Framework
This is an account of the development of ICT-services (Information and Communication Technologies) at an institution of higher learning. The term “service” will be understood in three different meanings as: 1) facility supplying some public demand, 2) the process of producing an intangible commodity, and 3) an administrative division in an organization. The case thus discusses the planning, implementation, organizational integration and wider perspectives of several information and communication technologies designed for facilitating work processes. These work processes may be distinguished according to purpose into: administration, communication, education, and integration.
Focus is not on e-learning, but rather on providing the administrative framework for managing a university. Some general literature on the transformation of university management include Oblinger & Katz (1999), Duderstadt et al. (2002), and Cornford and Pollock (2003). Also, a number of case studies on the implementation of administrative systems are available (Chae & Poole, 2005; Okunoye et al., 2008; Pollock & Cornford, 2004; Todorova & Falls-Anderson, 2007). The present case differs from these cases, however, in its emphasis on participatory design and voluntary adoption.
Even in the sense of “supplying a public demand”, the availability of a service does not automatically lead to general acceptance and widespread use. Nor can it guarantee that there will be positive derived effects—in the present case, increasing computer literacy and a keener awareness of the potentials of ITC for professional use. This, however, may have been an implicit assumption in the case that follows, where the purposes of administration and integration have been far better served than those of education.
Institutions of higher learning are complex both in terms of organization (administrative units versus academic units, central administration versus local administrative units) and in terms of ICT-users (McClure, 2003). Faculty, students, administrators, government agencies, suppliers, and the general public are all potential users of university ICT-services. Some of these groups will be using the same ICT-services, maybe in different roles. Other services are specific to just one group. In the present context, focus will be on intramural ICT-services, excluding e.g. electronic invoicing and general information web sites. Excluded from the discussion are also general management tools (e.g. finance systems and human resource systems) that are operated only by specialists in the institution’s central administration, and where the service consists simply in automation of routines (e.g. payment of salaries) or easier access to information (e.g. statistics on sick-days).
The rationale for introducing ICT-services may seem self-evident in an age of “effectiveness” and “rationalization” where universities are becoming knowledge providers that have to compete in the market. To some institutional users, however, the new electronic services are not readily understood as “supplying a demand”, regardless of whether they simply remediate existing practices or offer something entirely new. This is particularly true in the present case of an institution characterized by a fair degree of departmental and individual autonomy and a history of scepticism about “authority”. The special aspects of the case in question are that (1) by and large adoption of ICT-services has been voluntary; and (2) the development of services has been almost entirely based on participatory design. It will be argued that both factors further, but also challenge the adoption of ICT-services.
Adoption being voluntary, a close correlation may be expected between the adoption of an ICT-service and its perceived usefulness. Therefore, the case is suitable for considering not just how, but also why innovations are adopted. To help bring out this aspect, the discussion of the examples will draw on the so-called perceived attributes of innovations. These five qualities have been identified as the key characteristics when it comes to explaining the rate of adoption of innovations (Rogers, 2003). Rephrasing Rogers slightly, to be adopted an innovation has to represent a relative advantage (be perceived to be an improvement), has to be compatible with the experience, values and needs of the users, has to decrease rather than increase complexity, has to be clearly visible (offer observability, in Roger’s terminology) and to be available for trying out (afford trialability).