- Email: [email protected]
The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments
Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments Neil F. Doherty School of Business & Economics, Loughborough University, LE11 2BU, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 8 June 2012 Accepted 30 November 2012
In recent years there has been a great deal of academic and practitioner interest in the role of ‘benefits realisation management’ [BRM] approaches, as a means of proactively leveraging value from IT investments. This growing body of work owes a very considerable, but as yet unacknowledged, debt to the work of Ken Eason, and other early socio-technical theorists. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate, using the literature, how many of the principles, practices and techniques of BRM have evolved either directly or indirectly from socio-technical approaches to systems design. In so doing, this article makes a further important contribution to the literature by explicitly identifying the underlying principles and key practices of benefits realisation management. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ken Eason Information systems Socio-technical design Change management Benefits realisation management
1. Introduction Over the past fifty years the organisational world has grown ever more dependent upon a wide variety of information technologies, to deliver significant efficiency and effectiveness gains to their business processes and management practices. Unfortunately, despite this growing dependency upon information technology, a considerable amount of time, money, effort and opportunity is still wasted upon IT investments that ultimately fail to deliver meaningful benefits (Fortune and Peters, 2005; Peppard and Ward, 2005). Estimates of the level of failure may vary, but over the past forty years they have tended to remain uncomfortably high. For example, it was suggested that in the late 1970s only 20% of projects ‘achieved something like their intended benefits’ (Eason, 1988), and by the end of the 1990s the situation was certainly no better, with Clegg et al. (1997) reporting that ‘up to 90% of all IT projects fail to meet their goals’. More recently, Shpilberg et al. (2007) reported that 74% of IT projects failed to deliver expected value, and a British Computer Society (BCS, 2004) study concluded that ‘only around 16 per cent of IT projects can be considered truly successful’. Consequently, understanding the determinants of systems failure, and finding more reliable ways of managing IT investments projects, to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes, remains an important and consistent theme in the literature (Eason, 1982; Willcocks and Margetts, 1994; Doherty and King, 2001; Nelson, 2007).
E-mail address: [email protected].
So what is the major cause of systems failure? Systems may underperform, or even be rejected, because new technologies are harnessed to existing business process designs, and traditional patterns of employee behaviour (Ward et al., 2008). As Eason (1988) observed, all too often systems fail, because system developers aren’t aware that it is through organisational change, rather than through a technology’s functionality, that benefits are most commonly leveraged. Systems also fail because they often trigger unintended human and organisational impacts that users may ultimately perceive to be unacceptable (Martinsons and Chong, 1999). Either way, it is now widely acknowledged that unless systems designers find effective ways of managing the human and organizational implications of their software products, the incidence information systems failure is unlikely to abate (Doherty et al., 2003; Clegg et al., 1997). One suggested remedy to this problem is through the adoption of socio-technical design processes (e.g. Eason, 1982; Mumford, 1995), as these explicitly address the need to redesign organisational processes and behaviours, and the need to identify and mitigate the risks of negative organisational consequences. Although the contribution of sociotechnical theory is now widely acknowledged (Clegg et al., 2000), and many different socio-technical methods and approaches have been proposed (Mumford, 1995), there is little evidence these have succeeded in making the transition from research laboratory to widespread commercial usage. As Clegg (2000) notes, ‘socio-technical principles and practices have not had the impact that their proponents might wish’. This view is supported by Mumford (1997; 314) who notes that: ‘management tended to regard these successful (socio-technical) projects as one-offs’ and, consequently: ‘there was
0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
2
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
no great enthusiasm or motivation to spread the approach through their companies’. In summary, the information systems’ literature is very clear on three points: general levels of system failure are unacceptably high; the primary cause of this problem is the failure to adequately predict and manage the human and organizational impacts of IT investments; and progress in the adoption socio-technical approaches has been rather too slow. Consequently, there is a pressing need for research into new ways of achieving a more effective relationship between information technologies and the social contexts in which they are intended to operate. One potentially important mechanism for ensuring that an IT project is focused upon improvements in organisational performance, and therefore better tailored to its organisational context, is through the establishment of a formal and explicit benefits realization programme. Benefits realisation management [BRM] has been defined as ’the process of organising and managing, such that the potential benefits arising from the use of IT are actually realised’ (Ward and Elvin, 1999). Although BRM is still in its relative infancy, it offers real hope of a practical solution to the socio-technical conundrum facing systems designers. A number of studies have already demonstrated the role of formal and explicit ‘benefits realization’ approaches, for improving the outcomes of information systems development projects, through the proactive management of organizational change (e.g. Remenyi and Sherwood-Smith, 1998; Ward and Elvin, 1999; Peppard et al., 2007; Ashurst et al., 2008). The aim of this paper is to critically explore the extent to which the principles and practices of BRM have evolved either directly or indirectly from the established socio-technical approaches to systems design. The paper progresses by critically reviewing the work of Ken Eason, and other early socio-technical theorists, to see whether it still has implications for the problems affecting more recent generations of business IT. The core principles of the benefits realisation management approach, are then introduced, and it is argued that its explicit focus on benefits gives it perhaps the best chance of resolving the critical socio-technical dimension of IS projects. The paper finishes by showing how many of the cornerstones of the benefits realisation management approach can be linked back directly to the work of the early socio-technical theorists, and in particular Ken Eason. 2. The diagnosis of the socio-technical theorists Despite its recognised tendency to act as a catalyst for change, information technology cannot be viewed as a deterministic artefact, as it does not generally behave in a well ordered and predictable manner (Grint and Woolgar, 1997). As Eason (2001; p. 324) notes ‘many outcomes (of IT projects) are unplanned and unintentional’. Organizational actors have the potential to interpret, appropriate and ultimately shape, through use, their information systems in a wide variety of ways (Orlikowski, 1993). This view of the world recognises that information systems have a high degree of inherent ‘interpretive flexibility’ (Doherty et al., 2006), which means that, when applied in an organisational context, they become social, rather than technologically determined, constructs (Bijker, 1995). The implication of this ‘social constructivist’ perspective (Leonardi and Barley, 2008) is that very similar organisations can experience radically ‘different outcomes with the same technology’ [p. 69]. As any system may be interpreted and appropriated in multifarious ways, during the development period, as well as throughout its operational life (Orlikoski et al., 1995; Barley, 1986), a very significant problem facing the systems developer and the systems sponsor is that the impacts and outcomes of introducing a new information system, cannot generally be predicted at the project’s outset.
The implication of this diagnosis is that systems developers must move away from their traditional, deterministic views of the IT artefact (Clegg et al., 2000), and embrace a socio-technical perspective that encourages systems developers to jointly design the social and technical elements of a system (Mumford, 1995). Whereas the socio-technical theorists recognized that information technology is both shaping of, and shaped, by its working environment, many scholars (Orlikowski, 2010; Leonardi, 2011) are now promoting the newer, ‘socio-material’ perspective, which takes this state of mutual interdependency a stage further. For example, Orlikowski (2007) argues that the material aspects of organizational life, of which technology is a prime example, are ‘constitutively entangled’ with the social aspects e ‘there is no social that is not also material and no material that is not also social’ [p. 1437]. Against this backdrop, the need for approaches to systems development, implementation and operations that pay equal attention to the social and technological [material] dimensions of information systems has never been greater. In his highly influential book e Information Technology and Organisational Change e Ken Eason (1988) recognized that it was not possible to design a system to support a particular organisational activity, which could be guaranteed to deliver the outcomes specified by the designer. He proposed a set of ten distinct propositions, based upon socio-technical principles, by which organisations could develop information systems that could be gradually tailored to serve both the needs of the host organisation and its individual employees. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this short paper to present a detailed critique of all ten propositions, the aim of the remainder of this section is to review the seven key propositions, which have the most obvious resonance with the types of the problems identified in the previous section. This is not to say that from a socio-technical perspective, the remaining three propositions are in anyway less valid, it is simply that the following seven propositions are the ones upon which the evolution of benefits realisation management approaches is most heavily dependent, as later demonstrated in Table 1: Proposition 1. ‘The successful exploitation of IT depends upon the ability and willingness of the employees of an organisation to use the appropriate technology to engage in worthwhile tasks’ [p. 44]. All new technologies have material properties, ‘which afford different possibilities for action, based upon the contexts in which they are used’ (Leonardi, 2011; p. 153). Such ‘affordances’ (Hutchby, 2001) are clearly based upon the unique set of features and functions, that a particular technology offers, but it is through the situated interaction of a user and a technology, that new goals can be achieved. In presenting this proposition, Eason (1988) was explicitly recognizing that meaningful benefits are typically leveraged through the interaction between the actions and capabilities of users and the inherent functionality and affordances offered by a particular software artefact. System designers must, therefore, resist the temptation to impose a particular configuration of information technology on a group of workers, just because they have confidence that it will deliver a pre-determined set of benefits. Rather, it must be recognised that new technologies will only deliver meaningful benefits if they are readily accepted and can be easily operated by members of the user community. To this end, the need to improve all forms of human-computer interaction, to ensure effective user adoption, has been a recurring theme of his work (Eason, 1991). Proposition 2. ‘The design target must be to create a socio-technical system capable of serving organisational goals, not to deliver a technical system capable of delivering a technical service’ [p. 45]. The acid test for any the systems development process must be: has it delivered a new technological solution that improves the
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
3
Table 1 Mapping the relationship between benefits realisation and socio-technical theory. Principles of principles of BRM
Socio-technical propositions (Eason, 1988)
Comments
Propositions 2 & 5 e focus on major benefits. Eason (1988) makes a very strong case that the delivery of benefits rather than the implementation of technology is the underlying aim of any IT project, which ties in very strongly with the first principle of benefits realisation management. 2 Active benefits management Proposition 3 e socio-technical design Eason (1988) doesn’t explicitly recognise the need for an active and on-going programme of benefits management. However, in advocating that social and technical issues should be jointly addressed, throughout the project, there is an implicit recognition that benefits should always be kept at the top of the agenda. 3 It’s a journey not a destination Proposition 9 e evolutionary growth Eason’s (1988) proposition certainly recognises the need for a range of postimplementation activities, during what he calls the ‘critical phase’ [p. 157]. However, the benefits’ realisation literature takes a rather longer term perspective, which encourage stakeholders to regularly and proactively question how the contributions of their systems can be improved (Ashurst et al., 2008). 4 Shared responsibility Propositions 1, 4 & 7 e user focus and Although the socio-technical theorists focus more on the meeting the needs of the stakeholder participation. : end-user, and the advocates of benefits management privilege the role of business managers, there is still a high degree of alignment between these two perspectives 5 Transform the organisation Proposition 3 e organisational change There is a very high degree of agreement between the socio-technical and the benefits realisation literature about the need for proactive organisational change. 6 Realisation through regular N.A. The need for very regular reviews to determine the extent to which a new review technology will deliver organisational benefits is not explicitly highlighted by Eason (1988). However, he does recognise the need for periodic user evaluations, to ensure that the resultant systems will be: ‘easy to use, easy to learn and well matched to users’ tasks’ [pp. 189e193]. 7 Develop workable practices N.A. Although the socio-technical literature has suggested a number of tools and methods (Mumford, 1995), it has placed far less emphasis on the need for organisations to develop their own, locally-derived benefits realisation practices. 8 Manage the portfolio N.A. This important aspect of benefits realisation management hasn’t been explicitly recognised by the socio-technical theorists. 9 Retain responsibility N.A. The socio-technical literature hasn’t explicitly recognised the importance of internal stakeholders retaining responsibility for the realisation of benefits within their own projects, in the context of out-sourced projects. 10 Change the culture N.A. The socio-technical literature is clear that implemented systems should reflect the culture of the host organisation, but is far less explicit about the need to change the culture of the development teams. 1 Focus on the benefits
performance of the host organisation, in some meaningful way? As Eason (1982; p. 197) noted in an earlier work, “effective implementation demands the ability to establish organizational needs and to choose a form of technology which will meet them”. It is then necessary to consider the social and technical aspects of the design exercise in tandem, so that the technological and social systems are mutually sustaining: information technology should be both shaping of, and shaped, by its working, social environment (Rose and Jones, 2005). As Mumford (1994; p. 313) notes, to deliver an effective system, ‘equal weight should be given to social and technical factors’. Proposition 3. ‘The effective exploitation of socio-technical systems depends upon the adoption of a planned process of (organisational) change’ [p. 46]. It is not sufficient to simply design a social system capable of exploiting the functionality of the technical system, a programme of planned organisational change needs to be undertaken to ensure that the specified social system comes into being. As Eason (2001) notes, too often the requirement for proactive organisational change is ignored, and ‘organizational issues are tackled in an ad hoc way whenever they emerge, which is often after the system has been implemented’. However, given the highly dynamic nature of the modern business environment, it essential that such programmes of change are flexible, and can be tailored to changing organisational requirements (Mumford, 2000). Proposition 4. The design of effective socio-technical systems will depend upon the participation of all relevant stakeholders’ [p. 46]. Users should be encouraged to actively participate in the design of a new information technology, so that they ultimately receive a software product which is fit for purpose, in terms of both
satisfying their utility and their usability needs. Whilst user participation is a core tenet of socio-technical theory (Cherns, 1976), it has been recognised that in the context of software development, the attainment of effective user engagement can be problematic (Axtell et al., 1997). Consequently, systems developers must be prepared to adopt forms of user participation that are particularly well suited to a particular socio-technical context. Proposition 5. ‘Major benefits will only result if the socio-technical developments are directed at major organisational purposes where there are opportunities to be taken or problems to be resolved’ [p. 47]. In putting forward this proposition, Eason (1988) is recognising that the business case for any new information technology should only be sanctioned if there is a really convincing case that meaningful benefits are likely to be leveraged from the investment. If a new piece of software, no matter how exciting, does not have the clear potential to exploit an opportunity or resolve a problem, then it should not be developed. However, even where clear and important benefits have been identified, and an appropriate technology selected, there are still important organisational choices to be made about the socio-technical design of the system that will determine whether these benefits are ultimately realised (Eason, 2001). Proposition 7. ‘IT systems must be designed to serve the functional needs of the organisation by serving the functional needs of individual users in a usable and acceptable way’ [p. 47]. A common problem in software development projects is that all too often there is a mismatch between the needs of the host organisation, in terms of the planned benefits, and requirements of users, in terms of a useable system that supports their job. Software designers must, therefore, strive to ensure that they develop
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
4
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
systems that serve the needs of individual users, whilst at the same time, also delivering meaningful organisational benefits. However, to effectively serve the needs of the user community, systems designers must attempt to jettison the entrenched idea that the user is the weak link in any system, and accept that the creativity, flexibility and sheer resourcefulness of the human agent should be liberated by the system (Clegg et al., 2000). Proposition 9. ‘The exploitation of the capabilities of information technology can only be achieved by a progressive, planned form of evolutionary growth’ [p. 48]. This underlying message in this proposition is that the benefits from IT do not automatically materialise at the point of implementation, or even soon thereafter. The realisation of real value from a technological investment requires time: time for users to experiment with the system and understand its full potential. This process is what Eason (1988; p. 181) aptly terms ‘learning by doing’. Two important conclusions can be drawn from this review. Firstly, the sound advice that Eason (1988) embedded in his key propositions, appears to be just as relevant today, as it was almost 25 years ago, when he first articulated the critical link between IT and organisational change. Unfortunately far too many information systems still fail to deliver value (Levinson, 2009), and the primary reason is that development teams still prioritise the delivery of a software artefact, on time and to budget, over undertaking the organisational changes necessary to deliver meaningful benefits (Ward et al., 2008). Secondly, this review of the propositions suggests that there is at least a prima facie case that they may have been influential in the evolution of the benefits realisation management discipline area. 3. The key principles and practices of benefits realisation management There has been a great deal of prior academic interest in, and indeed argument about, how the benefits arising from IT can best be measured (e.g. Delone and Mclean, 1992; Petter et al., 2008; Farbey et al., 1992; Irani et al., 2007; Mitra et al., 2011). Despite this uncertainty, it’s also been argued that benefits should act as the focal point for all design and on-going development activity, throughout a system’s operational life (Ward and Elvin, 1999). A strong focus on benefits may be apparent when business cases are being constructed, but any on-going benefits focus tends to rapidly fade away, once approval has been granted (Ashurst et al., 2008). What is more, even if organisations did want to use their business cases as the point of departure for a more proactive attempt to manage the delivery of benefits, they would still face two majors problem. Firstly, in order to get their projects approved, the writers of business cases typically overestimate the benefits and understate costs (Ward et al., 2008). Secondly, as it is widely argued that the outcomes from systems development projects are typically emergent, over the life of the system, rather than planned (Orlikiowski, 1996), it is unlikely that the initial business case will provide a reliable road map for the downstream management of benefits. Against this backdrop, it has become clear that there is a great deal more to benefits realisation than simply encouraging IT professionals to stick to their business cases. Although interest in benefits realisation management is growing, as a distinct area of academic enquiry, and more importantly in terms of its organisational uptake (Doherty et al, 2012), it is still in its relative infancy. As a result, there are limited examples of established methods and widely used tools that can be used to help define its practice. However, from the growing body of literature, it has been possible to distil the following principles, which help to delineate its distinctive characteristics:
1. Focus on the benefits: The key message for the senior stakeholders, in any IT project, must be that the ultimate realization of meaningful benefits is dependent upon far more than the successful delivery of a piece of software (Ward and Daniel, 2006). Consequently, all project activities and outcomes must be defined in terms of specific benefits to be realized, rather than simply the functionality of the technology that is to be delivered (Ward et al., 1996; Ashurst et al., 2008). 2. Active management: It is not enough to simply define all project activities in terms of the benefits to be delivered; their realisation has to be actively planned and managed. Having identified the benefits to be delivered, from a particular software project, managers will need to initiate an on-going benefits realization programme, to ensure that all projected benefits are proactively managed, throughout the life of the project (Ward and Elvin, 1999). 3. It’s a journey not a destination: In traditional systems development projects, the implementation of the software artefact tends to be the point at which most of the project activity, as well as any senior management interest, tends to wane (Ward et al., 1996). Unfortunately, from a benefits realisation perspective, this situation is seriously deficient, as benefits need to be actively managed over the system’s operational life (Leonardi, 2007). This longer-term exploitation strategy is often advantageous, as it encourages stakeholders to innovate and improvise with their local working environments (Orlikowski, 1996), and to tailor their systems and processes, to better reflect changing organisational circumstances and requirements. 4. Shared responsibility: Because of its strong focus on corporate strategies and organizational change, benefits realization is not an undertaking that can be solely accomplished by IT professionals. The primary responsibility for benefits realization should probably reside with managers from the host department, team or business unit that will ultimately own the system (Peppard et al., 2007). Moreover, the active participation of users is also required to make use of their intimate knowledge of the underlying business processes, and to ensure that the resultant system meets their needs and complements their capabilities (Remenyi & Sherwood-Smith, 1998). 5. Transform the organisation: As benefits rarely spring automatically from the introduction of a new technology, benefits realisation initiatives must explicitly seek to transform organisational structures and behaviours, to ensure that the design of the host organisation complements the functionality of a newly implemented information system (Hughes and Scott Morton, 2006; Peppard et al., 2007). Such technologically-mediated organisational change programmes must be explicitly tailored to reflect the specific characteristics of the technology and the needs of the host organisation. As Clegg & Shepherd (2007) note, it is important to change the mind-set of stakeholders, to reflect that they are primarily engaged in business transformation projects, rather than IT development projects. For example, benefits may only be leveraged from a new data warehouse if the host organisation actively seeks to modify its culture so that its staff feel free to act in a more flexible, customer-focussed and empowered manner (Markus, 2004). 6. Realisation through regular review: Typically stakeholders have focussed on benefits at only two points in their software projects: at the very outset, when preparing the business case, and soon after the system has gone ‘live’, when conducting the post-implementation review. Benefits realisation theorists now challenge this orthodoxy and argue that potential and actual benefits should be regularly reviewed throughout the full system life-cycle, from inception through to de-
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
7.
8.
9.
10.
commissioning (Remenyi, & Sherwood-Smith, 1998; Lin and Pervan, 2003). Develop workable practices: Practices have been defined as: ‘a set of socially defined ways of doing things, in a specific domain, to achieve a defined e and generally measurable e outcome, and create the basis for responding appropriately to individual circumstances’ (Wenger et al., 2002). As there are no formal methods for benefits realisation, and very few well tried and tested tools, to facilitate the process, a practice-based approach has many attractions. Indeed, it has been argued that organisations should derive their own sets of context sensitive practices, which can be applied to the task of benefits realisation in a highly flexible and pragmatic manner (Ashurst et al., 2008). The practice approach is particular appropriate for benefits realisation as it provides a more flexible solution, than formal tools and methods, so it can be tailored to a specific context (Doherty et al., 2012). Manage the portfolio: In the era of networked technologies and tightly coupled systems, it must be recognised that benefits often stem from the complex interactions between a number of related technologies, spanning multiple business processes, rather than stemming from a single piece of software. To reflect the increasingly complex nature of the modern IT infrastructure, a portfolio approach must be taken to ensure that benefits are managed in a comprehensive and holistic fashion (Jeffery and Leliveld, 2004; Doherty et al., 2012). A further benefit of the portfolio approach is that its facilitates organisational learning, by allowing practices that have been successfully adopted on one project to be applied in others. Retain responsibility: The proportion of IT projects being outsourced to consultancies is already high, and rising (Sauer and Cuthbertson, 2003). In such situations, the issue of benefits realisation may well be overlooked, as the consultancy might not see this as being part of their remit. The customer organisation must, therefore, be prepared to actively take responsibility for all benefits realization activities, in all situations in which the IT development has been out-sourced (Ashurst et al., 2008). Change the culture: For most organisations, the adoption of a benefits mind-set, and a proactive benefits realisation management approach, requires a step change in their attitudes towards technology, as well as their systems development practices. More specifically, successful benefits realisation requires a significant change in organisational culture so that all project stakeholders feel empowered to act in a more flexible and innovative manner (Lin and Pervan, 2003; Doherty et al., 2012).
4. Discussion: the debt benefits realisation management owes the socio-technical theorists In her critical review of the extent to which BPR has borrowed ideas, either implicitly or explicitly, from socio-technical design, Enid Mumford (1994) argues that there are many important areas of commonality, between these two approaches. In this paper, we have sought to conduct a similar critique, but this time focussing upon the debt that the newer discipline of benefits realisation management owes to the principles of socio-technical design. Having outlined the key socio-technical propositions, which relate to the delivery of value-adding technologies, as well as articulating the core principles of benefits realisation management, it is now possible to critically reflect upon the relationships between these two sets of constructs. Table 1 attempts to map the relationship between benefits realisation and socio-technical design, and in so
5
doing, clearly highlights the significant number of areas in which there are striking similarities between these two disciplines. Table 1 clearly shows that many of the core tenets of benefits realisation management appear to have their roots planted firmly in the work of earlier socio-technical theorists, and in particular Ken Eason’s (1988) propositions. However, having demonstrated that there are many areas of commonality, between these two approaches, it is now important to reflect upon areas of difference, to understand what gives these two related approaches their distinctive character. The cornerstone of socio-technical theory is that organisational systems will perform better, if the social and technical sub-systems have been simultaneously designed and jointly optimised so that they work in harmony, in a particular organisational context (Trist et al., 1963). But on what basis are we determining whether systems perform better, and against what criterion are we attempting to optimise systems performance? It can be argued that sociotechnical design has a far stronger and more explicit emphasis upon prioritising the rights and needs of the employee, and therefore finding solutions that improve the quality of working life of users is the key yardstick against which system’s success should be judged (Mumford, 2000). The rights of the user are given even more precedence by some authors, who believed that the days of over-specified work designs are over (Herbst, 1974) and that workers should be given a high degree of discretion to design their own working practices (Cherns, 1976). However, giving the users of new technologies a high degree of latitude to develop their own working practices doesn’t necessarily lend itself to the attainment of organisational benefits. By contrast, the benefits realisation literature, adopts a far more managerialist stance, as it emphatically privileges the attainment of benefits, which are meaningful from an organisational perspective. Indeed, this approach is firmly grounded in the idea that the intended benefits of a new system should be explicitly defined, at the project’s outset, and that all downstream decisions with regard to the design of the organisational and technical systems, are then considered in light of these stated benefits (Ward and Elvin, 1999). This far more explicit focus on the delivery of organisational value is particularly reflected in the practices associated with the on-going review and exploitation of information technologies, throughout their working lives, to ensure that all potential benefits are ultimately realised. With his seventh proposition, Eason (1988) attempts to avoid the question of whether the needs of the user or the organisation should be privileged when designing systems, by arguing that if at all possible the needs of these two important constituencies should be aligned. However, in practice this may not always be possible, as separate stakeholder groups often have very distinct interests which may make conflict between them almost inevitable (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). Consequently, looking ahead, it is important that proponents of both the benefits realisation and the socio-technical approaches pay far more attention to the importance of power and politics, when considering organisational change, in the context of IT initiatives (Buchanan and Badham, 2008). Another important way in which benefits realisation appears to differ from traditional socio-technical approaches is that it more explicitly recognises the highly dynamic and situated nature of information technology, in the modern organisational context. In her account of socio-material practice, Orlikowski (2007; 1435) argues that organisations are ‘increasingly constituted by multiple, emergent, shifting and interdependent technologies’. Consequently, it is important to recognise that the organisational roles and impacts of a particular information technology will vary greatly by time and place. With its greater emphasis on locally-derived practices, regular reviews and portfolio management, it may be that the
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
6
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
benefits realisation management approach is particularly well placed to help organisational actors make sense of information technology in the contemporary workplace. 5. Concluding remarks In the UK alone, the cost of failed IS/IT projects is many billions of pounds annually (British Computer Society, 2004). Consequently, there is still a pressing need for studies that explicitly seek to critique the approaches through which this unacceptable level of waste might best be tackled. Ken Eason (1988; p. 44) made an extremely important contribution to this debate, when he explicitly articulated the relationship between IT and organisational change: “We are unlikely to achieve real benefits from IT unless we find ways of designing for the human and organisational changes that are needed as well as designing the technical changes.” Although this paper has demonstrated the importance of Ken Eason’s socio-technical work in the evolution of the newer domain of benefits realisation management, it is still not totally clear what the future holds for these two disciplines. The benefits realisation management approach may have a greater chance of taking hold in the organisational world given its more explicit and unambiguous focus on the delivery of business value. However, going forward it is important to recognise the debt that is owed to the work of Ken Eason, and to take on board the many important lessons that can be learned from the socio-technical theorists, particularly with regard to the critical roles to be played by members of the user community. References Ashurst, C., Doherty, N.F., Peppard, J., 2008. Improving the impact of IT development projects: the benefits realization capability model. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 352e370. Axtell, C., Waterson, P., Clegg, C., 1997. Problems integrating user participation into software developments. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 47, 323e345. Barley, S., 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 61e103. BCS (British Computer Society), 2004. The Challenge of Complex IT Projects. BCS, London. Bijker, W.E., 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites & Bulbs. MIT Press, Cambridge. Buchanan, D.A., Badham, R., 2008. Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game. Sage, London. Buchanan, D.A., Huczynski, A.A., 2010. Organizational Behaviour, seventh ed. FT Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Cherns, A.B., 1976. The principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations 29, 783e792. Clegg, C.W., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., Tomlinson, C., 1997. Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors. Ergonomics 40 (9), 851e871. Clegg, C.W., 2000. Socio-technical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 463e477. Clegg, C., Shepherd, C., 2007. The biggest computer programme in the world ever!_: time for a change in mindset? Journal of Information Technology 22, 212e221. Clegg, C.W., Gray, M.O., Waterson, P.E., 2000. The ‘Charge of the Byte Brigade’ and a socio-technical response. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 52, 235e251. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 1992. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60e95. Doherty, N.F., King, M., 2001. An investigation of the factors affecting the successful treatment of organizational issues in systems development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 147e160. Doherty, N.F., King, M., Al-Mushayt, O., 2003. The impact of inadequacies in the treatment of organizational issues on information systems development projects. Information and Management 41 (1), 49e62. Doherty, N.F., Coombs, C.R., Loan Clarke, J., 2006. A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (6), 569e582. Doherty, N.F., Ashurst, C., Peppard, J., 2012. Factors affecting the successful realisation of benefits from systems development projects: findings from three case studies. Journal of Information Technology 27 (1), 1e16.
Eason, K.D., 1982. The process of introducing information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 1 (2), 197e213. Eason, K.D., 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change. Taylor & Francis, London. Eason, K.D., 1991. Ergonomic perspectives on advances in human-computer interaction. Ergonomics 34 (6). Eason, K.D., 2001. The process of introducing information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 20 (5), 323e328. Farbey, B., Land, F.F., Targett, D., 1992. Evaluating investments in IT. Journal of Information Technology 7, 109e122. Fortune, J., Peters, G., 2005. Information Systems e Achieving Success by Avoiding Failure. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York. Grint, K., Woolgar, S., 1997. The Machine at Work. Polity Press, Cambridge. Herbst, P.G., 1974. Designing with minimal critical specifications. In: Herbst, P.G. (Ed.), Socio-technical Design: Strategies in Multidisciplinary Research. Tavistock Publications, London. Hughes, A., Scott Morton, M.S., 2006. The transforming power of complementary assets. MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer), 50e58. Hutchby, I., 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35 (2), 441e456. Irani, Z., Sharif, A.M., Love, P.E.D., 2007. Knowledge mapping for information systems evaluation in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 45, 2435e2457. Jeffry, M., Leliveld, I., 2004. Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Management Review (Spring), 41e49. Leonardi, P.M., 2007. Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science 18 (5), 813e831. Leonardi, P.M., Barley, S.R., 2008. Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organisation 18 (3), 159e176. Leonardi, P.M., 2011. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 147e167. Levinson, M., 18/June/2009. Recession causes rising IT project failure rates. CIO Magazine. Lin, C., Pervan, G., 2003. The practice of IS/IT benefits management in large Australian organizations. Information & Management 41 (1), 31e44. Markus, M.L., 2004. Techno-change management: using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology 19 (1), 4e20. Martinsons, M.G., Chong, P.K., 1999. The influence of human factors and specialist involvement on information systems success. Human Relations 52 (1), 123e152. Mitra, S., Sambamurthy, V., Westerman, G., 2011. Measuring IT performance and communicating value. MIS Quarterly Executive 10 (1), 47e59. Mumford, E., 1994. New treatment or old remedies: is BPR really socio-technical design? Journal of Strategic Information Systems 3 (4), 313e326. Mumford, E., 1995. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis. Wiley, London, UK. Mumford, E., 1997. The reality of participative systems design; contributing to stability in a rocking boat. Information Systems Journal 7 (No. 4), 309e321. Mumford, E., 2000. A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering 5 (2), 125e133. Nelson, R.R., 2007. IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive 6 (2), 67e78. Orlikowski, W.J., 1993. CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17, 309e 340. Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., Fujimoto, M., 1995. Shaping electronic communication e the meta-structuring of technology, in the context of use. Organization Science 6 (4), 423e444. Orlikowski, W.J., 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7 (1), 63e92. Orlikowski, W., 2007. Socio-material practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28.9, 1435e1448. Orlikowski, W.J., 2010. The socio-materiality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1), 125e141. Petter, S., DeLone, W., McLean, E., 2008. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 236e263. Peppard, J., Ward, J., 2005. Unlocking sustained business value from IT investments. California Management Review (Fall), 52e69. Peppard, J., Ward, J., Daniel, E., 2007. Managing the realization of business benefits from IT investments. MIS Quarterly Executive 6 (1), 1e11. Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M., 1998. Business benefits from information systems through an active benefits realization programme. International Journal of Project Management 16 (2), 81e98. Rose, J., Jones, M., 2005. The double dance of agency: a socio-theoretic account of how machines and humans interact. Systems, Signs and Actions 1 (1), 19e37. Sauer, C., Cutherbertson, 2003. The State of IT Project Management in the UK 2002e 2003. Templeton College, Oxford. Shpilberg, D., Berez, S., Puryear, R., Shah, S., 2007. Avoiding the alignment trap in information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review 49 (1). Trist, E.L., Higgin, G.W., Murray, H., Pollock, A.B., 1963. Organizational Choice: Capabilities of Groups at the Coal Face Under Changing Technologies: The Loss, Rediscovery & Transformation of a Work Tradition. Tavistock Publications, London.
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7 Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P., 1996. Evaluation and the realization of IS/IT Benefits. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 214e225. Ward, J., Elvin, R., 1999. A new framework for managing IT-enabled business change. Information Systems Journal 9 (3), 197e222. Ward, J., Daniel, E., 2006. Benefits Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
7
Ward, J., Daniel, E., Peppard, J., 2008. Building a better business case for IT Investments. MIS Quarterly Executive 7 (1), 1e14. Wenger, W., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M., 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Willcocks, L., Margetts, H., 1994. Risk assessment and information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3 (2), 127e138.
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo
The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments Neil F. Doherty School of Business & Economics, Loughborough University, LE11 2BU, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 8 June 2012 Accepted 30 November 2012
In recent years there has been a great deal of academic and practitioner interest in the role of ‘benefits realisation management’ [BRM] approaches, as a means of proactively leveraging value from IT investments. This growing body of work owes a very considerable, but as yet unacknowledged, debt to the work of Ken Eason, and other early socio-technical theorists. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate, using the literature, how many of the principles, practices and techniques of BRM have evolved either directly or indirectly from socio-technical approaches to systems design. In so doing, this article makes a further important contribution to the literature by explicitly identifying the underlying principles and key practices of benefits realisation management. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ken Eason Information systems Socio-technical design Change management Benefits realisation management
1. Introduction Over the past fifty years the organisational world has grown ever more dependent upon a wide variety of information technologies, to deliver significant efficiency and effectiveness gains to their business processes and management practices. Unfortunately, despite this growing dependency upon information technology, a considerable amount of time, money, effort and opportunity is still wasted upon IT investments that ultimately fail to deliver meaningful benefits (Fortune and Peters, 2005; Peppard and Ward, 2005). Estimates of the level of failure may vary, but over the past forty years they have tended to remain uncomfortably high. For example, it was suggested that in the late 1970s only 20% of projects ‘achieved something like their intended benefits’ (Eason, 1988), and by the end of the 1990s the situation was certainly no better, with Clegg et al. (1997) reporting that ‘up to 90% of all IT projects fail to meet their goals’. More recently, Shpilberg et al. (2007) reported that 74% of IT projects failed to deliver expected value, and a British Computer Society (BCS, 2004) study concluded that ‘only around 16 per cent of IT projects can be considered truly successful’. Consequently, understanding the determinants of systems failure, and finding more reliable ways of managing IT investments projects, to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes, remains an important and consistent theme in the literature (Eason, 1982; Willcocks and Margetts, 1994; Doherty and King, 2001; Nelson, 2007).
E-mail address: [email protected].
So what is the major cause of systems failure? Systems may underperform, or even be rejected, because new technologies are harnessed to existing business process designs, and traditional patterns of employee behaviour (Ward et al., 2008). As Eason (1988) observed, all too often systems fail, because system developers aren’t aware that it is through organisational change, rather than through a technology’s functionality, that benefits are most commonly leveraged. Systems also fail because they often trigger unintended human and organisational impacts that users may ultimately perceive to be unacceptable (Martinsons and Chong, 1999). Either way, it is now widely acknowledged that unless systems designers find effective ways of managing the human and organizational implications of their software products, the incidence information systems failure is unlikely to abate (Doherty et al., 2003; Clegg et al., 1997). One suggested remedy to this problem is through the adoption of socio-technical design processes (e.g. Eason, 1982; Mumford, 1995), as these explicitly address the need to redesign organisational processes and behaviours, and the need to identify and mitigate the risks of negative organisational consequences. Although the contribution of sociotechnical theory is now widely acknowledged (Clegg et al., 2000), and many different socio-technical methods and approaches have been proposed (Mumford, 1995), there is little evidence these have succeeded in making the transition from research laboratory to widespread commercial usage. As Clegg (2000) notes, ‘socio-technical principles and practices have not had the impact that their proponents might wish’. This view is supported by Mumford (1997; 314) who notes that: ‘management tended to regard these successful (socio-technical) projects as one-offs’ and, consequently: ‘there was
0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
2
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
no great enthusiasm or motivation to spread the approach through their companies’. In summary, the information systems’ literature is very clear on three points: general levels of system failure are unacceptably high; the primary cause of this problem is the failure to adequately predict and manage the human and organizational impacts of IT investments; and progress in the adoption socio-technical approaches has been rather too slow. Consequently, there is a pressing need for research into new ways of achieving a more effective relationship between information technologies and the social contexts in which they are intended to operate. One potentially important mechanism for ensuring that an IT project is focused upon improvements in organisational performance, and therefore better tailored to its organisational context, is through the establishment of a formal and explicit benefits realization programme. Benefits realisation management [BRM] has been defined as ’the process of organising and managing, such that the potential benefits arising from the use of IT are actually realised’ (Ward and Elvin, 1999). Although BRM is still in its relative infancy, it offers real hope of a practical solution to the socio-technical conundrum facing systems designers. A number of studies have already demonstrated the role of formal and explicit ‘benefits realization’ approaches, for improving the outcomes of information systems development projects, through the proactive management of organizational change (e.g. Remenyi and Sherwood-Smith, 1998; Ward and Elvin, 1999; Peppard et al., 2007; Ashurst et al., 2008). The aim of this paper is to critically explore the extent to which the principles and practices of BRM have evolved either directly or indirectly from the established socio-technical approaches to systems design. The paper progresses by critically reviewing the work of Ken Eason, and other early socio-technical theorists, to see whether it still has implications for the problems affecting more recent generations of business IT. The core principles of the benefits realisation management approach, are then introduced, and it is argued that its explicit focus on benefits gives it perhaps the best chance of resolving the critical socio-technical dimension of IS projects. The paper finishes by showing how many of the cornerstones of the benefits realisation management approach can be linked back directly to the work of the early socio-technical theorists, and in particular Ken Eason. 2. The diagnosis of the socio-technical theorists Despite its recognised tendency to act as a catalyst for change, information technology cannot be viewed as a deterministic artefact, as it does not generally behave in a well ordered and predictable manner (Grint and Woolgar, 1997). As Eason (2001; p. 324) notes ‘many outcomes (of IT projects) are unplanned and unintentional’. Organizational actors have the potential to interpret, appropriate and ultimately shape, through use, their information systems in a wide variety of ways (Orlikowski, 1993). This view of the world recognises that information systems have a high degree of inherent ‘interpretive flexibility’ (Doherty et al., 2006), which means that, when applied in an organisational context, they become social, rather than technologically determined, constructs (Bijker, 1995). The implication of this ‘social constructivist’ perspective (Leonardi and Barley, 2008) is that very similar organisations can experience radically ‘different outcomes with the same technology’ [p. 69]. As any system may be interpreted and appropriated in multifarious ways, during the development period, as well as throughout its operational life (Orlikoski et al., 1995; Barley, 1986), a very significant problem facing the systems developer and the systems sponsor is that the impacts and outcomes of introducing a new information system, cannot generally be predicted at the project’s outset.
The implication of this diagnosis is that systems developers must move away from their traditional, deterministic views of the IT artefact (Clegg et al., 2000), and embrace a socio-technical perspective that encourages systems developers to jointly design the social and technical elements of a system (Mumford, 1995). Whereas the socio-technical theorists recognized that information technology is both shaping of, and shaped, by its working environment, many scholars (Orlikowski, 2010; Leonardi, 2011) are now promoting the newer, ‘socio-material’ perspective, which takes this state of mutual interdependency a stage further. For example, Orlikowski (2007) argues that the material aspects of organizational life, of which technology is a prime example, are ‘constitutively entangled’ with the social aspects e ‘there is no social that is not also material and no material that is not also social’ [p. 1437]. Against this backdrop, the need for approaches to systems development, implementation and operations that pay equal attention to the social and technological [material] dimensions of information systems has never been greater. In his highly influential book e Information Technology and Organisational Change e Ken Eason (1988) recognized that it was not possible to design a system to support a particular organisational activity, which could be guaranteed to deliver the outcomes specified by the designer. He proposed a set of ten distinct propositions, based upon socio-technical principles, by which organisations could develop information systems that could be gradually tailored to serve both the needs of the host organisation and its individual employees. Whilst it is beyond the scope of this short paper to present a detailed critique of all ten propositions, the aim of the remainder of this section is to review the seven key propositions, which have the most obvious resonance with the types of the problems identified in the previous section. This is not to say that from a socio-technical perspective, the remaining three propositions are in anyway less valid, it is simply that the following seven propositions are the ones upon which the evolution of benefits realisation management approaches is most heavily dependent, as later demonstrated in Table 1: Proposition 1. ‘The successful exploitation of IT depends upon the ability and willingness of the employees of an organisation to use the appropriate technology to engage in worthwhile tasks’ [p. 44]. All new technologies have material properties, ‘which afford different possibilities for action, based upon the contexts in which they are used’ (Leonardi, 2011; p. 153). Such ‘affordances’ (Hutchby, 2001) are clearly based upon the unique set of features and functions, that a particular technology offers, but it is through the situated interaction of a user and a technology, that new goals can be achieved. In presenting this proposition, Eason (1988) was explicitly recognizing that meaningful benefits are typically leveraged through the interaction between the actions and capabilities of users and the inherent functionality and affordances offered by a particular software artefact. System designers must, therefore, resist the temptation to impose a particular configuration of information technology on a group of workers, just because they have confidence that it will deliver a pre-determined set of benefits. Rather, it must be recognised that new technologies will only deliver meaningful benefits if they are readily accepted and can be easily operated by members of the user community. To this end, the need to improve all forms of human-computer interaction, to ensure effective user adoption, has been a recurring theme of his work (Eason, 1991). Proposition 2. ‘The design target must be to create a socio-technical system capable of serving organisational goals, not to deliver a technical system capable of delivering a technical service’ [p. 45]. The acid test for any the systems development process must be: has it delivered a new technological solution that improves the
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
3
Table 1 Mapping the relationship between benefits realisation and socio-technical theory. Principles of principles of BRM
Socio-technical propositions (Eason, 1988)
Comments
Propositions 2 & 5 e focus on major benefits. Eason (1988) makes a very strong case that the delivery of benefits rather than the implementation of technology is the underlying aim of any IT project, which ties in very strongly with the first principle of benefits realisation management. 2 Active benefits management Proposition 3 e socio-technical design Eason (1988) doesn’t explicitly recognise the need for an active and on-going programme of benefits management. However, in advocating that social and technical issues should be jointly addressed, throughout the project, there is an implicit recognition that benefits should always be kept at the top of the agenda. 3 It’s a journey not a destination Proposition 9 e evolutionary growth Eason’s (1988) proposition certainly recognises the need for a range of postimplementation activities, during what he calls the ‘critical phase’ [p. 157]. However, the benefits’ realisation literature takes a rather longer term perspective, which encourage stakeholders to regularly and proactively question how the contributions of their systems can be improved (Ashurst et al., 2008). 4 Shared responsibility Propositions 1, 4 & 7 e user focus and Although the socio-technical theorists focus more on the meeting the needs of the stakeholder participation. : end-user, and the advocates of benefits management privilege the role of business managers, there is still a high degree of alignment between these two perspectives 5 Transform the organisation Proposition 3 e organisational change There is a very high degree of agreement between the socio-technical and the benefits realisation literature about the need for proactive organisational change. 6 Realisation through regular N.A. The need for very regular reviews to determine the extent to which a new review technology will deliver organisational benefits is not explicitly highlighted by Eason (1988). However, he does recognise the need for periodic user evaluations, to ensure that the resultant systems will be: ‘easy to use, easy to learn and well matched to users’ tasks’ [pp. 189e193]. 7 Develop workable practices N.A. Although the socio-technical literature has suggested a number of tools and methods (Mumford, 1995), it has placed far less emphasis on the need for organisations to develop their own, locally-derived benefits realisation practices. 8 Manage the portfolio N.A. This important aspect of benefits realisation management hasn’t been explicitly recognised by the socio-technical theorists. 9 Retain responsibility N.A. The socio-technical literature hasn’t explicitly recognised the importance of internal stakeholders retaining responsibility for the realisation of benefits within their own projects, in the context of out-sourced projects. 10 Change the culture N.A. The socio-technical literature is clear that implemented systems should reflect the culture of the host organisation, but is far less explicit about the need to change the culture of the development teams. 1 Focus on the benefits
performance of the host organisation, in some meaningful way? As Eason (1982; p. 197) noted in an earlier work, “effective implementation demands the ability to establish organizational needs and to choose a form of technology which will meet them”. It is then necessary to consider the social and technical aspects of the design exercise in tandem, so that the technological and social systems are mutually sustaining: information technology should be both shaping of, and shaped, by its working, social environment (Rose and Jones, 2005). As Mumford (1994; p. 313) notes, to deliver an effective system, ‘equal weight should be given to social and technical factors’. Proposition 3. ‘The effective exploitation of socio-technical systems depends upon the adoption of a planned process of (organisational) change’ [p. 46]. It is not sufficient to simply design a social system capable of exploiting the functionality of the technical system, a programme of planned organisational change needs to be undertaken to ensure that the specified social system comes into being. As Eason (2001) notes, too often the requirement for proactive organisational change is ignored, and ‘organizational issues are tackled in an ad hoc way whenever they emerge, which is often after the system has been implemented’. However, given the highly dynamic nature of the modern business environment, it essential that such programmes of change are flexible, and can be tailored to changing organisational requirements (Mumford, 2000). Proposition 4. The design of effective socio-technical systems will depend upon the participation of all relevant stakeholders’ [p. 46]. Users should be encouraged to actively participate in the design of a new information technology, so that they ultimately receive a software product which is fit for purpose, in terms of both
satisfying their utility and their usability needs. Whilst user participation is a core tenet of socio-technical theory (Cherns, 1976), it has been recognised that in the context of software development, the attainment of effective user engagement can be problematic (Axtell et al., 1997). Consequently, systems developers must be prepared to adopt forms of user participation that are particularly well suited to a particular socio-technical context. Proposition 5. ‘Major benefits will only result if the socio-technical developments are directed at major organisational purposes where there are opportunities to be taken or problems to be resolved’ [p. 47]. In putting forward this proposition, Eason (1988) is recognising that the business case for any new information technology should only be sanctioned if there is a really convincing case that meaningful benefits are likely to be leveraged from the investment. If a new piece of software, no matter how exciting, does not have the clear potential to exploit an opportunity or resolve a problem, then it should not be developed. However, even where clear and important benefits have been identified, and an appropriate technology selected, there are still important organisational choices to be made about the socio-technical design of the system that will determine whether these benefits are ultimately realised (Eason, 2001). Proposition 7. ‘IT systems must be designed to serve the functional needs of the organisation by serving the functional needs of individual users in a usable and acceptable way’ [p. 47]. A common problem in software development projects is that all too often there is a mismatch between the needs of the host organisation, in terms of the planned benefits, and requirements of users, in terms of a useable system that supports their job. Software designers must, therefore, strive to ensure that they develop
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
4
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
systems that serve the needs of individual users, whilst at the same time, also delivering meaningful organisational benefits. However, to effectively serve the needs of the user community, systems designers must attempt to jettison the entrenched idea that the user is the weak link in any system, and accept that the creativity, flexibility and sheer resourcefulness of the human agent should be liberated by the system (Clegg et al., 2000). Proposition 9. ‘The exploitation of the capabilities of information technology can only be achieved by a progressive, planned form of evolutionary growth’ [p. 48]. This underlying message in this proposition is that the benefits from IT do not automatically materialise at the point of implementation, or even soon thereafter. The realisation of real value from a technological investment requires time: time for users to experiment with the system and understand its full potential. This process is what Eason (1988; p. 181) aptly terms ‘learning by doing’. Two important conclusions can be drawn from this review. Firstly, the sound advice that Eason (1988) embedded in his key propositions, appears to be just as relevant today, as it was almost 25 years ago, when he first articulated the critical link between IT and organisational change. Unfortunately far too many information systems still fail to deliver value (Levinson, 2009), and the primary reason is that development teams still prioritise the delivery of a software artefact, on time and to budget, over undertaking the organisational changes necessary to deliver meaningful benefits (Ward et al., 2008). Secondly, this review of the propositions suggests that there is at least a prima facie case that they may have been influential in the evolution of the benefits realisation management discipline area. 3. The key principles and practices of benefits realisation management There has been a great deal of prior academic interest in, and indeed argument about, how the benefits arising from IT can best be measured (e.g. Delone and Mclean, 1992; Petter et al., 2008; Farbey et al., 1992; Irani et al., 2007; Mitra et al., 2011). Despite this uncertainty, it’s also been argued that benefits should act as the focal point for all design and on-going development activity, throughout a system’s operational life (Ward and Elvin, 1999). A strong focus on benefits may be apparent when business cases are being constructed, but any on-going benefits focus tends to rapidly fade away, once approval has been granted (Ashurst et al., 2008). What is more, even if organisations did want to use their business cases as the point of departure for a more proactive attempt to manage the delivery of benefits, they would still face two majors problem. Firstly, in order to get their projects approved, the writers of business cases typically overestimate the benefits and understate costs (Ward et al., 2008). Secondly, as it is widely argued that the outcomes from systems development projects are typically emergent, over the life of the system, rather than planned (Orlikiowski, 1996), it is unlikely that the initial business case will provide a reliable road map for the downstream management of benefits. Against this backdrop, it has become clear that there is a great deal more to benefits realisation than simply encouraging IT professionals to stick to their business cases. Although interest in benefits realisation management is growing, as a distinct area of academic enquiry, and more importantly in terms of its organisational uptake (Doherty et al, 2012), it is still in its relative infancy. As a result, there are limited examples of established methods and widely used tools that can be used to help define its practice. However, from the growing body of literature, it has been possible to distil the following principles, which help to delineate its distinctive characteristics:
1. Focus on the benefits: The key message for the senior stakeholders, in any IT project, must be that the ultimate realization of meaningful benefits is dependent upon far more than the successful delivery of a piece of software (Ward and Daniel, 2006). Consequently, all project activities and outcomes must be defined in terms of specific benefits to be realized, rather than simply the functionality of the technology that is to be delivered (Ward et al., 1996; Ashurst et al., 2008). 2. Active management: It is not enough to simply define all project activities in terms of the benefits to be delivered; their realisation has to be actively planned and managed. Having identified the benefits to be delivered, from a particular software project, managers will need to initiate an on-going benefits realization programme, to ensure that all projected benefits are proactively managed, throughout the life of the project (Ward and Elvin, 1999). 3. It’s a journey not a destination: In traditional systems development projects, the implementation of the software artefact tends to be the point at which most of the project activity, as well as any senior management interest, tends to wane (Ward et al., 1996). Unfortunately, from a benefits realisation perspective, this situation is seriously deficient, as benefits need to be actively managed over the system’s operational life (Leonardi, 2007). This longer-term exploitation strategy is often advantageous, as it encourages stakeholders to innovate and improvise with their local working environments (Orlikowski, 1996), and to tailor their systems and processes, to better reflect changing organisational circumstances and requirements. 4. Shared responsibility: Because of its strong focus on corporate strategies and organizational change, benefits realization is not an undertaking that can be solely accomplished by IT professionals. The primary responsibility for benefits realization should probably reside with managers from the host department, team or business unit that will ultimately own the system (Peppard et al., 2007). Moreover, the active participation of users is also required to make use of their intimate knowledge of the underlying business processes, and to ensure that the resultant system meets their needs and complements their capabilities (Remenyi & Sherwood-Smith, 1998). 5. Transform the organisation: As benefits rarely spring automatically from the introduction of a new technology, benefits realisation initiatives must explicitly seek to transform organisational structures and behaviours, to ensure that the design of the host organisation complements the functionality of a newly implemented information system (Hughes and Scott Morton, 2006; Peppard et al., 2007). Such technologically-mediated organisational change programmes must be explicitly tailored to reflect the specific characteristics of the technology and the needs of the host organisation. As Clegg & Shepherd (2007) note, it is important to change the mind-set of stakeholders, to reflect that they are primarily engaged in business transformation projects, rather than IT development projects. For example, benefits may only be leveraged from a new data warehouse if the host organisation actively seeks to modify its culture so that its staff feel free to act in a more flexible, customer-focussed and empowered manner (Markus, 2004). 6. Realisation through regular review: Typically stakeholders have focussed on benefits at only two points in their software projects: at the very outset, when preparing the business case, and soon after the system has gone ‘live’, when conducting the post-implementation review. Benefits realisation theorists now challenge this orthodoxy and argue that potential and actual benefits should be regularly reviewed throughout the full system life-cycle, from inception through to de-
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
7.
8.
9.
10.
commissioning (Remenyi, & Sherwood-Smith, 1998; Lin and Pervan, 2003). Develop workable practices: Practices have been defined as: ‘a set of socially defined ways of doing things, in a specific domain, to achieve a defined e and generally measurable e outcome, and create the basis for responding appropriately to individual circumstances’ (Wenger et al., 2002). As there are no formal methods for benefits realisation, and very few well tried and tested tools, to facilitate the process, a practice-based approach has many attractions. Indeed, it has been argued that organisations should derive their own sets of context sensitive practices, which can be applied to the task of benefits realisation in a highly flexible and pragmatic manner (Ashurst et al., 2008). The practice approach is particular appropriate for benefits realisation as it provides a more flexible solution, than formal tools and methods, so it can be tailored to a specific context (Doherty et al., 2012). Manage the portfolio: In the era of networked technologies and tightly coupled systems, it must be recognised that benefits often stem from the complex interactions between a number of related technologies, spanning multiple business processes, rather than stemming from a single piece of software. To reflect the increasingly complex nature of the modern IT infrastructure, a portfolio approach must be taken to ensure that benefits are managed in a comprehensive and holistic fashion (Jeffery and Leliveld, 2004; Doherty et al., 2012). A further benefit of the portfolio approach is that its facilitates organisational learning, by allowing practices that have been successfully adopted on one project to be applied in others. Retain responsibility: The proportion of IT projects being outsourced to consultancies is already high, and rising (Sauer and Cuthbertson, 2003). In such situations, the issue of benefits realisation may well be overlooked, as the consultancy might not see this as being part of their remit. The customer organisation must, therefore, be prepared to actively take responsibility for all benefits realization activities, in all situations in which the IT development has been out-sourced (Ashurst et al., 2008). Change the culture: For most organisations, the adoption of a benefits mind-set, and a proactive benefits realisation management approach, requires a step change in their attitudes towards technology, as well as their systems development practices. More specifically, successful benefits realisation requires a significant change in organisational culture so that all project stakeholders feel empowered to act in a more flexible and innovative manner (Lin and Pervan, 2003; Doherty et al., 2012).
4. Discussion: the debt benefits realisation management owes the socio-technical theorists In her critical review of the extent to which BPR has borrowed ideas, either implicitly or explicitly, from socio-technical design, Enid Mumford (1994) argues that there are many important areas of commonality, between these two approaches. In this paper, we have sought to conduct a similar critique, but this time focussing upon the debt that the newer discipline of benefits realisation management owes to the principles of socio-technical design. Having outlined the key socio-technical propositions, which relate to the delivery of value-adding technologies, as well as articulating the core principles of benefits realisation management, it is now possible to critically reflect upon the relationships between these two sets of constructs. Table 1 attempts to map the relationship between benefits realisation and socio-technical design, and in so
5
doing, clearly highlights the significant number of areas in which there are striking similarities between these two disciplines. Table 1 clearly shows that many of the core tenets of benefits realisation management appear to have their roots planted firmly in the work of earlier socio-technical theorists, and in particular Ken Eason’s (1988) propositions. However, having demonstrated that there are many areas of commonality, between these two approaches, it is now important to reflect upon areas of difference, to understand what gives these two related approaches their distinctive character. The cornerstone of socio-technical theory is that organisational systems will perform better, if the social and technical sub-systems have been simultaneously designed and jointly optimised so that they work in harmony, in a particular organisational context (Trist et al., 1963). But on what basis are we determining whether systems perform better, and against what criterion are we attempting to optimise systems performance? It can be argued that sociotechnical design has a far stronger and more explicit emphasis upon prioritising the rights and needs of the employee, and therefore finding solutions that improve the quality of working life of users is the key yardstick against which system’s success should be judged (Mumford, 2000). The rights of the user are given even more precedence by some authors, who believed that the days of over-specified work designs are over (Herbst, 1974) and that workers should be given a high degree of discretion to design their own working practices (Cherns, 1976). However, giving the users of new technologies a high degree of latitude to develop their own working practices doesn’t necessarily lend itself to the attainment of organisational benefits. By contrast, the benefits realisation literature, adopts a far more managerialist stance, as it emphatically privileges the attainment of benefits, which are meaningful from an organisational perspective. Indeed, this approach is firmly grounded in the idea that the intended benefits of a new system should be explicitly defined, at the project’s outset, and that all downstream decisions with regard to the design of the organisational and technical systems, are then considered in light of these stated benefits (Ward and Elvin, 1999). This far more explicit focus on the delivery of organisational value is particularly reflected in the practices associated with the on-going review and exploitation of information technologies, throughout their working lives, to ensure that all potential benefits are ultimately realised. With his seventh proposition, Eason (1988) attempts to avoid the question of whether the needs of the user or the organisation should be privileged when designing systems, by arguing that if at all possible the needs of these two important constituencies should be aligned. However, in practice this may not always be possible, as separate stakeholder groups often have very distinct interests which may make conflict between them almost inevitable (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2010). Consequently, looking ahead, it is important that proponents of both the benefits realisation and the socio-technical approaches pay far more attention to the importance of power and politics, when considering organisational change, in the context of IT initiatives (Buchanan and Badham, 2008). Another important way in which benefits realisation appears to differ from traditional socio-technical approaches is that it more explicitly recognises the highly dynamic and situated nature of information technology, in the modern organisational context. In her account of socio-material practice, Orlikowski (2007; 1435) argues that organisations are ‘increasingly constituted by multiple, emergent, shifting and interdependent technologies’. Consequently, it is important to recognise that the organisational roles and impacts of a particular information technology will vary greatly by time and place. With its greater emphasis on locally-derived practices, regular reviews and portfolio management, it may be that the
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
6
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7
benefits realisation management approach is particularly well placed to help organisational actors make sense of information technology in the contemporary workplace. 5. Concluding remarks In the UK alone, the cost of failed IS/IT projects is many billions of pounds annually (British Computer Society, 2004). Consequently, there is still a pressing need for studies that explicitly seek to critique the approaches through which this unacceptable level of waste might best be tackled. Ken Eason (1988; p. 44) made an extremely important contribution to this debate, when he explicitly articulated the relationship between IT and organisational change: “We are unlikely to achieve real benefits from IT unless we find ways of designing for the human and organisational changes that are needed as well as designing the technical changes.” Although this paper has demonstrated the importance of Ken Eason’s socio-technical work in the evolution of the newer domain of benefits realisation management, it is still not totally clear what the future holds for these two disciplines. The benefits realisation management approach may have a greater chance of taking hold in the organisational world given its more explicit and unambiguous focus on the delivery of business value. However, going forward it is important to recognise the debt that is owed to the work of Ken Eason, and to take on board the many important lessons that can be learned from the socio-technical theorists, particularly with regard to the critical roles to be played by members of the user community. References Ashurst, C., Doherty, N.F., Peppard, J., 2008. Improving the impact of IT development projects: the benefits realization capability model. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 352e370. Axtell, C., Waterson, P., Clegg, C., 1997. Problems integrating user participation into software developments. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 47, 323e345. Barley, S., 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 61e103. BCS (British Computer Society), 2004. The Challenge of Complex IT Projects. BCS, London. Bijker, W.E., 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites & Bulbs. MIT Press, Cambridge. Buchanan, D.A., Badham, R., 2008. Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game. Sage, London. Buchanan, D.A., Huczynski, A.A., 2010. Organizational Behaviour, seventh ed. FT Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Cherns, A.B., 1976. The principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations 29, 783e792. Clegg, C.W., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., Tomlinson, C., 1997. Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors. Ergonomics 40 (9), 851e871. Clegg, C.W., 2000. Socio-technical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 463e477. Clegg, C., Shepherd, C., 2007. The biggest computer programme in the world ever!_: time for a change in mindset? Journal of Information Technology 22, 212e221. Clegg, C.W., Gray, M.O., Waterson, P.E., 2000. The ‘Charge of the Byte Brigade’ and a socio-technical response. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 52, 235e251. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 1992. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60e95. Doherty, N.F., King, M., 2001. An investigation of the factors affecting the successful treatment of organizational issues in systems development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 147e160. Doherty, N.F., King, M., Al-Mushayt, O., 2003. The impact of inadequacies in the treatment of organizational issues on information systems development projects. Information and Management 41 (1), 49e62. Doherty, N.F., Coombs, C.R., Loan Clarke, J., 2006. A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (6), 569e582. Doherty, N.F., Ashurst, C., Peppard, J., 2012. Factors affecting the successful realisation of benefits from systems development projects: findings from three case studies. Journal of Information Technology 27 (1), 1e16.
Eason, K.D., 1982. The process of introducing information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 1 (2), 197e213. Eason, K.D., 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change. Taylor & Francis, London. Eason, K.D., 1991. Ergonomic perspectives on advances in human-computer interaction. Ergonomics 34 (6). Eason, K.D., 2001. The process of introducing information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 20 (5), 323e328. Farbey, B., Land, F.F., Targett, D., 1992. Evaluating investments in IT. Journal of Information Technology 7, 109e122. Fortune, J., Peters, G., 2005. Information Systems e Achieving Success by Avoiding Failure. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York. Grint, K., Woolgar, S., 1997. The Machine at Work. Polity Press, Cambridge. Herbst, P.G., 1974. Designing with minimal critical specifications. In: Herbst, P.G. (Ed.), Socio-technical Design: Strategies in Multidisciplinary Research. Tavistock Publications, London. Hughes, A., Scott Morton, M.S., 2006. The transforming power of complementary assets. MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer), 50e58. Hutchby, I., 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35 (2), 441e456. Irani, Z., Sharif, A.M., Love, P.E.D., 2007. Knowledge mapping for information systems evaluation in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 45, 2435e2457. Jeffry, M., Leliveld, I., 2004. Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Management Review (Spring), 41e49. Leonardi, P.M., 2007. Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science 18 (5), 813e831. Leonardi, P.M., Barley, S.R., 2008. Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organisation 18 (3), 159e176. Leonardi, P.M., 2011. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 147e167. Levinson, M., 18/June/2009. Recession causes rising IT project failure rates. CIO Magazine. Lin, C., Pervan, G., 2003. The practice of IS/IT benefits management in large Australian organizations. Information & Management 41 (1), 31e44. Markus, M.L., 2004. Techno-change management: using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology 19 (1), 4e20. Martinsons, M.G., Chong, P.K., 1999. The influence of human factors and specialist involvement on information systems success. Human Relations 52 (1), 123e152. Mitra, S., Sambamurthy, V., Westerman, G., 2011. Measuring IT performance and communicating value. MIS Quarterly Executive 10 (1), 47e59. Mumford, E., 1994. New treatment or old remedies: is BPR really socio-technical design? Journal of Strategic Information Systems 3 (4), 313e326. Mumford, E., 1995. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis. Wiley, London, UK. Mumford, E., 1997. The reality of participative systems design; contributing to stability in a rocking boat. Information Systems Journal 7 (No. 4), 309e321. Mumford, E., 2000. A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering 5 (2), 125e133. Nelson, R.R., 2007. IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive 6 (2), 67e78. Orlikowski, W.J., 1993. CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17, 309e 340. Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., Fujimoto, M., 1995. Shaping electronic communication e the meta-structuring of technology, in the context of use. Organization Science 6 (4), 423e444. Orlikowski, W.J., 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7 (1), 63e92. Orlikowski, W., 2007. Socio-material practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28.9, 1435e1448. Orlikowski, W.J., 2010. The socio-materiality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1), 125e141. Petter, S., DeLone, W., McLean, E., 2008. Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 236e263. Peppard, J., Ward, J., 2005. Unlocking sustained business value from IT investments. California Management Review (Fall), 52e69. Peppard, J., Ward, J., Daniel, E., 2007. Managing the realization of business benefits from IT investments. MIS Quarterly Executive 6 (1), 1e11. Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M., 1998. Business benefits from information systems through an active benefits realization programme. International Journal of Project Management 16 (2), 81e98. Rose, J., Jones, M., 2005. The double dance of agency: a socio-theoretic account of how machines and humans interact. Systems, Signs and Actions 1 (1), 19e37. Sauer, C., Cutherbertson, 2003. The State of IT Project Management in the UK 2002e 2003. Templeton College, Oxford. Shpilberg, D., Berez, S., Puryear, R., Shah, S., 2007. Avoiding the alignment trap in information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review 49 (1). Trist, E.L., Higgin, G.W., Murray, H., Pollock, A.B., 1963. Organizational Choice: Capabilities of Groups at the Coal Face Under Changing Technologies: The Loss, Rediscovery & Transformation of a Work Tradition. Tavistock Publications, London.
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012
N.F. Doherty / Applied Ergonomics xxx (2012) 1e7 Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P., 1996. Evaluation and the realization of IS/IT Benefits. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 214e225. Ward, J., Elvin, R., 1999. A new framework for managing IT-enabled business change. Information Systems Journal 9 (3), 197e222. Ward, J., Daniel, E., 2006. Benefits Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
7
Ward, J., Daniel, E., Peppard, J., 2008. Building a better business case for IT Investments. MIS Quarterly Executive 7 (1), 1e14. Wenger, W., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M., 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Willcocks, L., Margetts, H., 1994. Risk assessment and information systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3 (2), 127e138.
Please cite this article in press as: Doherty, N.F., The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments, Applied Ergonomics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.012