department, increasing the

performance (powerful analytical tool, Electronic Data Interchange and daily tasks of

the business). But it also has drawbacks, as follows: proposals command not

representative of the store, integration of suppliers in the SI, which reduces the

flexibility and strengthens the control of the headquarters, reducing the flexibility of

the store.

Specifically, to avoid disruption of stocks, the management software assists in

making orders for each day command a proposed order. It is based on the threshold

replenishment (equal to safety stock inventory consumed during the delivery period)

and the theoretical demand for each product.

However, errors are frequent in these orders and proposals for several reasons:

- Inventories are recorded because of erroneous breakage, theft, omissions

registration entries, etc.

- Misinterpreting by ERP that examines each product according to its

theoretical demand often unrepresentative of the local demand (because of

strong seasonal sales).

In other words, the ERP makes it difficult to take into account the specificity of the

local business unit. This data type must be changed manually by the department

manager which "forces" commands.

4.2.2 Appropriation Moves

In this organization the ERP is a tool for units business monitoring performance by

headquarters and, locally, for managers department performance monitoring. In

addition, the store manager uses supervision control with a high degree of

centralization. Both on the group level and on the local level, the organization is a

tightly coupled system. Managers and department managers have no choice for the

whole organization of the work, the use of ERP is required. In this sense, we can

speak with an assimilation of PGI. However, if the business unit operates effectively

at the local level, a degree of autonomy is necessary. ERP appropriation is manifested

particularly by way of "forcing" the order.

However, during the change of brand strategy, the Business Unit will in future use

an Information System where a command would be automatic (not assisted, allowing

manual changes). The local managers are concerned about the disappearance of this

degree of autonomy. It would be interesting to study the adoption and appropriation

of this system.

4.3 A Functional Success, a Managerial Deception, the Case of “Think

Together”

4.3.1 Case Study Methodology

The case study was carried out in a software and computer services company that

produces and markets several software packages (registry/public records office

management, mail digitisation and management, document classification). In 2006,

the company’s turnover was 4.5 million euros and it employed a total of 48 people.

The workforce is distributed among 6 departments: digitisation software (10 people),

electronic data Interchange (EDI) software (7 people), customer support (10 people),

implementers (8 people), sales (10 people), administration (3 people).

In the autumn of 2007, this SME began to use the ‘think together®’ software

package, the purpose of which, according to its designers, is to ‘facilitate and

accelerate decision-making in organizations’. In order to understand the ‘spirit’ of

this technology, we conducted three interviews with the designers of the software. We

also interviewed the SME’s managing director. He told us that this software package

was intended in the first instance for use in the Electronic Data Interchange software

department. Accordingly, we interviewed more than half the members of this

department (4 out of 7). In order to extend the scope of our analysis, we also

interviewed the head of the customer support department. Coding techniques

presented above has been used to analyse data.

4.3.2 To Be Functional is Not Enough, Technology Must Create a New

Organization to Be Considered Valuable

The interviews conducted in this firm revealed that some uses of ‘think together®’ fit

with what the designers previously expected.

Thus one developer stated: ‘We’d been holding meeting after meeting for four

months in an attempt to solve a problem, namely how to link our ‘mail’ product

[which digitises incoming mail] and our ‘document’ product [which automatically

classifies documents]. Customers had been asking us for months to link the two

together and we couldn’t decide on how to do it. I gathered all the e-mails we had

exchanged and fed them all into [‘think together®’ ]. That was Friday (…) This

created a stir, with everybody giving their opinion… The Wednesday afterwards, we

had a meeting and we came out of it with a firm decision. We really unblocked the

situation thanks to [‘think together®’].’

This example shows that the structure of the ‘good decision’ that the designers

incorporated into the software may sometimes reflect the decision-making process in

an organization. In this case, the actual use may be reasonably faithful to the spirit of

the technology incorporated into the software by the designers.

The SME’s managing director that we interview recognizes that ‘Think together®’

allows them to find a solution to link “mail” and “document” softwares but he is

nevertheless disappointed by ‘Think together®’. To better understand this

phenomenon, we ask him: ‘Could you tell us why you decided to implement [‘think

together®’] in your company?’.

A wider presentation of this case study can be found in [17].

His answer is not simply and not “functional” at all. He replies: ‘it’s a rather

complicated story… The Electronic Data Interchange team, which is where I wanted

to use it, had not had a manager for a long time.. We had a person, who was

supposed to be the manager, but in fact he concerned himself only with the technical

side of things, he wasn’t the one who did everything that was pure management…

When he left for health reasons, we replaced him but things turned out very badly…

In terms of interpersonal relations, the new manager was a complete failure… We

had to let him go and since then I’ve been in charge of this team… But I’ve got too

many things to do and I can’t devote enough time to them. What’s more, on the

technical level, I’m not knowledgeable enough about what they’re doing. Everything

changes too quickly. There’s someone in the team, X, who you’re going to meet, that I

would like to promote to manager. I think he has the strength of character and the

abilities, but he has to mature gradually… To my way of thinking, the use of [‘think

together®’] could help him take on this new role’.

This SME’s Managing director judges ‘think together®’ not only in term of

functionality (does it permit to take good decisions?) but also in terms of its ability to

change its own organization. In a certain manner, we can say that like other users, he

develops uses of this software relative to the problems he encounters in his work. For

him, the aim is to identify a manager for his Electronic Data Interchange software

group and to get him accepted by the team. This manager’s principal role is to foster

professional cooperation within the team (its community of practice aspect) and

functional coordination with the other departments when decisions have to be taken

collectively. The MD is using [‘think together®’] in the hope of being able to provide

the future manager with a tool to help in carrying out his duties as well as to

legitimate his managerial role.

This use accords fairly well with the initial spirit of the technology (organising

exchanges of ideas with this software equates to a standard managerial activity). It is

reinforced by the converging use of other available coordination tools (for example,

they create meetings that join all members of this team). However, this SME’s

managing director does not evaluate the software’s contributions solely in relation to

the decisions it helps to make (which is officially why it was purchased and

developed) but primarily in terms of its ability to bring about organizational change.

However the designers developed this software around the notion of ‘organizational

transparency’, which can be practised in various formal hierarchical organizations, in

so far as they can maintain such transparency. In this case, this ‘transparency’ was

being sought by this managing director in order to legitimate a particular choice of

hierarchical organization. Thus these issues of organizational change (which are not

explicitly included in the designers’ offer) emerge as an important factor in the

disparity between the uses expected by him and the actual uses.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

Our literature review showed that at the beginning, characteristics of organizations

were at the heart of the reflection on appropriation. This concept knows several

important improvements. “Adaptative Structuration Theory” can be a strong

framework of the “technological side” of appropriation [6]. In fact, it explains in

details how structural features and spirit of technology play a role in the nature of

appropriation. On the “user side”, “Theory of practice” [20] is a conceptualisation that

analyses precisely how users enact a technology. But those two theories have in to

common to be inscribed in an interactionism approach which have a lots of

difficulties to take the organization as a all into account.

It appears necessary to develop a new reflection on appropriation that beside this

“technological side” and this “user” side of appropriation reintroduce a real

“organizational side” of appropriation. In this paper, we just propose three different

examples of role that organizational phenomena can play in appropriation. With the

first one, we saw that professional bureaucracy can explain a low level of use of an

HR intranet. In fact, this kind of structuration is synonymous of decentralisation of

power. Professionalism of employees permit them to keep their hierarchy at a certain

distance. If we add that those people prefer face-to-face discussion and that they have

the possibility to discuss directly with the local HR manager, we can see that

organization of this firm plays a great role in the explanation of low uses of the HR

intranet that we describe.

The second case is an example of the opposite phenomenon : effects of

centralization of power on uses of an ICT tool. In this firm, the use of the ERP is an

obligation. Local managers can only order through this ICT tool. This obligation

corresponds to an high degree of centralization of power. Headquarters have the

possibility to impose use of ICT tool to lower levels of hierarchy. But, even in those

highly centered firms, power of headquarters must construct compromises with

different reality in stores. As we saw above, inventories are erroneous, theoretical

demands do not match with real local demands, etc.

ERP cannot take into account the specificity of the local business unit. Therefore it

appears necessary that orders can be changed manually by local managers. A certain

degree of autonomy for local managers is indispensable if headquarters whish that all

local managers use ERP. This case is interesting because, as they change of brand

strategy, those headquarters implement a new version of ICT tool that does not permit

to change orders manually. As we mentioned above, it would be interesting to analyze

how this higher level of centralization of power (local managers cannot change orders

even at the margin) change the appropriation of this system. This appropriation move

is directly linked with a transformation of organizational side of appropriation and,

especially, the reinforcement of centralization of power.

The third case shows how a tool can be used to try to create a new level of

hierarchy. This case is interesting because it shows that the link between organization

and appropriation can be effective in both sides : organization influences

appropriation (as we see in first two cases) but appropriation can influence

organization too. As we saw in this case, an ICT tool can be used to try to create a

new organization of a firm.

This study is limited. Our three cases are only examples that underline that

“organizational side” of appropriation seems to play a role that need to be taken into

account for a better explanation of appropriation. The foundation of this paper was a

proposition : does organization play a role in appropriation processes of ICT tools?

Our cases are examples that permit to turn this proposition of research into

hypothesis. But future researches need to improve this reflection, to reintroduce

organization beside technology and users in the analysis of appropriation and to

validate (or not) the hypothesis. Among different tasks, those researches should create

a methodological tool to measure appropriation, a grid to better analyse the degree of

centralization and decentralization of the organization, areas of autonomy (linked with

uses of ICT tools), etc. All those tools should permit to better understand all different

forms of appropriation in an organization.

As it has been the case for the “technological side” and “user side” of

appropriation, it appears that a real strong framework is necessary to give a complete

place to “organizational side” of appropriation. It seems to be a great project for

future researches in this area.

References

1. Beaudry, A., Pinsonneault, A. (2005), « Understanding user responses to information

technology: A coping model of user adaptation », MIS Quaterly, Vol. 29, No 3, pp. 493-

524.

2. Clark, P.A. (1987). Anglo-American innovation. New York: De Gruyter.

3. Crozier, M., Friedberg, E. (1977), L’acteur et le système, Seuil, Paris.

4. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), « User acceptanace of computer

technology: Aa comparison of two theoretical models », Management Science, Vol.35, n°8,

pp. 982-1003.

5. De Certeau, M. (2002), L’invention du quotidien. Arts de faire, réédition, Gallimard, Paris.

6. De Sanctis, G., Poole, M. S. (1994), « Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology

Use: Adaptative Structuration Theory », Organization Science, Vol. 5, n°2, p. 121-147.

7. Downs, G. W., Jr., Mohr L.B. (1976) « Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation »,

Administrative Science Quarterly (21), 700-714.

8. George, J.F., King J.L. (1991), « Examining the Computing and Centralization Debate »,

Communications of the ACM, Vol.34, n°7, pp. 62-72.

9. Groth, L. (1999), Future organizational design: the scope for the IT-based enterprise. John

Wiley & Sons.

10. Guiderdoni-Jourdain Karine, Oiry E. (2008) « “Local Universe” and use of an HR Intranet.

The case of Middle Management », in Bondarouk T., Ruël H., Electronic HRM in Theory

and Practice: a Reader, IGI Group, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

11. Ives, B., Olson, M.H. (1984), « User Involvement and MIS Success : A review of

Research », Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 583-603.

12. Leavitt, H., Whisler, T. (1958), « Management in the 1980’s », Harvard Business Review,

November-December, 1958, p.41-48.

13. Leonard-Barton, D. (1988), « Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and

Organization », Research Policy, n°17, pp. 251-267.

14. Markus, M.L., Silver M.S. (2008), « A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A New

Look at DeSanctis and Poole’s Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit », Journal of the

Association of Information Systems, vol. 9, Issue 3/4.

15. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994),

Qualitative Data Analysis, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

16. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research,

Prentice Hall.

17. Muhalmann D. (2003), The organizational impact of new technologies. The case of

groupware and knowledge management, Thèse en sociologie, Sciences Po Paris.

18. Oiry E., Pascal A., Tchobanian R. (2008) « From tool to organization: uses of a

collaborative application in a high-tech SME », 8th International Conference on the Design

of Cooperative Systems, May 21-23, Carry-Le-Rouet, France.

19. Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Staii, A. (2008), « Comment analyser l’appropriation ? Le défi de

l’opérationnalisation empirique », 13ème conférence de l’AIM (Association Information et

Management) – pré-ICIS, Paris, Université Dauphine, 14 décembre.

20. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for

studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.

21. Perriault, J. (1989), La logique de l’usage, Paris, Flammarion.

22. Perrow, C. (1972), Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay , Glenview, Ill.: Scott,

Foresman.

23. Proulx, Serge (dir.) (1988), Vivre avec l’ordinateur : les usagers de la micro-informatique,

Boucherville, Québec.

24. Rice, R., Rogers, E. M. (1980), « Reinventing in the Innovation Process », Knowledge:

Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol.1, n° 4, pp. 499-514.

25. Schryer, C.F. (1993), Records as Genre. Written Communication. Vol. 10, April, 200-

234.Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications,

Beverley Hills, CA.

26. Tyre M. J. et Orlikowski, W. J. (1994), « Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of

Technological Adaptation in Organizations », Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 98-

118.

27. de Vaujany F.-X. (2008) (1) Capturing reflexivity modes in IS: A critical realist approach

Information and Organization, Vol. 18, pp. 51–72.

28. de Vaujany F.-X. (2008) (2) Strategic Alignment: What Else? A Practice Based View of IS

Value, ICIS Proceedings, Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems,

Paris.

29. Weick K. E., (1969). The social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

30. Wiredu, G.O. (2007), « User appropriation of mobile technologies: Motives, conditions and

design properties », Information and Organization, Vol. 17, n° 2, 110-129.

31. Woodward, J. (1958), « Management and technology », Department of Scientific and

Industrial Research; Problems of Progress on Industry, n°3, Her Majesty's Stationery

Office, London.

32. Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research : Design and Methods, London: Sage.