Chapter 2

Literature review
Organisational culture and information technology (IT)
implementation

2.1 Introduction
The information age has arrived in full force and technology along with all of its
advancements is here to stay. Even though businesses seem to be all about numbers and
making a fast buck, companies are again realizing the immeasurable significance of
their human workforce. The recent awareness of organizational culture theory is
evidence that ‘the time has come to write meaning and emotion back into organizations’
(Gabriel 1991, p. 319).

This chapter presents a literature review on different aspects of organisation culture and
IT implementation in an organisation. It also explores selected tools used by other
researchers to assess organisational culture and level of IT implementation success. A
brief review of some works studying the relationship between organisational culture and
other aspects of an organisation in general and IT implementation in particular is also
presented in this chapter.

2.2 Organisational culture

This sections looks at different aspects of organisational culture including its concepts,
definitions, its importance and components. A brief review of some tools used by other
researchers to assess organisational culture is also included.

Following their use in extant research, the two terms organisational culture and
corporate culture are used interchangeably in the present research.

2.2.1 Organisational culture

A. Concepts and definitions of organisational culture

The concept of ‘organisational culture’ has become popular since the early 1980s.
Along with the growing interest in the topic, there seems to be little agreement within

17
the literature as to what ‘organisational culture’ actually is and, therefore, there are
different definitions and perspectives on this topic. Some define organisational culture
as the observable behavioural rules in human interaction (Van Maanen 1979); some as
the dominant values in an organisation (Deal & Kennedy 1982); others as a consistent
perception within an organisation (Robbins 1998). One of the most common definitions
of organisational culture includes shared values, beliefs, or norms (Beyer & Trice 1987;
Tunstall 1983; Wilkins & Patterson 1985; Martin 1985; Barney 1986; Kerr 1991)
(Chen, CS 1994). As a summary, Yanagi (1994, p. ii) stated that organisational culture
can be defined as ‘philosophies and values shared by the members of organisations and
their behavioural patterns for translating them into practical actions’. Another often
referred-to definition of organisational culture was devised by Schein (1989, 1992).
According to Schein (1989), culture is a coherent system of assumptions and basic
values, which distinguish one group or organisation from another and orient its choices.
Hence, organisational culture implies ‘a pattern of basic assumptions – invented,
discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration – that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems’ (Schein 1989, p. 9).

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

stabilising behaviour’ (Graves 1986, p. 11). This view is supported by Kramer (1974)
and Foy (1974), who considered organisational culture as the glue that holds
organisations together – a means by which participants communicate and co-ordinate
their efforts – and incidentally a ring fence separating insiders from outsiders. In ‘An
allegorical view of organisational culture’ (Frost, et al. 1985), a group of organisational
researchers noted that ‘an organisation’s culture has to do with shared assumptions,
priorities, meanings and values – with patterns of beliefs among people in organisations.
Some people see such a culture as emerging to solve problems posed by situations that
people encounter in organisational settings; others see a culture as the ways in which
people cope with experience. Some talk of it as a ‘social glue’. Those who express
sensitivity to the idea of organisational culture say that what it does is sensitise people
to the softer, less tangible, more subtle aspects of organisational life. Talking about
organisational culture seems to mean talking about the importance for people of
symbolism – of rituals, myths, stories, and legends – and about the interpretation of
events, ideas and experiences that are influenced and shaped by the group within which
18
they live. This approach draws people’s attention to artefacts in organisations and the
meanings attached to them, and to an awareness of history, of the past in organisations
having a bearing on the present and the future in those organisations’. Although many
ideas about organisational culture seem to be shared by organisational researchers, there
are important differences and even disagreements. For example, some see the term
‘organisational culture’ as a metaphor – organisations are like cultures – and they try to
understand the attributes of culture that might be relevant to organisations in terms of a
symbolic process. Others see organisational culture as a thing, an objective entity
(‘organisations have cultures’) that can be examined in terms of variables (independent
and dependent) and linked to other things such as performance, satisfaction, and
organisational effectiveness. There is disagreement as to where the organisational
culture originates, whether the unconscious mind plays a role, whether there is a single
organisational culture or many cultures, whether an organisation’s culture or cultures
can be managed, whether organisations have cultures, or are places to study cultures,
whether and how organisational cultures can be studied and whether they should be
studied at all (Frost et al. 1985, pp. 17-18).

Numerous other definitions of organisational culture have been put forward which
resemble one another only in their vagueness. It seems that no single element is
detachable that might enable the organisational culture to be measured (Graves 1986).
‘The way we do things around here’ might be the most common sense and easy-to-
understand definition of organisational culture. However, it oversimplifies the concept
and misses powerful underlying concepts and processes. It is better to regard
organisational culture as referring to the shared assumptions, beliefs, values and norms,
actions as well as artefacts and language patterns in an organisation. It should be
regarded as an acquired body of knowledge about how to behave and shared meanings
and symbols, which facilitate everyone’s interpretation and understanding of how to act
within an organisation. ‘Culture is the unique whole, the heart and soul that determines
how a group of people will behave. Cultures are collective beliefs that in turn shape
behaviour’ (Organisations @ Onepine 2003). A key role for organisational culture is to
differentiate the organisation from others and provide a sense of identity for its
members. Organisational cultures do not necessarily have to always be logical or
consistent; in fact, they seldom are and can appear quite haphazard and chaotic to the
outsider. It can also have subgroups with different cultures and with varying agendas. A

19
strong culture is one that is internally consistent, is widely shared, and makes it clear
what it expects and how it wishes people to act and behave.

An important point made by some researchers while exploring the concepts and
definitions of organisational culture is the stress that culture is a dynamic, evolving
process, not at all static. Morgan (1986), for example, argued that culture must be
understood as an active, living phenomenon through which people create and recreate
their worlds. Schein (1989) also stated that organisational culture changes over time and
becomes more embedded into the ‘out-of-awareness’ functioning of an organisation.
Both Morgan and Schein’s views imply that key individuals have a crucial role to play
in shaping and refining the culture. Schein (1989, p. 2) claimed that ‘organisational
culture are created by leaders and one of the most decisive functions of leadership may
well be the creation, the management, and – if and when that may become necessary –
the destruction of culture’.

Although the main focus of this research is culture at the organisational level, it is also
important that due attention be given to the broader external societal, cultural context
within which organisations are embedded. Cultures are “layered” as stated by
researchers. Cultures permeate many levels of social life simultaneously. Some aspects
of culture are nearly universal, like the high value placed on family bonds and good
childcare. Other cultural themes are characteristic of whole regions of the world
(regional culture). A culture becomes characteristic of a specific nation (national
culture), or even of a particular social group (organisational/corporate culture), largely
because of its linkage to specific locales and experiences. Sometimes latent stereotypes
and the historical events that fostered them help to distinguish the cultural traditions of
different locals and groups (Beck & Moore 1985, pp. 335-336). Organisational culture,
therefore, has to be viewed in a broader perspective, with due consideration given to the
interrelation or the linkages between cultural themes at the regional, national,
organisational and individual levels.

Despite the various definitions and perspectives on organisational culture, one thing is
universal amongst most of them, and that is the shared nature of the beliefs,
philosophies, norms …etc. In essence, many claimed that the function of organisational
culture is to create a feeling of ‘esprit de corps’ within the organisation (Van Maanen &

20
Barley 1985, p. 39). If this is so, then we should attempt to examine why organisational
culture is regarded so important and valuable.

B. Increasing importance of organisational culture and research on organisational

culture
Organisational culture is the key to organisational excellence and the function of
leadership is the creation and management of culture (Schein 1992).

‘In general we find that outstandingly successful organisations usually have strong and
unique cultures… Unsuccessful organisations have weak indifferent sub-cultures or old
sub-cultures that become sclerosed and can actually prevent the organisation’s
adaptation to changed circumstances’ (Hofstede 1980, p. 394). This statement was
further supported by Graves’ (1986, pp.142-143) research findings which showed an
unanimous agreement by all the chief executives interviewed to the fact that: it is
essential, for business success, that the culture should be strong – that people within the
organisation should recognise and if possible adopt the values and attitudes espoused by
the leader and the senior managers (or the key influencing people within the
organisation). The researchers were able to find no case where the culture was weak but
the business successful.

Organisational researchers are becoming more aware of the importance of

understanding and enhancing the cultural life of an organisation. ‘One study of a group
of high-performance companies in North America indicated that paying attention to
organisational culture is an important ingredient in organisational success’ (Frost et al.
1985, p. 16). Looking at the ‘soft’ side of an organisation, researchers claim that
‘organisational culture might be very appropriate as a vehicle for exploring and
understanding life at work, and for making it more humane, more meaningful (Frost et
al. 1985, p. 21). Graves (1986) also affirmed the importance of corporate culture and
the need for research strategies and methods that investigate the various elements and
processes of organisation culture. He argued that culture is ‘the one thing that
distinguishes one firm from another, gives it coherence and self-confidence and
rationalises the lives of those who work for it. Culture satisfies the basic needs for
affiliation and security in attempting to describe as unified a grouping that may seem to
be random. It is life-enhancing to be different, and safe to be similar, and culture is the
concept that provides the means of accomplishing this compromise’ (p. 157).
21
Organisational learning, development and planned change cannot be understood without
considering organisational culture as the primary source of resistance to change (Schein
1992).

The ability to perceive and assess the limitations of one’s own culture and to develop
the culture adaptively is the essence and ultimate challenge of leadership (Schein 1992).

Interpreting and understanding organisational culture is an important activity for

managers, researchers and consultants because it affects strategic development,
productivity and learning at all levels. Cultural assumptions can both enable and
constrain what organisations are able to do. The organisational culture is based on a set
of attitudes and values, which have generally grown up over the years and may enhance
or interfere with the organisation’s effectiveness.

‘A consistent message coming from many people writing about organisational culture is
that mangers need to be aware of their group’s or organisation’s culture because it will
make a difference…Culture has become an important element in the managerial
equation. As applied to organisations, it extends rationality into interpersonal domains.
The rational manager needs to take culture into account’ (Smircich 1985, pp. 58-59).
Organisational culture has been shown to ‘affect workers’ commitment to and
identification with the group and organisation, as well as their sense of involvement
with their work assignments’ (Louis 1985, p. 85). With respect to the issue of change
and culture, there is solid documentation that overlooking organisational culture has
impeded efforts to change organisational functioning. Examination of past failures in
organisational development efforts points to the role of culture as a critical force to be
considered in effecting change (Beer 1980). In fact, many researchers generally see
culture as ‘a key to commitment, productivity, and profitability’ (Martin 1985, p. 95),
‘the means or the target for changes that have major commitment, control, productivity,
or even bottom-line consequences’ (Lundberg 1985, p. 169) (Wilkins 1983; Sproull
1979; Peters & Waterman 1982).

The effects of cultural misunderstanding can be painful for not only individuals but the
organisation as a whole. Embarrassments, unwitting insults, offences and failures to
accomplish individual and organisational goals are among common consequences.
22
Experience of many managers and researchers in the field of organisation theory,
strategy and organisation development all suggest that ‘an examination of cultural
issues at the organisational level is absolutely essential to a basic understanding of what
goes on in organisations, how to run them, and how to improve them’ (Schein 1989, p.
30).

The nature of the organisation culture significantly affects the way in which the
organisation operates and its effectiveness in achieving its goals; consequently, the
control of culture is a topic of great importance to those responsible for managing the
organisation. Some of the reasons why it is important to understand an organisation’s
culture are:
• It will determine the responses that an organisation will make to new problems
and challenges. It may facilitate change or be a stumbling block.
• It will determine the kinds of people who are attracted to the organisation and
who will be successful in it.
• It determines what counts as important in the organisation and so gives a clear
direction for planning training and management development programs.
Failing to understand and manage the organisational culture can lead to much time
being wasted on irrelevant activities and even to conflict between different levels in the
organisation, cynicism and disillusionment. Without control of the culture, subsidiaries,
departments and functions may take on their own culture. While some differences in
culture between groups within the same organisation may be acceptable or desirable,
there may be core values, which are vital to the success of the organisation and should
be shared by all. These core values need to be identified and embedded in the culture.
The process involves being explicit about what values are important to the organisation
and getting people to understand and commit themselves to these values (Human
Factors International 2004).

Schein (1989, p. 48) stated ‘failing to understand how culture works is just as dangerous
in the organisational world as failing to understand gravity and the atmosphere in the
physical/biological world’.

C. Different aspects of organisational culture

While exploring the ‘content’ of organisational culture, researchers seem to use a wide
variety of approaches, methods and terms to describe what organisational culture might
23
contain and/or entail. Some of the terms that have been used quite frequently are
organisational culture’s components, elements, dimensions, levels, and variables. For
example, while discussing an organisation’s culture, Schein (1989) referred to various
‘cultural elements’ such as the physical layout of an organisation’s offices, rules of
interactions that are taught to newcomers, basic values that come to be seen as the
organisation’s ideology or philosophy, and the underlying conceptual categories and
assumptions that enable people to communicate and to interpret everyday occurrences.
He distinguished among these elements by treating basic assumptions as the essence –
what culture really is – and by treating values and behaviours as observed
manifestations of the cultural essence. In a sense, he classified these elements into three
levels of culture (see Figure 2.1)

Figure 2.1 Levels of culture and their interaction

Artefacts and Creations

Technology Visible but often not
Art decipherable
Visible and audible behaviour patterns

Values
Testable in the physical environment Greater level of awareness
Testable only by social consensus

Basis Assumptions
Relationship to environment Taken for granted
Nature of reality, time and space Invisible
Nature of human nature Preconscious
Nature of human activity
Nature of human relationships

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

Francisco, p. 14.

Earlier, Lundberg (1985, p. 171-172) had offered a very similar view and distinguished
four (4) separate levels of meaning for an organisation’s culture (adapted from Schein
(1981) and Dyer (1982) (See Figure 2.2)

24
 Figure 2.2 Organisational culture – levels of meaning

ARTIFACTS

PERSPECTIVES

VALUES

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Source: Adapted from Lundberg, CC 1985, 'On the feasibility of cultural intervention in
organisations', Organisational Culture, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA, pp.
171-172.

At the more visible or superficial levels of culture in Schein’s and Dyer’s formulation
are artefacts. These are tangible aspects shared by members of an organisational group,
including variable verbal, behavioural and physical attributes. Also included are such
things as the language, stories and myths, rituals, symbols and ceremonies, technology
and art used by an organisation.

The next level involves perspectives: the rules and norms the members of a group or
organisation develop and share socially in any given context. Perspectives may be
viewed as the solutions to a common set of problems encountered by organisational
members from time to time. They define and interpret situations of organisational life
and prescribe the bounds of acceptable behaviour in such situations. They are relatively
concrete and members are usually aware of them

The values are the evaluation base that members of an organisation use for judging the
‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of situations, acts, objects and people. Values reflect the real
objectives, standards and goals in an organisation and define as well its transgressions,
sins, and wrongdoings. Though more abstract than perspectives, they can sometimes be
articulated by members in such statements as organisational ‘mission’ and ‘philosophy’.

At the deepest level of an organisational culture are the basic assumptions, which are
the tacit beliefs that members hold about themselves and the world, their relationships
to one another and the nature of the organisation in which they work. Largely

25
unconscious, they underpin the first three levels above. They can be viewed as the
implicit and abstract axioms that determine the values, perspectives and artefacts of an
organisation’s culture.

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

Hofstede, has presented different approaches and perspectives on culture (at both
national and organisational level) in his numerous research and publications (Hofstede
1980, 1986, 1991, 1993, 1994). He argued that organisational cultures should be
distinguished from national cultures. Cultures manifest themselves, from superficial to
deep, in symbols, heroes, rituals and values etc. National cultures differ mostly on the
values level; while organisational cultures at the levels of symbols, heroes and rituals,
together labelled ‘practices’. Hofstede (1980) studied the differences in national cultures
for over fifty countries. The cultures show five independent dimensions of values:
power distance; individualism versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity;
uncertainty avoidance; and Confucian dynamism.
• Power distance: a measure of the inequality between ‘bosses’ and inferiors, the
extent to which this is accepted.
• Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which one is comfortable with or feels
threatened by ambiguous, uncertain situations, the extent one can or cannot
tolerate uncertainty and tries to avoid it by establishing more structure.
• Individualism – Collectivism: the degree to which a culture relies on and has
allegiance to the self or the group. In other words, it is the degree to which one
thinks in terms of ‘I’ versus ‘we’; either ties between individuals are loose or
people are part of a cohesive group throughout their lives.
• Masculinity – Femininity (also known as achievement versus nurturance
orientation): the degree to which a culture values such behaviour as
assertiveness, achievement, acquisition of wealth or caring for others, social
support and quality of life.
• Confucian dynamism: this fifth dimension was later added following
Hofstede’s work with Michael Bond (Hofstede & Bond 1988) which was meant
to explain the rapid economic development of many Asian countries. This
dimension refers to the selective promotion of particular set of ethics found in
Confucian teachings. Particular teachings that lead to economic development
include thrift, perseverance, a sense of shame, and following a hierarchy. Other
Confucian teachings are less emphasised such as tradition and protecting face.
26
 The impact of long-term or short-term orientation is also studied as part of this
dimension.

National culture differences are reflected not only in solutions to organisation problems
in different countries, but also in the validity of management theories in these countries.
Different national cultures have different preferred ways of structuring organisations
and different patterns of employee motivation. For example, they limit the options for
performance appraisal, management by objectives, strategic management and
humanisation of work. In his research into organisation cultures, Hofstede identified six
independent dimensions of practices:
• process-oriented versus results-oriented;
• job-oriented versus employee-oriented;
• professional versus parochial;
• open systems versus closed systems;
• tightly versus loosely controlled; and
• pragmatic versus normative
The position of an organisation on these dimensions is determined in part by the
business or industry the organisation is in. Scores on the dimensions are also related to a
number of other ‘hard’ characteristics of the organisations. These lead to conclusions
about how organisational cultures can be and cannot be managed. In the case of
international business, it means handling both national and organisational culture
differences at the same time. Hofstede argued that ‘organisational cultures are
somewhat manageable while national cultures are given facts for management; common
organisational cultures across borders are what keep multinationals together. While
defining culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the
members of one human group from another’, Hofstede (1991, 1997) emphasises that
culture is not a property of the individuals, but of groups. Country boundaries are
usually cultural boundaries, and national culture is instilled from birth. It has to do with
what is considered proper, civilised behaviour in that country: It includes, for instance,
how to act towards strangers, colleagues, family; how to address somebody, whether to
look them in the face, when to invite them home etc…

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

organisation’s structure is a determinant of its culture, i.e. certain structures create
certain type of cultures, as reflected in Charles Handy’ s work. He outlines a simple
27
framework for categorising cultures. Handy also uses four (4) Greek Gods to illustrate
his basic approaches and the organisational cultures that result (Handy 1991). His four
organisational cultures are very easy for people to understand and groups easily readily
identify with them and begin to explore their culture through the models he uses:
• Role Culture: is perhaps the most readily recognised and common of all the
cultural types. It is based around the job or role rather than the personalities and
is epitomised by what we tend to think of as the traditional hierarchical
structure. As such, it is often referred to as a bureaucracy – controlled by
procedures, role descriptions and authority definitions. Co-ordination is at the
top. Job position is central. Its strengths are in its predictability, stability and
consistency while its obvious opposites of inflexibility and slowness of reaction
and adjustment are its weakness. A role culture creates a highly structured,
stable organisation – a bureaucracy – precise job descriptions, usually with a
single product. Because of the focus on the role this culture tends to be
impersonal, and by implication restrictive, suppressing individuals attempts at
improvements. It does not take much thought to work in a role culture. Change
is therefore relatively slow and is often only brought about by fear – hardly the
best atmosphere for progress.
• Task Culture: is one where management is basically concerned with the
continuous and successful solution to problems. Performance is judged in terms
of results and problems solved. Although a structure exists, it is flexible and
capable of being formed and reformed depending upon the task in hand (more
flexible and adaptable). Handy (1991) likens it to a net where the power comes
from the junctions or interstices. The organisation is therefore a more loosely
bound than the role model. It is very much a small team approach – the network
organisation – small ‘organisations’ cooperating together to deliver a project.
The emphasis is on results, problem-solving, getting things done. Individuals
empowered with discretion and control over their work. Power and respect come
from individual knowledge and talent rather than rank or position. The power
being influenced from various positions depending upon the current task.
• Power Culture: It is like a web with a ruling spider. Those in the web are
dependent on a central power source. Rays of power and influence spread out
from a central figure or group and lines of communications do not radiate out
from this centre but also link side ways across the organisation. In this type of
organisation, power derives from the top person, and a personal relationship
28
 with that individual matters more than any formal title or position. The dominant
influence of the centre results in a structure that is able to move quickly and
respond to change and outside threats. This ability is gained not by formal
methods but by the selection of like-minded individuals who in key positions are
able to ‘guess what the Boss would do’ without the need for conformist systems.
This culture is often found in small entrepreneurial organisations and political
groups but will frequently breakdown as they grow since the web is more
difficult to maintain with size. Alternatively, the culture may spawn subsidiary
webs.
• Person (Star) Culture: The individual is the central point. If there is a structure,
it exists only to serve the individuals within it. The culture only exists for the
people concerned; it has no super-ordinate objective. Although not a common
culture for an entire organisation to be based, it is non the less found in small
areas of large companies. The culture is that of educated and articulate
individuals, specialists who have come together because of common interest –
solicitors, academic researchers, consultants etc… They may use some common
office services but generally operate independently. They tend to have strong
values about how they will work and are very difficult for the organisation to
manage. The organisation – the “existential” organisation exists so that
individuals can achieve their purposes e.g. universities, medical practices and
professional groupings. Charles Handy (1991- video) describes attempting to
control this type of organisation as ‘like trying to herd a group of tom cats’.
It is easily observed that while the first two cultural models focus on the role or task, the
last two place the emphasis on individuals.

While reviewing different approaches and perspectives on organisational culture,

Graves (1986) referred to a study, which argued that organisational culture consists of
five (5) variables:
Communication e.g. How receptive are those about you to your ideas and
suggestions?
Motivation e.g. How much do you look forward to coming to work each
day?
Decision-making e.g. To what extent are the persons who make decisions aware
of problems at lower levels in the company?

29
Control e.g. How much say or influence do the various levels of the
hierarchy have on what goes on in your department?
Co-ordination e.g. To what extent do persons in different departments plan
together and co-ordinate their efforts?

These 5 variables were called ‘climate variables’ which were correlated with four (4)
‘leadership variables’, as follows:
(1) Managerial support i.e. The degree to which the manager increases his
subordinates’ feeling of being worthwhile and important
people.
(2) Goal emphasis i.e. The degree to which the manager stimulates enthusiasm
for getting the work done.
(3) Work facilitation i.e. The degree to which the manager helps his subordinates
to get the work done by removing obstacles and roadblocks.
(4) Interaction facilitation i.e. The degree to which the manager builds the subordinates
group into a work team.
The researcher also pointed out that (1) and (4) deal with the employee as an
organisational participant (people-concerned variables), whilst (2) and (3) deal with the
employee as a member of a production team (production-concerned variables) (Graves
1986, pp. 9-10).

2.2.2 Some tools used to assess organisational culture

A. Diagnosis / assessment of organisational culture

Every organisation has a culture of its own; organisational culture can be positive or
negative, strong and unique or weak and indifferent. Generally, an organisation desires
a positive culture as a support for its growth and development or at least for avoiding
failure. However, organisational culture may not be shaped up in the desired direction in
every case (Rahman 1994). As presented earlier in section 2.2.1/B, outstandingly
successful organisations usually have strong and unique cultures while unsuccessful
organisations have weak and indifferent cultures (Hofstede 1980). The researchers were
unable to find a case where the culture was weak but the business successful. However,
there were cases where the culture was strong but the business was unsuccessful. This
was because the culture was inappropriate to the aims of the business (Graves 1986).
These findings inevitably lead us to the most fundamental questions: Weak culture or

30
strong? Right culture or wrong? The answers to these questions are of critical substance
to the success of an organisation and there comes the role and importance of measuring
and diagnosing the culture of the organisation.

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

organisation have about that organisation, cannot be understood unless one takes into
account the organisation’s culture. There are now many claims that organisational
culture can determine the degree of organisational effectiveness and individual
satisfaction, either through its ‘strength’ or through its ‘type’ (see, for example, Deal &
Kennedy 1982; Peters & Waterman 1982; Wilkins & Ouchi 1983) (Schein 1989, p. 24).
The next important question is how to define the ‘strength’ and ‘type’ of an
organisation’s culture.

It has also been acknowledged that one of the golden rules of business management is:
‘If you can not measure something you can not manage it’. Put it another way, one can
say ‘The easier and the more accurate you can measure something, the easier it is to
manage’. The more difficult, costly and questionable it is to measure an organisation’s
activities (or even the forces and causes leading to those activities), the more
management will be inclined to shy away from that activity or factor. Typical examples
of such areas are an organisation’s culture, staff morale and the existence or not of
creativity and innovation in the organisation (Conradie 2004).

‘Managers feel strongly about organisational culture but until now have had few ways
of talking about it, still less of measuring it’ (Graves 1986, p. 22). As one of the famous
authors in the field of organisational studies Schein (1989, p.136) has put it: ‘Culture
does not reveal itself easily. It is clearly there, but to articulate it and describe it requires
great patience and effort’.

B. Some tools / instruments used to assess organisational culture

Given the importance of organisational culture, many researchers, consultants and
managers have attempted to search for a valid and applicable measurement
tool/instrument to help understand, diagnose, measure and manage an organisation’s
culture. Various tools have been developed with a variety of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to measuring organisational culture, making the choice of methods a matter
of goal and purpose of the particular investigation. In some cases, qualitative measures
31
may have an advantage in the assessment of certain aspects of an organisational culture
e.g. attitudes, satisfaction. The diversity of measurement tools and approaches reflects
the diversity in perspectives on the content, levels, dimensions, typology and the
formation and development of organisational culture which ultimately dictate what
needs to be uncovered and/or measured and who need to be involved in the process. For
example, Graves (1986) started his research on diagnosing corporate culture with the
argument that ‘If it is true that you can understand a man by the company he keeps, then
a good way to understand a company is by the people it keeps. You might measure the
way groups of people from different companies react to the same stimulus – if the
reactions were observably different, it would be possible to classify the groups.
However, not all levels of an organisation are equally affected by culture: at the lower
levels, it is the rulebook, which dominates, and people move from one company to
another almost unaffected by changes in culture. It is only at the senior levels that
culture plays an important part in corporate activity – the level where ‘company
politics’ becomes a factor to be reckoned with in daily business life. Therefore, in
measuring culture we would look, for preference, at those whose job is the maintenance
of discipline and the motivation to achieve corporate goals’ (p.52). Because of this
logic, the sample of Graves’ research is the general population of senior managers – the
“high priests” of the organisational culture (p.70). These managers were at three
different levels of management: director, senior manager, middle manager and were
divided into 4 sub-groups relating to 4 different types of organisations they came from:
chain store, local government agency, manufacturing company and insurance broker.
The research tool selected by Graves was Ghiselli Self Description Inventory which
measure traits associated with successful management. The inventory is a questionnaire
consisting of sixty four pairs of personally descriptive adjectives, thirty two of equal
positive, and thirty two of equal negative value to the subject. In half of the pairs, the
respondent is asked to tick one adjective of each pair, which he believes most
characterises him, both adjectives referring to socially desirable traits. In the other half
of the pairs, he is to tick the adjective he believes least characterises him, both
adjectives in these pairs referring to socially undesirable traits. The answers are coded,
scored, computed and analysed using the statistical package for the social sciences. The
results are presented under ten (10) headings, which are the ten underlying management
traits represented by the sixty four pairs of adjectives, namely:
• Need for achievement
• Need for self-actualisation
32
 • Need for power
• Need for reward
• Need for security
• Supervisory ability
• Intelligence
• Initiative
• Self-assurance
• Decisiveness
The scores for each attribute were compared between subgroups of the samples and
between levels of management. The frequency distribution and the correlations between
the traits in general were evaluated. The correlations for each type of organisation are
analysed to help identify a general model for its culture. For example, the correlations
statistics for manufacturing companies show that this is the only group where none of
the drives is associated with supervisory ability. This would seem to indicate that this
attribute is not one which is sought after by the company in a consistent manner. On the
other hand, it is the only group to relate all drives to intelligence, as if this was the
overriding requirement in company personnel; the same applies to decisiveness. The
model for the culture then becomes one of seeking to attract self-assured, decisive
people and, by means of stimulating their need for achievement and need for self-
actualisation, improve their intelligence (p. 81). The results of various comparisons,
correlations, factor analysis, discriminant analysis, coefficients…were further analysed
and synthesised to give a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the culture of each
type of the organisations investigated.

Some other assessment methods have been developed with a stress on the value of
system dynamic modelling and simulations to understand how complex interactions can
affect organisational behaviour (e.g. Bryant & Darwin 2003; Senge & Sternman 1992).
Theses approaches share the view of culture as a characteristic that emerges from the
interactions among individuals and various organisational sub-systems over time.
Therefore, culture is not a single isolated state or behavioural characteristic that can be
observed independently of the organisational context.

Schein (1989) had a different approach which was based on the argument that the
pattern of assumptions that underlie what people value and do in an organisation are the

33
basic cultural essence of that organisation. This conception led to his next argument that
you have to uncover the underlying assumptions in an organisation to reveal its cultural
paradigm. Consequently, he developed a ten-step method, which he described as a
“Joint exploration through interactive interviewing” (p. 113-126). The ten steps
involved are listed below:
1. Entry and focus on surprises
2. Systematic observation and checking
3. Locating a motivated insider
4. Revealing the surprises, puzzlements, and hunches
5. Joint exploration to find explanation
6. Formalising hypotheses
7. Systematic checking and consolidation
8. Pushing to the level of assumptions
9. Perpetual recalibration
10. Formal written description
The underlying cultural assumptions, around which the cultural paradigm of an
organisation forms, are assessed by its positions on specific dimensions. The five
dimensions for organisational culture diagnosis and analysis proposed by Schein (1989)
include:
Dimension 1: Organisation’s relationship to its nature
• Basic identity and role: who what, why…
• Relevant environments: Economic, Political, Technological, Sociocultural …
• Position vis-a`-vis those environments: e.g. dominance, submission,
harmonising, finding a niche…
Dimension 2: Nature of reality and truth, basis for decisions
• Physical, social and subjective reality: e.g. The nature of time, the nature of
space
• Criteria of verifiability – Moralism-Pragmatism: Basis for taking action: e.g.
Tradition; Religious/moral dogma; by wise man or authorities; Rational/legal
process; Conflict resolution/open debate; Trial and error; or scientific test.
Dimension 3: The nature of human nature
• Basic human nature: e.g. good, bad, neutral
• Mutability: e.g. fixed at birth or mutable and perfectible
Dimension 4: The nature of human activity

34
 • Proactive, “Doing” orientation
• Reactive, “Being” orientation
• Harmonising, “Being-in-becoming” orientation
Dimension 5: The nature of human relationships
• Human relationships: e.g. Lineality-tradition, hierarchy, family; Collaterality-
group cooperation; or Individuality-competition
• Organisational relationships: power distribution, involvement, structure,
conflict resolution…
Description of the steps together with a detailed guide to interviewing methodology,
analytical methods to be used in group discussion, examples of what questions to be
asked, what to observe, to check and to look for within each step and in relation to each
specific dimension are provided. The results obtained from the whole process are
compiled, synthesised and analysed to give a description of the assumptions of a given
organisational culture. The assumptions are tested to show how they relate to each other
in a meaningful pattern – to articulate the paradigm. It could be seen that Schein’s
method is based on a process consultation approach. It is principally a qualitative tool, a
theory-based examination of artefacts, espoused values and shared basic assumptions
using a variety of semi-structured procedures and observational techniques.

The Denison organisational culture survey (Denison 1990) is another instrument for
which evidence of sensitivity to organisational change has been presented. This tool
assesses organisational culture along the four basic cultural traits, which are presented
by certain organisational dimensions. The tool consists of 60 items, which are used to
assess and measure the dimensions. Table 2.1 below gives a brief description of the
structure of the instrument.

35
 Table 2.1 Denison organisational culture survey (adapted)
TRAIT DIMENSION EXAMPLES OF ITEMS
Decisions are usually made at the level where the best
Empowerment
information is available
Cooperation across different parts of the organisation is
INVOLVEMENT Team orientation
actively encouraged
There is continuous investment in the skills of
Capability development
employees

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

When disagreement occur, we work hard to achieve

CONSISTENCY Agreement
win-win solutions
Coordination and It is easy to coordinate projects across different parts of
Integration the organisation
The way things are done is very flexible and easy to
Creating change
change
Customer comments and recommendations often lead to
ADAPTABILITY Customer focus
changes
We view failure as an opportunity for learning and
Organisational learning
improvement
Strategic direction & There is a clear mission that gives meaning and direction
intent to our work

MISSION Goals & objectives There is widespread agreement about goals

We have a shared vision of what the organisation will be

Vision
like in the future

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

effectiveness, Wiley, New York.

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

assessment of the main organisational cultural traits. The assessment has also been
correlated with organisational performance measures. Denison (1990) argues that this
approach allows for assessment of the ways in which organisations (or sub-groups
within organisations) deal with seemingly contradictory or paradoxical goals and
demands. Denison regards the understanding of such conflicts as essential to developing
sustainable adaptive organisational behaviour, and a number of studies have reported
that the pattern of cultural traits of high-performance organisations can be clearly
distinguished from those with lower performance (Denison 1984; Denison & Mishra
1995; Fisher & Alford 2000). Under such a model, organisational culture might be
viewed as the system that permits organisations to make coordinated adaptive responses
to the numerous competing and even paradoxical demands.

36
Organisational culture profile (OCP) (O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell 1991) was
originally developed to measure person-organisation fit but later has been used
extensively in various researches as an instrument for assessing cultural characteristics
of organisations. The OCP contains 54 value statements (also called OCP items – See
Appendix 1 – Organisational culture profile item set) that can generically capture
organisational values and characteristics. The general procedure was to ask respondents
familiar with the organisation to sort the 54 items into nine categories ranging from
least to most characteristic of the organisation. Scores are allocated accordingly. The
OCP was further tested and developed which led to the identification of seven
organisational culture dimensions underlying the OCP: Innovation, Stability, Respect
for people, Outcome orientation, Detail orientation, Team orientation and
Aggressiveness. The same seven dimensions have been found to characterise firms
across various industries (Chatman & Jehn 1994) and also among a sample of
international firms (Hofstede et al. 1990). The OPC dimensions also resemble the types
of cultural knowledge that Sackmann (1992) found to exist across a single organisation.

The OCP instrument developed by O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991) was modified
and utilised by Harper and Utley (2001) in a 3-year study on 18 companies involved in
government and commercial ventures. Further to the use of 54 attributes that define an
organisation’s culture, Harper and Utley (2001, pp. 11-12) plotted the cultural styles on
a grid similar to Blake and Mouton’s (1964) managerial grid. The vertical axis (ranked
from 1 to 9) gauged the degree to which an organisation’s culture exhibits concern for
people attributes (i.e., fairness, collaboration with others, enthusiasm for the job, trust),
and the horizontal axis (also ranked from 1-9) represents the degree of cultural concern
for production attributes (i.e., compliance, risk-taking, precision, competition). Within
each of the major orientations of the managerial grid, specific cultural attributes were
mapped against the cultural implications developed for those orientations, to create a
cultural attributes grid (CAG). The five grid positions from the managerial grid were
used to identify the cultural styles on the cultural attributes grid. A position of (9,9) on
the grid is the teamwork position and indicates that the organisation has high level of
concern for both people and production issues. This is seen as the optimal position,
because the organisation is seeking the best possible answer by having everyone
involved. The (9,1) position holds that this type of organisation has a high level of
concern for production issues but low level of concern for people issues. This is an
37
authoritarian-type culture. The (1,9) position defines the country club culture, where
people issues are the focus to the exclusion of production issues. The assumption here is
that happy workers are productive workers. A compromise cultural style describes the
(5,5) position. Organisations of this type try to balance the necessary evils across the
organisations in an equitable manner. The (1,1) position defines the dangerous style of
basic abdication, that of having little concern for people or production. The strategy of
this type of organisation is not to make mistakes, which is accomplished by not doing
very much.

The Competing values framework (CVF) was originally presented by Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1983) who were interested in determining the values that employees held as
valuable with regard to organisational effectiveness. Their research indicated that the
values of organisational effectiveness clustered into four groups. From this, Quinn
(1988) presented a model of organisational culture based on two dimensions: (1)
organisational process (organic vs. mechanistic) and (2) organisational orientation
(internal vs. external), which resulted in four types of organisational culture (See Figure
2.3). The ‘clan’ culture (organic, internal) is characterised by an emphasis on
cohesiveness, teamwork and commitment to the organisation where as the ‘market’
culture (mechanistic, external) is characterised by competitiveness and goal
achievement. The ‘adhocracy’ culture (organic, external) has as its focus creativity,
entrepreneurship, and dynamism. Finally, the ‘hierarchy’ culture (mechanistic, internal)
is characterised by order, rules and regulations, uniformity and efficiency. The CVF was
further developed and adapted by Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Deshpande, Farley
and Webster (1993) which allows the tool to examine organisational culture at a deeper
level and identify further implications. The four culture types Adhocracy, Clan,
Hierarchy and Market are assigned to the CVF quadrants. In Asian studies, the
researchers describe these four cultural styles respectively as Rabbit, Monkey, Elephant
and Tiger (Jacobs 2002). This concept has been used extensively by Deshpande, Farley
and Webster (1993 & 1997) in their Asian and cross-culture research. Figure 2.3
illustrates the model of Organisational culture types adapted from Quinn & Rohrbaugh
(1983), Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Deshpande, Farley and Webster (1993).

38
 Figure 2.3 CVF-based model of organisational culture types

ORGANIC PROCESSES (flexibility, spontaneity)

TYPE: CLAN – MONKEY TYPE: ADHOCRACY – RABBIT

• Dominant attributes: Cohesiveness, • Dominant attributes:

participation, teamwork, sense of
family
• Bonding: Loyalty, tradition,
interpersonal cohesion
• Strategic emphasis: Toward
developing human resources,
commitment, morale
Entrepreneurship, creativity,
adaptability
• Bonding: Entrepreneurship,
flexibility, risk
• Strategic emphasis: Toward
innovation, growth, new resources

INTERNAL MAINTENANCE EXTERNAL POSITIONING

(smoothing activities, integration)
(competition,differentiation)

TYPE: HIERARCHY - ELEPHANT TYPE: MARKET – TIGER

• Dominant attributes: Order, rules • Dominant attributes:

and regulations, uniformity
• Bonding: Rules, policies and
procedures
• Strategic emphasis: Toward
stability, predictability, smooth
operation
Competitiveness, goal achievement
• Bonding: Goal orientation,
production, competition
• Strategic emphasis: Toward
competitive advantage and market
superiority

MECHANISTIC PROCESSES (control, order, stability)

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

By juxtaposing the quadrants along its two dimensions, the CVF makes it clear that
each quadrant emphasises different aspects of the organising process – people,
adaptation, task accomplishment and stability – issues that are important for every
organisation. Opposing quadrants highlight inherent dilemmas in the organising
39
process. The CVF has been widely used not only to assess organisational culture but
also to examine the relationship between organisational culture and other organisational
phenomena including organisational effectiveness (e.g. Cameron 1985, Zammuto &
Krakower 1991, Smart & St. John 1996), business performance (e.g., Deshpande,
Farley and Webster 1993), TQM implementation (e.g. Shortell et al. 2000), marketing
strategy and performance (Baker & Jon 1995).

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

was designed as a practical instrument of measurement and management of
organisational culture change. It is a tool used for identifying the culture which is at
present operating in the organisation. The OCQ does not categorise the organisational
culture into a particular type but describes it in terms of its predominant characteristics,
behaviours and attitudes. The OCQ comprises 130 questions relating to 13 different
dimensions of organisational culture: Leadership, Conflict management, Productivity,
Innovation, Participation, Communication, Decision making, Organisational goal
integration, Organisation structure, HR management, Customer focus, Professionalism
and Fun. Members of an organisation are asked to decide whether the statements
describe a predominant feature of their organisation or not. A further option in the OCQ
is to choose to use a five point scale instead of the simple ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘Don’t
know’ options. Respondents are asked to rate whether the statements predominantly
describe the behaviour and/or beliefs in their organisation and are given five options
from ‘Almost always’ to ‘Rarely’. The responses can be analysed for the whole
organisation or for individual departments.

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

culture, which has been commercially marketed by a research, and consulting firm
Human Synergistics International. This empirically developed instrument has been used
in a wide variety of commercial, government, not-for-profit and educational
organisations throughout New Zealand and Australia (Human Synergistics International
2003). The tool was initially researched and developed by Cooke and Lafferty (1987).
Cooke and Szumal (2000) later provided an overview of how the tool can be applied.
Basically, the OCI provides a profile of an organisation’s operating culture in terms of
the behaviours that members believe are required to ‘fit in and meet expectations’
within their organisation. It measures ‘how things are done around here’. The OCI
examines how members of an organisation experience its operating culture. Through
40
members’ answers, the OCI measures twelve (12) distinct patterns or styles of
behavioural norms and expectations that members of an organisation might be expected
to adopt in carrying out their work and interacting with others. The 12 patterns are
classified into 3 groups of “styles” with Achievement, Self-actualising, Humanistic-
encouraging and Affiliative belonging to the ‘Constructive Styles’; Approval,
Conventional, Dependent and Avoidance belonging to the ‘Passive/defensive Styles’;
Oppositional, Power, Competitive and Perfectionistic belonging to the
‘Aggressive/defensive Styles’.

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

Achievement, Self-actualising, Humanistic-encouraging, Affiliative and Approval
represent ‘Satisfaction Needs’; Conventional, Dependent, Avoidance, Oppositional,
Power and Competitive represent ‘Security Needs’. The 12 patterns are also used to
measure an organisation’s culture in terms of its orientation with some patterns are
distinctively related to the ‘People orientation’ such as Self-actualising, Humanistic-
encouraging, Affiliative and Dependent while some other patterns are related to the
‘Task orientation’ such as Competitive, Perfectionistic, and Achievement. Combined
OCI scores are then transferred to a circular graph to form a visual profile, or picture, of
an organisation’s current culture.

Given the existence of a wide variety of organisational culture measurement tools and
methods, careful selection of a relevant method should be made based on the goals,
focus and the purpose of each particular study. The best practice would seem to involve
a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches customised for the research
questions under investigation. A broad range of methods may be appropriate, ranging
from participant observation and in-depth and semi-structured interviews to some of the
of the more recently validated culture assessment tools. The good news is: the research
results to date ‘suggest that useful measures of organisational culture are feasible, even
if no one measurement strategy can yet be considered the “gold standard”’ (Boan &
Funderburk 2003, p. 12).

41
2.3 IT implementation
Introduction

Our society is being transformed by continuously evolving technologies that are

changing the way we do things at the most fundamental levels. On an individual level,
almost every aspect of our daily life is subject to technological innovations. We are
becoming more and more dependent on the flexibility, reliability, access and services
that they provide us. Information technologies, in particular, with their popular
applications such as computers, fax machines, networks, cable television, fibre optics,
and ATMs etc. have all played a pivotal role in the way we communicate, work, play
and do business. As the information age progresses we increasingly owe more of our
economic and technological progress to the free flow of ideas and knowledge.
Consequently, it becomes more important that we have access to superior and timely
information (Beaumaster 1999, p.1). The strategic importance of information
technology (IT) in transforming organisations and industries is now widely accepted.
From an organisational stance, the information age is in full swing and organisations are
experiencing an increase in the use of a variety of information technologies (ITs).
Realistically, it has become nearly impossible for an organisation to operate without the
use of one or more ITs (Beaumaster 1999).

Definitions of terms: IT & IT implementation

Information Technology: Up until the 1980s, computers made up almost all of what was
considered information technologies. Cooper and Zmud (1990, p. 123) defined
information technology as ‘any artifact whose underlying technological base is
comprised of computer or communications hardware and software’. Currently
information technology has become an umbrella term used to describe a rapidly
expanding group of equipment, services, applications and technologies (both hardware
and software) related to information access, collection, dissemination, processing and
storage. Often ITs are grouped as computers, multimedia and telecommunications. For
the purpose of this research, information technologies are defined in a broad sense and
are any of the above.

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

a means employed to achieve a given end, to provide a definite plan or procedure to
ensure the fulfilment of … (American Heritage Dictionary 1981). Implementation of
42
information technology is more complicated because the implementation process may
be long and drawn out, and in many instances may have vague boundaries. In the most
simplistic sense, IT implementation is the process (via a definite plan or procedure) of
getting a new or significantly changed, IT system in use for those it was intended
(Turban 1993). From a technological diffusion perspective, IT implementation is
defined as an organisational effort directed toward diffusing appropriate information
technology within a user community (Cooper & Zmud 1990).

2.3.1 Importance of IT implementation

Information technology has become a mainstay in our society: it has an impact on
almost every function of our lives. We have truly become an information and
technology based society. Beaumaster (1999, p. 50) stated ‘The need for effective IT
implementation has never been more important’. From an international perspective, the
increasing global interdependencies and the accelerating pace of change demand more
flexible and adaptive organisations (Malone & Crowston 1991). Malone and Smith
(1984) have defined organisational flexibility in terms of “vulnerability” and
“adaptability”. Effective implementation of IT would decrease vulnerability by reducing
the cost of expected failures and enhancing the adaptability by reducing the cost of
adjustment (Malhotra 1993). At the organisational level, considerable pressure is placed
on most organisations to make their operational, tactical and strategic processes more
efficient and effective. An increasingly attractive means of improving these processes
lies in today’s wide variety of information technologies (Child 1987, Drucker 1987).
Presently, IT amounts to nearly one-half of U.S. firms’ annual capital expenditures and
increasingly affects how firms organise, do business, and compete (Keen 1991). In fact,
Jonscher (1983) suggests that the appropriate use of IT may be the principal source of
future growth for the U.S. economy. As business needs evolve, a solid IT infrastructure,
consisting of hardware, software, and people is the only hope for keeping up (Kwei
1998).

Beaumaster’s (1999) research results indicated that some of the most common roles of
IT in an organisation include:
• Enhancement of organisational operations (productivity/effectiveness)
• Facilitation and enhancement of information flow across the organisation and its
external environment.

43
 • A tool for increasing efficiency with regard to job/task performance and
providing the ability to handle more complex tasks
• A tool for information dissemination and sharing as well as for provision of
quick, efficient resources.
• Improved service delivery
• A decision-making tool for managers and supervisors at all levels
• A tool for improvement in a wide variety of areas

From a strategic management viewpoint, Ho (1996), King (1978) and Rockart &
Morton (1984) suggested that the three major roles for IT are administrative,
operational, and competitive. The administrative role signifies the scope of IT as the
automation of accounting and control functions. This role requires the deployment of an
efficient IT platform (i.e. hardware, software, and communication systems) for
administration and control and is independent of the strategic management of the
organisation. The operations role is an extension of the first role and is distinguished by
the creation and deployment of a technology platform that creates the capacity to
automate the entire set of business processes as opposed to only the administrative
activities. In contrast, the competitive role represents a significantly different approach.
Extending beyond internal, efficiency focus, the capacity now exists for organisations to
deploy new IT applications that leverage the information and technological attributes to
obtain different sources of competitive advantages in the market place. Attention is
being increasingly paid to the potential role of IT to shape the basis of competition
(Rotemberg & Saloner 1991).

IT has become the means of delivering the goods and services in some sectors, e.g.
financial services, airlines and retailing. For a service-oriented business, IT strategy
may be synonymous of its product-market strategy. By comparison, technology is
generally emphasized in manufacturing organisations. Therefore, IT is most likely to be
used in enhancing manufacturing processes and controlling manufacturing operations.
The application of IT in manufacturing organisations either adds to efficiency and
precision of manufacturing equipment or facilitates in collecting manufacturing
environment information (Ho 1996). The strategic role of IT from a manufacturing
perspective can be referred to as technology push (Scott-Morton 1991).

44
In order to maximise the benefits from IT investments, organisations must understand
and manage their IT implementation processes. A major concern in such efforts is the
recognition by management of the critical issues to be raised and resolved for each of
the implementation stages (Cooper & Zmud 1990).

2.3.2 IT implementation in an organisation

Three eras of IT/IS evolution

This literature review grounds the study of IT implementation with its associated
development deployment processes and its underlying issues in the field of
Management Information Systems (MIS). This particular grounding serves to describe
the issue as part of a management process, which is not yet nearly as well defined as
other management processes. Grounding this study in the MIS literature provides a
historical basis, which would be unavailable through the review of IT implementation
literature only. In addition, this particular foundation places MIS and IT implementation
in its proper field of study – management (Beaumaster 1999) – while still allowing for a
tractable body of literature. The study adheres to the Management Information Systems
(MIS) and Information Resource Management (IRM) schools of thoughts, which
provide a management philosophy purporting that information is a crucial asset in the
ultimate success of an organisation and as such should be managed rigorously (Synott &
Gruber 1981, Kerr 1991). The literature on MIS has developed over a thirty-year period
and reflects the development/maturation of information technology and the attendant
management philosophy and practices. This development has been described by some
researchers in evolutionary patterns of three main eras: Data processing (1960-1970),
Management information systems (1979-1980) and Strategic information systems
(1980-1990s) (Ward 1995). While this is certainly the case to some degree, one must
understand that the transitional periods, which are delineated by decade in the text, are
actually quite fuzzy in real life, and each information system still exists in some form
today (Beaumaster 1999). It should also be noted that the timeframe and prevailing
development stage for IT/IS evolution are evidently different in developed and
developing countries. The review thus is mainly based on the Western literature.

The first era – Data processing – is primarily viewed as the era when the main focus
was on improving the efficiency of business through automation of basic information
processes. In essence, the management of actual technologies (mainly data processing
45
related) took precedence over the management of information. Data processors and
information and technology professionals were isolated from executive management
and planning arenas (Ward 1995).

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

managerial effectiveness by satisfying widespread information needs. Information
technology was no longer just for the data-processing centre. This was the time when
microcomputers were introduced, effectively changing the technical and managerial
environments of organisations as well as having a considerable impact on their external
environments. The power of computing shifted to a more decentralised situation and
with it came a shift in overall management practices. Managers at all levels of
organisations came to realise the power of information technology resources and began
to acquire their own systems to meet the needs that simple data processing could no
longer address (Marchand 1985, pp. 31-32).

The third and final era – strategic information systems – has its focus on improving
organisational or departmental competitiveness by affecting the overall business
strategies (Ward 1995; Weisman 1985; Theiruf 1994). Marchand (1985, pp. 27-34)
referred to this stage as knowledge management. Essentially, this concerns a shifting
emphasis from physical management of information and associated technologies to
management of information content and whole technology systems. The key to
managing information content is the successful application of information technology,
thereby maximising the benefits of the information. MIS at this level requires
recognition of numerous information technologies, widespread user involvement, and
significant planning and implementation strategies. One of the latest additions to MIS
literature is the concept of corporate information management (CIM) developed by
Strassman (1990). CIM stresses an organisation wide perspective on managing
information systems putting much of the responsibility in the user’s hands making IS no
longer a purely autonomous and isolated area of information specialists in the past.
Strassman (1990) lays emphasis on the need to re-examine and redesign work processes
before adopting major IT systems in an effort to reduce functions, which would hinder
the measurable value which might be produced. He reasons that the ultimate aim is to
achieve the core missions of the organisation effectively and efficiently (Strassman
1990, pp. 493-510). The strategic information systems approach to MIS makes use of
strategic management techniques in their models and focuses on structure, strategy,
46
systems, style, staff, skills and shared values, following the McKinsey 7S Model (Gluck
1986, p. 23).

IT implementation stages and levels

Beaumaster (1999, p. 53) outlined (See Figure 2.5) a simple 3-stage model of IT
implementation process based on the standard MIS process models (Davis & Olson
1985). A significant portion of the IT related literature refers to the process of IT
implementation as the “IT implementation process”. This addresses, in its most simple
context, a three-step process involving planning, procurement, and actual
implementation. In order to alleviate some confusion of titling the process “IT
implementation process” and having one of the steps of the process also labelled as
“implementation”, Beaumaster (1999) named the process “IT development and
deployment process.

Figure 2.4 IT development and deployment

IT Planning IT Procurement IT implementation

Source: Beaumaster, S 1999, Information technology implementation issues: An analysis,

PhD dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, p. 53.

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

of which involves a separate set of internal factors and processes. Each part is necessary
for the success of the following one yet each encapsulates its own important process. As
seen in the figure, IT planning has direct impact on the procurement process, and vice-
versa – IT procurement and acquisition capabilities are directly related to planning
efforts. Procurement affects implementation, which has a direct impact on both the
procurement and planning efforts. The first stage ‘IT planning’ provides a basic
stepping stone from which the rest of the process continues. The main focus of this
stage is generating the overall context of IT in the organisation by aligning it with
organisational directives, goals, missions, and strategies and generally includes
activities such as designing the systems, involving users etc. From the planning stage

47
the process moves on to procurement or acquisition processes. This is the first part of
the process where the ideas laid out in the planning stage begin to take shape. Some
typical activities involved in this stage are investment analysis, risk assessment,
cost/benefit analysis, life cycle planning, and system acquisitions. Once all of the
necessary facets of the IT plan have been acquired, the plan can be formalised and
implemented. The efforts will be focused on putting the systems into practice, managing
change, developing necessary skills, evaluating the relevance and effectiveness of the
new systems. Each stage of the whole process closely related to the others – failure to
plan adequately impacts both procurement and implementation. Conversely, a
breakdown in implementation may inform future planning efforts or require review and
adjustment of the original plan. Without the procurement portion of the process,
implementation would be impossible. The acquisition of the proper technologies and
budgeting for future acquisitions are integral to effective implementation of IT. Each
stage of the implementation process demands careful considerations and foresight, as
they are symbiotically related (Beaumaster 1999, p. 54).

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

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

founded on Lewin’s (1952) change model (Lewin’s 1952 change model: Unfreezing
Change Refreezing). This IT implementation model was later modified to
incorporate some of the post-adoption behaviours developed by Zmud and Apple (1989)
(see Table 2.2).

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

different stages of Lewin’s change theory. Initiation is associated with Lewin’s
unfreezing stage; adoption and adaptation are associated with Lewin’s change stage;
and acceptance, routinisation, and infusion are associated with Lewin’s refreezing stage.
Cooper & Zmud (1990) noted that in practice, the actual implementation process may
not strictly follow this model’s stage sequence and if the stages are thought of as
activities, some of which may occur in parallel. Such a model can encompass the
variety of IT applications and IT implementation processes observed in most
organisations.

48
 Table 2.2 Six-stage model of IT implementation process

PROCESS PRODUCT

Active and/or passive scanning of

organisational problems/opportunities and
STAGE 1 A match is found between an IT
IT solutions are undertaken. Pressure to
solution and its application in
INITIATION change evolves from either organisational
the organisation
need (pull), technological innovation
(push), or both.

A decision is reached to invest

STAGE 2 Rational and political negotiations ensue to
resources necessary to
get organisational backing for
ADOPTION accommodate the
implementation of the IT application.
implementation effort

The IT application is developed, installed

STAGE 3 and maintained. Organisational members The IT application is available
ADAPTATION are trained both in the new procedures and for use in the organisation.
in the IT application

STAGE 4 Organisational members are induced to The IT application is employed

ACCEPTANCE commit to IT application usage in the organisational work.

The organisation’s governance

systems are adjusted to account
STAGE 5 Usage of the IT application is encouraged for the IT application; the IT
ROUTINISATION as a normal activity application is no longer
perceived as something out of
the ordinary.

Increased organisational effectiveness is

STAGE 6 obtained by using the IT application in a The IT application is used
more comprehensive and integrated manner within the organisation to its
INFUSION to support higher-level aspects of fullest potential.
organisational work.

Source: Cooper, RB & Zmud, RW 1990, 'Information technology implementation

research: A technological diffusion approach', Management Science, vol. 36, no.
2, pp. 124-125.

A framework for IT implementation (Walton 1989)

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

integrating IT and the organisation (see Figure 2.5). The essence of Walton’s theory is
that an extended implementation process comprises three phases. In the first phase,
management shapes the context before embarking on the development of a specific IT
system. The second phase is when the design of the IT system takes place. In the third
phase, the system is introduced, operated and diffused. The term ‘implementation’ is
given a variety of meanings in the IT related literature. Sometimes implementation is
limited to activities that introduce the systems but excludes the design process. In other
cases, implementation refers to both the design and introduction of IT systems, but not
49
to the activities that take place even earlier to create contextual conditions for a
successful employment of IT. Walton’s idea of an extended implementation process
embraces all these activities. He agued that it is necessary to manage all of these phases
of the process effectively and moreover, the phases are interrelated and overlapping
(Walton 1989, pp. 3-4).

Figure 2.5 Walton’s proposed framework for IT implementation

Phased
Key ingredients of
implementation Results
effectiveness
activities

Phase One
Generating the context for
IT, e.g., by aligning
business, organisation, and
IT strategies

Alignment

Phase Two
Commitment/ Business and
Designing an IT system,
Support/ Ownership Human Benefits
e.g., by involving users in
the process
Competence/
Mastery

Phase Three
Putting the IT system into
practice, e.g., by managing
the rate of change and the
development of skills

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

With an emphasis on the implications of the relationship between ITs and organisations,
Walton argued that there are five specific aspects that must be part of any IT
implementation process: priority attention and commitment of resources; the process
must be an extended one; the process must be inclusive; organisational values must be
an integral part of the guiding factors; and IT requirements must be developed in
50
conjunction and parallel with the technological and organisational aspects (Walton
1989, p. 31). The first aspect is related to the direct attention and leadership of top
management. Walton stressed that this kind of leadership should provide a distinctive
dimension to the process and that is, the critical importance of commitment of
organisational resources – not only financial resources but also those, which are
educational and personnel related as well. The second factor is related to the life cycle
of the IT implementation process. The process must extend beyond the development
and implementation of ITs in the organisation and it must ultimately continue through
the evaluation and adjustment stages as well. In the fast-changing area of IT, conditions
change throughout the development and use of information systems. In addition to
being extensive, the implementation process must also be inclusive as the impact of IT
on an organisation can be pervasive and demands the support and involvement of
individuals and groups across the entire organisation. The final two aspects deal with
the value base and on-going development of IT implementation. To be effective this
necessitates the infusion of organisational goals and missions into the process at the
very beginning. IT has such an impact on organisational outcomes that a clear
understanding of the preferred effects of the IT system is crucial. As an organisation’s
goals and objectives are not static, neither are the requirements for IT. The interaction
between IT and organisation is two way and changes over time, therefore, the
organisational and technological aspects of IT systems should be developed in parallel,
and if possible, be mutually adapted (Walton 1989, p. 31-32). Walton’s view of IT
implementation is widely adopted due to its recognition of the importance of integrating
organisational goals and garnering support at a number of different levels.

Another approach suggests that considerations for IT implementation should

systematically cover all three major aspects of Intent, Content, and Process. Many
researchers advocate that new ITs should be implemented in phases, stressing issues
like the need for experimentation, learning, overcoming resistance, adaptation, infusion,
cost control, and technology transfer (Neo 1994, p. 317).

IT implementation issues and problems

Since their inceptions, ITs have been upheld by many people as a cure-all for a variety
of organisational ills, and in many cases, viewed as an antidote to poor performance –
efficiency through the miracle of IT implementation. What is too often ignored or

51
forgotten amidst the discussions is that although ITs can provide a number of solutions
and benefits, they also introduce their own special problems and concerns into the
organisational setting. The implementation and subsequent use of ITs is a process of
interrelated steps. Faltering or mis-stepping at any of the implementation stages may
actually increase inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and promote any number of additional
uncertainties. ITs, in and of themselves, cannot solve all our problems (organisational or
otherwise), nor will they magically remove the various organisational and managerial
ills that plague us. According to Beaumaster (1999, p. 4), some of the prevalent
problems facing small and medium organisations implementing ITs are limited funds,
human resources, IT knowledge and expertise. Results of Beaumaster’s (1999) research
showed that the most problematic issues with regard to IT implementation include:
• Rapidly changing technology: The dilemma being ‘How does an organisation
plan for constantly changing and the often unknown future of information
technologies?’ (p. 94). In average, new and/or major developments in IT may
occur in 8-12 months. By the time planned for technologies are actually
introduced and utilised in the organisation, they may be well into their
obsolescence. This creates problems not just for physical hardware and software
implementation but also for the human side of the process – this issue has a
significant impact on training, individual expertise and individual resistance
levels. In addition, costs of the technologies themselves change rapidly, thereby
making fiscal planning difficult task (p. 98).
• Inadequate and uneven individual IT expertise: Each individual within an
organisation has his/her own expertise and comfort levels with regard to
information technologies. Part of the IT planning and implementation processes
must review these individual levels. Needs analysis is not just important for the
organisation as a whole but for each individual end user as well. Nothing can
destroy the implementation process faster than disgruntled users (p. 99).
• Inadequate training: As mentioned above, individuals within the organisation
are typically at different levels of individual expertise, thus making the training
process difficult to organise. The actual training process is complex, regardless
of the size and scope of the organisation. In many cases, IT training must be
outsourced through external consultants or operations. This adds an additional
expense, planning problems, and logistic problems for management with regard
to timeframes and scheduling. Training is essential to effective IT

52
 implementation. Without the support and expertise of end users, no system can
achieve it full potential (p. 97).
• Lack of a strategic/formal plan: Lack of a strategic plan or use of a purely
informal plan provides little or no concrete directives for the acquisition or
implementation of ITs within an organisation.
• Fiscal/budgeting issues are particularly problematic to the IT planning and
procurement processes. Financial constraints may limit the choices of the most
suitable IT solutions and/or equipments. Information technologies generate a
variety of expenses. At the outset, their purchase can be quite expensive. In
many cases, this necessitates acquiring technology over an extended time-line,
which in turn creates compatibility, upgradability, and standardisation issues.
The two key budgeting issues with regard to IT expenses are training and
maintenance.
• Poor interdepartmental coordination: Effective IT implementation, which
enhances the organisation’s operations, demands an approach to IT which is
coordinated at all levels of the organisation. ITs impact on the organisation as a
whole. Lack of interdepartmental coordination could result in any number of
ineffective outcomes ranging from duplication of systems, incompatibility to
total system failure.
• Resistance to change: One of the biggest roadblocks in the area of IT
implementation is that ITs often represent completely new or radical changes
for the organisation and its individuals. Human beings typically reach a certain
comfort level with regard to their abilities and work processes. For most people
new technologies represent a daunting learning curve and possible downsizing
of their jobs. This perception introduces fear of the unknown and uncertainty
into the implementation process and creates significant resistance to change.
The consequences could be very serious since most ITs do not function
independently of human interaction. Effective training and internal leadership
are keys to alleviating much of the change resistance inherent in IT
implementation. Users must reach new comfort levels and develop the expertise
and skills needed to make effective use of new technologies.

With a slightly different emphasis, Wilson’s (1991) research findings indicated five top
barriers to the implementation of IT strategies as follows:
• Difficulty in recruiting or lack of appropriately qualified staff
53
 • Nature of business: Either the business itself is growing and diversifying at a
faster rate than IT strategy can cope with, or the environment in which the
business operates is so turbulent and volatile as to make a virtual nonsense of IT
planning (or both of these things together).
• Difficulty in measuring benefits: Wilson (1991) stressed that, crude measures of
money benefits can hardly apply to all areas of effectiveness.
• Lack of resources for user education: Apart from financial constraints, it should
be noted that this problem might well be the results of a failure to recognise that
such resources will be needed.
• Existing IT investment, which might present additional problems and
requirements in terms of compatibility, upgradability, integration and
transitional operations. The costs are very much more than buy new hardware.
Apart from the obvious things like rewriting programs, procedures, and the
learning load on staff of a new operating system, there is also the new user-
education load.
In addition to the above, unsuitable technology, difficulty in gaining full approval for
the IT strategy and resistance to change were put forward as inhibiting factors for the
implementation of IT strategies.

The problems facing IT implementation in less-developed countries seem to vary from

those of the Western countries. In a study on information systems technology in China,
Ishman, Pegels and Sanders (1994, p. 301) reported that the major obstacles to IT were:
• User area management and others not understanding the computer and its
capabilities
• Fear of reduction of jobs and other impacts because of computer-driven
efficiency
• Lack of qualified personnel (e.g. managers with IT knowledge are in short
supply)
• Insufficient resources for investing in hardware, software and training
• Inadequate business management training
• Infrastructure obstacles: The telecommunications network is still poor, e.g. the
data transmission channels such as telephone lines are inadequate for
developing computer networks.

54
The researchers’ observations (as a result of over ten years teaching and consulting in
China) also pointed to some eminent problems facing IT implementation such as
(Ishman et al. 1994, p. 303):
• There is more than just sporadic resistance to using computer applications
packages
• Cultural, political and social barriers to new technological developments are
commonplace
• General knowledge diffusion is lacking

IT implementation success factors

While ITs are not the instant cure-all that many may view them to be, they are certainly
an asset and can provide a number of advantageous and effective solutions if properly
adopted. It is only through careful design, planning, acquisition, and implementation of
ITs that we may benefit from more effective operations and solutions to problems. The
successful implementation of ITs in any organisation depends on a multitude of
important and interrelated factors. Quite early in the history of IT, researchers
prescribed the importance of the following propositions for IT implementation: project
champions, top management support, adequate organisational resources, good
relationships between developers and user departments, user involvement,
communication, and a supportive organisational culture, for example, one that promotes
an attitude of trust (Walton 1989). These conditions continue to be important in today’s
IT environment. As researchers and managers continue to lean how to implement IT
effectively, new approaches and factors have come to light. In his book “Integrating
information technology and the organisation”, Walton (1989, pp. 4-5) proposed three
key ingredients as essential for effective IT implementation:
1) Alignment of business, organisational, and technological strategies: In the
introduction and operation phase, this factor takes the form of Operational
alignment – The system in practice is consistent with the company’s
technology, organisation, and business strategies, which are themselves
aligned.
2) Commitment of employees to and support of stakeholders for an IT system: As
implementation progresses, this ingredient becomes more specific and is
referred to as User ownership – The system in practice is owned by strongly
committed users.

55
 3) Competence of employees or user mastery: The system in practice (and the
task purpose it serves) is mastered by its users, who continue to learn and who,
ideally, influence the system’s further evolution.

Walton stressed that deficiency in any of these areas can be harmful. For example,
without alignment, energy generated by system ownership and user mastery can be
misdirected and wasted. Without a feeling of commitment and support by users, the ITs
might not be fully utilised. Without users’ competence, strong commitment and
alignment may see users engage the IT system with enthusiasm and for the right
purpose, but ineffectively.

Success factors have also been identified with regard to specific stages of the extended
IT implementation process (Walton 1989). Wilson’s 1991 research pointed to two main
factors leading to successful implementation of IT/IS strategies:
1) Appropriate choice of systems: For example: a system that meets the business
needs and quickly adjusts to changed business needs or a system that has high
level of acceptability by users. To some extent, this factor refers to the
Alignment factor recommended by Walton (1989).
2) Senior management and Board support for strategies: Emphasis is made on the
need for senior management to extend their interest beyond the stage of
preparing the IT/IS strategies to subsequent stages of the IT implementation
process. Enthusiastic backing from, and the direct involvement of the senior
management is important. The senior managers have a natural inclination
towards using IT and the company is moving towards central business planning
which is fully compatible with the thinking behind the IT/IS strategies.

Thong, Yap & Raman (1997, p. 253) also stated that top management support is a key
factor for effective IT/IS implementation. In addition, he identified the external IT/IS
expertise (in the form of consultants and vendors) as the second most decisive factor for
successful IT implementation in small businesses.

2.3.3 IT implementation assessment

IT/IS researchers have attempted to assess IT/IS effectiveness in various ways. The
measures range from cost-benefit analysis, system usage estimation, user satisfaction,
incremental performance in decision-making effectiveness, information economics,
56
utility analysis, and analytic hierarchy approach, to information attribute examination
(Srinivasan 1985). There seems to be no consensus among researchers on the
measurement of IT/IS effectiveness. Based on an extensive review of literature on IT/IS
effectiveness, DeLone and McLean (1992) concluded that it is unlikely that a single
convergent measure of IT/IS will emerge and they recommended multiple measures to
be used in future studies on IT/IS effectiveness.

According to Raymond (1985), the two dependent variables used as surrogate measures
of IT/IS success were user information satisfaction and level of system utilization. User
satisfaction has been judged by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) to provide the most
useful assessment of IT system effectiveness. The measurement instrument used by
Raymond (1985) for this variable is a 20-item instrument, adapted from the original 39-
item questionnaire developed and validated by Bailey and Pearson (1983). The
instrument uses 7-point semantic differential rating scales. User satisfaction is defined
as a multi-dimensional attitude towards various aspects of IT/IS such as output quality,
people-machine interface, IT staff and services, and various user constructs such as
feelings of participation and understanding. Level of utilisation was measured by two
items on which users rated their perceived frequency and regularity of IT/IS usage on a
7-point scale. In Raymond’s (1985) research, the correlation coefficient between the
two items indicated the unidimensionality of this measure. Both of these measures
related to the IT/IS in its entirety rather than to a specific application, thus enhancing
user comparability across organisations.

Walton’s (1989) 2 major criteria for assessing IT/IS effectiveness

According to Walton (1989), the assessment of IT implementation effectiveness should
be based on two major criteria: Economic results and human effects. Economic or other
commercial results are usually the most direct index of how well an implemented IT
system is realising its potential. Walton argued that human factors should also be an
essential indicator in determining the level of success of an IT implementation. The
results of an effective IT implementation, therefore, have to be twofold (p.4):
1) The economic purposes of the organisation should be well served by the
implemented IT system, for example, by improvements in productivity,
innovation, service, delivery and so forth.
2) The IT system’s effects on the organisation’s members should be positive, for
example, enhanced satisfaction and development.
57
An IT implementation assessment instrument developed based on this approach would
have two main parts with items addressing factors such as productivity, profitability,
service delivery etc listed under the Economic/Business Indicators part, and items
addressing user satisfaction, personal development etc under the Human Benefits
Indicators part.

IT implementation effectiveness measurement (Thong, Yap & Raman 1997)

In a 1997 research on the impacts of IT/IS environment factors on IT implementation

success in small businesses, Thong, Yap and Raman (1997) developed an IT/IS
effectiveness assessment instrument consisting of three main measures of user
satisfaction, organisational impact, and overall IT/IS effectiveness. The instrument is
briefly described in Table 2.3:

Table 2.3 An IT/IS assessment instrument

MEASURES INDICATORS SCALES
User satisfaction 1. Convenience of access Average over 7 items,
2. Currency of reports each 7-point scale.
3. Timeliness of reports Adapted from
4. Reliability of reports Raymond (1987)
5. Relevancy of reports
6. Accuracy of reports
7. Completeness of reports

Organisational impact 1. Pre-tax profit Average over 6 items,

2. Sales revenue each 7-point scale.
3. Staff productivity Adapted from
4. Competitive advantage DeLone (1990)
5. Operating cost
6. Quality of decision making

Overall IT/IS effectiveness 1. Overall IT/IS effectiveness 7-point scale

(overall evaluation of IT/IS
effectiveness – perceptual measure)

Source: Adapted from Thong, JYL; Yap, CS & Raman, KS 1997, 'Environments for
information systems implementation in small businesses', Journal of
organisational computing and electronic commerce, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 260.

ITP Instrument – Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (1994)

IT Profile (ITP) is another IT implementation assessment instrument developed for a

study commissioned by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the
58
National Research Council in 1991 (National Research Council 1994). The ITP looked
at a number of IT implementation areas (subcategories) across the organisation,
including:
1) Evaluation of overall payoff of IT investments
2) Existence and time horizon of an overall IT strategy
3) Decision process for IT investments
4) Types of IT investments
5) Pre-implementation and post-implementation evaluations of each type of IT
investment
6) Structural influence of IT implementation
7) User involvement
8) Performance metrics utilized
9) Primary causes of IT implementation failure
10) Other IT benefits not captured by program measures.
The instrument was used in both semi-structured interview and written survey
questionnaire forms. The results obtained were processed to give an overall assessment
of IT implementation performance and an understanding about both failures and
successes in IT implementation.

2.4 Nexus between organisational culture and IT implementation

2.4.1 Relationship between organisational culture and other aspects of an

organisation
Academics, consultants and managers are increasingly interested in specifying
relationships among abstracted concepts such as culture, leadership, structure, and
strategy etc. so that they can add up in some way to organisational effectiveness
(Smircich 1985). Measures of organisational culture have been found to be related to an
organisation’s ability to adapt to rapidly changing business demands, to remain
competitive, and to sustain high levels of performance. Such models portray
organisational culture as central to the operation and function of the organisation,
providing a shared vision that can serve as an effective guide to appropriate and goal-
directed social and individual behaviours (National Academy of Sciences 2001).
However, a substantial body of work also portrays a less positive view of organisational
culture. In these models, organisational culture is viewed as a barrier to change and
often invoked as a reason for the failure of a change initiative. For example, Kotter

59
(1995) cites the inability to anchor change initiatives in the organisation’s culture as one
of the primary reasons that change efforts are not maintained. Aspects of organisational
culture such as resistance to change, ingrained attitudes, lack of understanding and poor
communication are often mentioned in the discussion of these failures. Culture, from
this vantage point, is seen as a force for organisational constancy and stabilization that
counters efforts to change. According to the Asian Productivity Organisation (APO
1994), corporate culture can influence organisational life in terms of seven basic
processes --- cooperation, decision making, control, communication, commitment,
perceptions and justification --- that lie at the heart of any organisation. Some of the
organisational culture’s manifestations may be apparent, but the underlying beliefs and
values are frequently unstated or not always obvious. Their subtle quality is easily taken
for granted. Corporate culture has its content and strength. While the content of culture
determines its effectiveness as it determines the direction in which culture influences
behaviour, its strength determines its level of influence or efficiency. As a result of the
specific content, an organisation’s culture could be positive or negative, depending upon
whether it is consistent with, and supportive to, the tasks and characteristics of the
organisation in question. A positive culture could help the organisation to (APO, p.
607):
• gain trust from the society
• make clear self identity and establish raison d’etre of the organisation
• strengthen its image
• enhance team spirit and commitment among its members
• provide members with confidence and pride towards their jobs
• guide management in decision making
• tide over difficulties and emergencies
• assimilate new employees into the organisation as members of the family
In all, the performance and chance of success of an organisation could be substantially
improved through the above-mentioned effect of having a positive organisational
culture. The following part will briefly present how organisational culture closely
interacts with and influences various other aspects of an organisation.

OC and leadership
In his book Organisational culture and leadership, Schein (1992, p. 2) claimed that
organisational culture and leadership are ‘two sides of the same coin, and neither can be

60
understood by itself’. In fact, there is a possibility that the ‘only thing of real importance
that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is
their ability to work with culture’. He also suggested that leaders have the most decisive
roles in the formation, evolution, transformation and destruction of an organisation’s
culture. Culture is created in the first instance by the actions of leaders and founders and
through the articulation of their own cultural assumptions; culture also is embedded and
strengthened by leaders. As the organisation and its culture develop, it is the leaders’
role to have an insight into the ways in which culture can aid or hinder the fulfilment of
the organisation’s mission. When culture becomes dysfunctional, leadership is needed
to intervene and make desired changes happen. Often this is done by leaders articulating
and selling new visions and concepts, or, in other words, helping the group unlearn
some of its cultural assumptions and learn new assumptions. Such transformations
require conscious and deliberate destruction of undesirable cultural elements, and it is
this aspect of cultural dynamics that makes leadership important. Schein (1992, p. 317)
went on to suggest we recognise that ‘the unique and essential function of leadership is
the manipulation of culture’.

OC and productivity / performance / effectiveness

For long, productivity increase has been attributed to the combination of such
production factors as people, technology, capital and information; organisational culture
as a determinant of productivity improvement did not receive considerations until the
1980s. In the 1980s, when rapidly changing business environment led firms to
undertake management renovations so as to stay competitive in international markets,
many firms started paying attention to organisational culture as a means of coping with
management renovations. Nowadays, the significance of organisational culture in
performance improvement has been duly recognised (Yanagi 1994). In fact, there have
been a substantial number of researches focusing on the concept of culture and many of
these works claim that organisational culture makes a major difference to organisational
effectiveness (Ouchi 1981; Pascale & Athos 1981; Peters & Waterman 1982; Deal &
Kennedy 1982; Wilkins & Ouchi 1983; Tichy 1983; Kilmann 1984; Sathe 1985;
Webster & Sundaram 1999; Fisher & Alford 2000). Conceptually, organisational
culture should have a significant impact on the long-term performance of an
organisation. In the short-term, it may be difficult to assess the performance impact of
organisational culture. However, an organisation may record spectacular success in the

61
short run, but may eventually fail if it does not build a strong, positive culture as a
support to sustain it success (Rahman 1994).

Regardless of the size, industry, type or age of the organisation, organisational culture
affects many aspects of organisational performance (Fisher & Alford 2000), including
financial performance, innovation, customer and employee satisfaction. Several studies
have shown the link between a company’s culture and its financial performance (Barney
1986; Fisher & Alford 2000; Rotemberg & Saloner 1993). Sustained superior financial
performance is associated with cultural qualities that foster innovation and flexibility
(Barney 1986). Other studies have described a dynamic connection between CEO
performance, management team behaviour, and organisational culture that relates to
financial performance as well as customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction,
innovation and adaptability. ‘Organisational culture is correlated with financial
performance. Financially successful companies are rated higher in training and
development, recognising performance, customer satisfaction, downward
communications, openness to change, job satisfaction, job design, performance
facilitation, planning and work group performance’ (Corporate Board 1997, p. 29).
Another important article addressing the linkage between organisational culture and
performance was published by Deshpande’, Farley and Webster (1993). Concentrating
on Japanese firms, these authors found that higher levels of business performance were
most closely associated with a Market culture (symbolised by the Tiger – the culture
that emphasises the values of competitive aggressiveness and outcome orientation) and
an Adhocracy culture (symbolised by the Rabbit – the culture that emphasises the
values of flexibility and innovation). In a subsequent study of various developed
markets, Deshpande’ and his colleagues also came up with an important discovery that
‘the most successful companies all shared the competitive, achievement-oriented culture
symbolised by the Tiger’ (Deshpande’ in Jacobs 2002).

Another approach to studying the impacts of organisational culture is to investigate the

ways in which organisational culture ‘fit’ together with another aspect of the
organisation to provide optimal organisational performance. One of such researches was
conducted by Baker and Hawes (1995), in which the authors searched for an optimal fit
between an organisation’s culture and its marketing strategy with regard to
organisational performance. The findings suggested that highest firm performance will

62
occur when firms fit a relatively high level of marketing strategy use with a
‘clan/adhocracy’ culture.

OC and strategy
An organisation’s culture can have decisive effects on the feasibility of its overall as
well as functional and departmental strategies. Many companies have found that they
can devise new strategies that make sense from a financial, product, or marketing point
of view, yet they cannot implement those strategies because they require assumptions,
values and ways of working that are too far out of line with the organisation’s prior
assumptions (Schein 1989). One vivid example given by Schein (1989) was an “M”
company that built its business by developing – through an intensive effort in its
research labs – ‘important’ products that were ‘useful to society’. Naturally, R&D,
expertise, specialist knowledge are highly regarded. When the company began
competing in a more diversified market, where product utility was not nearly as
important as product marketability, some managers argued for a more pragmatic
marketing strategy. Those managers wanted to decrease the research and development
budget, increase marketing expenditures, and teach their colleagues how to think like
marketers. But they were unable to convince key leaders, and therefore parts of the
company were left in a financially vulnerable position. Clearly, the traditions, values,
self-concepts, and assumptions about the nature of the business made some aspects of
the new strategy ‘unthinkable’ or unacceptable to these key leaders (Schein 1989, pp.
30-31).

OC and innovation
It has been stated in organisational studies that organisational culture is important as a
vehicle for implementing organisational change (Yeung, Brockbank & Ulrich 1991).
Although not all organisational change involves innovation, King (1990) asserted that
all organisational innovation involves change which ultimately is supported or hindered
by organisational culture. Various studies have acknowledged the existence of a
relationship between organisational culture and organisational innovation (Cherian &
Deshpande’ 1985; Kotter & Heskett 1992; Detert, Schoreder & Mauriel 2000;
Zammuto, Gifford & Goodman 2000). Another research by Obenchain, Johnson &
Dion (2002, p. 26) also affirmed that organisational culture type is correlated with
organisational innovation. The study suggests that culture types of adhocracy, market
and ‘balanced’ (i.e. no-dominant) are associated with innovation implementation. In
63
particular, the dominant culture type of adhocracy is affiliated with higher total
organisational innovation, higher technical innovation and higher administrative
innovation more than the culture designations of market, ‘no-dominant’, clan and
hierarchy.

OC and quality management

A supportive organisational culture is often cited as a key component of successful
quality improvement initiatives (Boan & Funderburk 2003). However, there is also
substantial evidence that organisational culture can account for a significant portion of
the variability in quality improvement efforts. Some authors (Weick & Sutcliffe 2001;
Chenoweth & Kilstoff 2002) assert that quality improvement generally has had modest
success because of the failure to address organisational culture. Macleod & Baxter
(2001) note the difficulty in implementing successful total quality management (TQM)
initiatives; four of five initiatives fail – despite the consensus that such efforts are
essential to long-term organisational success. It has been suggested that one of the
contributing factors to this outcome involves the stabilizing role of organisational
culture which implies that culture acts as a counter to efforts to change, even when the
change is constructive. In some other researches (Fairbairn 1997; Kekale 1999),
attempts were made to identify which TQM approach or program is best suited to a
particular type of organisational culture. Kekale (1999) suggested a theory of
“match/mismatch’ between the organisational culture types and the types of quality
tools to be used when a match means implementing the tools require no or little change
in organisational culture and mismatch means culture-based resistance is likely, or
special cultural change programs are probably needed. Kekale’s match/mismatch
working theory is presented in Figure 2.7:

64
 Figure 2.6 Organisational culture & TQM tools match/mismatch working theory

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE TYPES TYPES OF QUALITY TOOLS

TYPE A
TYPE 1 Those which emphasise production control
“Rules orientation” type of aspects such as systematic measurement and
organisation control of work, standardised quality systems,
and statistical control methods

TYPE B
TYPE 2 Those which include a scientific approach to
“Relationships orientation” type one’s own job, teamwork methods. Methods
of organisation designed to assess quality in an organisation-
wide, rather than task-specific meaning

TYPE C
TYPE 3 Those which emphasise “soft” quality
“Innovative leadership” type of characteristics, such as open management styles,
organisation delegated customer responsibility and staff
autonomy; “customer delight” and self-
assessment tools

Cultural match

Cultural mismatch

Source: Adapted from Kekale, T 1999, 'The effects of organisational culture on successes
and failures in implementation of some total quality management approaches',
Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review, Issue 1, Autumn, ISSN
1468-4578.

OC and human resources management (HRM)

Interest with organisational culture has also evolved with HRM. The developments
show the refocusing on people i.e. human resource as a means of sustaining competitive
advantage. There has been a strong association between HRM and organisational
culture with many HR specialists suggesting culture is in the domain of the HR
manager. Textbooks and journals have suggested HRM to be sensitive to the beliefs,
principles, ethics of the organisational culture of their organisations and go even further
to advise that organisational culture should be managed through HR policies, practices
and systems (Alu 2003). It is logical to assume organisational culture is inevitably
entwined with HRM. In other words, organisational culture is inextricably linked to the
concerns of human resource management. Alu (2003) suggested that one of the major
roles of the centralised HR department is the development and management of
organisational culture. This would therefore imply that there is a wider range of

65
activities in HRM than in the traditional list of HRM activities and services, which
include planning the organisation’s human resource needs as well as meeting those
needs through recruitment and selection. This includes the planning and forecasting the
organisation’s short and long-term human resource requirements. This is emphasised by
generating a pool of people who fit in with the culture of the organisation. The priority
here is to be able to select people with the core competencies i.e. the relevant skills and
experience required to carry out the job, and who are compatible culturally with the
organisation. In a sense, recruitment and selection, if used properly, can be a good tool
to manage the culture of an organisation by getting the organisation employees with the
required personality attributes and skills.

Appraisal and compensation, which is another key function of HRM, could also be used
for management of organisational culture. Appraisal is a formal structured system of
measuring, evaluating and influencing employees in the conduct of their work. These
appraisal systems possess components, which can be used in a variety of ways to reflect
various cultural orientations as well as to promote the development of certain cultural
characteristics. The nature of an appraisal system’s impact depends on the nature of the
organisational culture. An organisation that desires a culture where achievement is
paramount would most likely favour a system based on results – a system used by many
organisations. This can be manifested in what is actually being appraised (e.g.
behaviours or results) and the methods of appraisal used (e.g. objective or subjective
methods). The objective methods measure outputs of workers while the subjective
evaluate their performance.

The reward system exhibits another way of influencing organisational culture. An

organisation’s reward system can be viewed as a statement of its values, beliefs and
assumptions. It plays a similar function to organisational culture in that it also specifies
rules for what employees should or should not do to receive rewards (in other words, to
be accepted, approved and appreciated) in the organisation.

The HR department handles the induction and training processes in an organisation.

Organisational culture is perpetuated through a variety of interactive mechanisms
during the early stages of employment, due to their susceptibility to new suggestions
and ideas for ways of behaving and solving problems. Facts could be made more
memorable if incorporated into a series of narratives, which are easy to identify with.
66
Some forms of training such as role-play, where employees are shown the required
course of actions expected and the values the organisation places on it, can help
strengthen the organisational culture. It is, therefore, suggested that training and
development are paramount to HRM to support and uphold the organisation’s
philosophies and values, which are obviously an important part of its culture.

OC and technology / IT
It is a common statement that we are now living in an era of rapid technology
development. The adoption and implementation of new technologies, in many cases, is
imperative not only to improve productivity, efficiency or to cater to new demand and
requirements but also to ensure the survival of the business itself. ‘The introduction of
any new technology into an occupation, organisation, or society can be seen as a
cultural change problem’ (Schein 1989, p. 36). ‘Occupations typically build their
practices, values and basic self-image around their underlying technology. Similarly, an
organisation that is successful because of its mastery of a given technology develops its
self-image around that technology. If the technology changes in a substantial fashion,
the organisation or occupation not only must learn new practices but must redefine itself
in more substantial ways that involve deep cultural assumptions’. If a broad and simple
definition of organisational culture, as mentioned earlier, is “the way we do things
around here” then the introduction of a new technology into an organisation can
radically change the way things are done in the organisation. The success or failure of
integrating a new technology in an organisation is, to a large degree, dependent on its
ability to adjust or change its culture. The creation and/or existence of a certain cultural
environment may be essential to ensure the successful implementation of a new
technology. The new technology, once has been put in use in an organisation, in turn,
will dictate further changes in the organisation’s culture. Many current examples can be
found in relation to the areas of automation and information technology. As stated by
Schein (1989), one of the strongest elements of an organisational culture is the status
system that arises out of the traditional technology, a system often based on the
possession of key information or critical skills. With the introduction of sophisticated
computerised information systems and automation, it becomes painfully obvious that in
many crucial areas the subordinates know more than the boss, or that groups who
previously had no power now have a great deal. People who are in power, with an
anticipation of such changes, realise that the best way to avoid the loss of their own
power is to resist the new technology altogether. Even if an arrangement of new power
67
redistribution is so convincing that some employees and managers can go along with the
change, a second source of cultural resistance would be the uncertainty and anxiety
associated with the transition itself. The period of transition very likely would involve
some time when the very criteria of power and status would be so ambiguous that all
people involved in the transition would be made uncomfortable, even the ones who
would in the end benefit. If the new technology is to succeed, those advocating it must
recognise from the outset that the resistance to it is not to the technology per se but to
the cultural change implications of its introduction. Information technology is usually
brought in with the argument that the organisation will become more efficient and/or be
able to handle more complex tasks, and little attention is paid to the implications for
power realignments. And even when such power issues are dealt with, too little
attention is given to still another cultural factor – namely, that the new technology
brings with it its own ‘occupational culture’. Only when change is under way do
managers realise that with the new technology comes a whole new set of assumptions,
values, and behaviour patterns developed in the organisation. Roughly said,
organisations can be assumed either to strive to use new technology according to values
built in technology and change the culture, or try to preserve the culture and use the
technology as far as it is possible without changing the values, rules or norms of the
organisation (Wastell et al. 1994). In reality, probably both are happening. However, it
argued (Juustila 1995) that for new technologies to be successfully implemented, an
organisation’s culture has to adjust to the new technology to some extent, even though
the prevailing culture is sustained as far as possible. Cultural change is – in the context
of using new technology in organisations – transforming the object of work, language
and forms of action, in addition with new values and ideologies (especially in radical
changes that affect the organisation as a whole). Information technology (IT) transforms
the organisational structure, communication, information network, business and
political activities directly in some ways, and indirectly through the technology process.
These transformations contribute to the changes in the power structures of the
organisation which are culturally formed (Harrington 1991; Kuuti 1991). In many cases,
organisational groups and individuals use technology as an instrument of power either
directly by controlling the development and use of technology, or indirectly by
controlling knowledge and information in organisations, by creating and moulding
systems of meanings from their perspectives and goals. In this sense, IT acts as a
mediator, sort of a mirror through which systems of meanings are created (Scarbrough
& Corbett 1992; Winter & Chuboda 1995).
68
2.4.2 Nexus between organizational culture and IT implementation
More of the recent literature in the area of IT implementation discusses the impact of
organisational culture, which was almost absent from most of the early literature. One
of the widely held ideas with regard to organisational culture is that changes which are
most significant in an organisation will breed resistance and ultimately fail if they are
not accompanied by cultural changes (Schein 1992). Schein’s (1992) analysis of this
relationship suggests that groups in organisations typically build their culture around
their underlying technologies. Any adjustment to power (e.g., perceptions of power,
work habits or status), which may accompany IT implementation, may violate the
shared meanings and values of the organisation and thus, bringing about cultural-based
resistance. In support to this argument, Cooper (1994) refers to the relationship between
organisational culture and IT implementation as “The inertial impact of culture on IT
implementation”. According to Cooper (1994), the differences inherent in organisation
cultures can lead to resistance of IT implementation which can in turn increase the
likelihood of failed implementation. In essence, different cultures require different kinds
of information and technologies since they process information differently and they play
an important role in user satisfaction of ITs (Thompson & Wildavsky 1986; Tricker
1988; Kendall, Buffington & Kendall 1987). It should be stated that organisational
culture does not always have a negative impact on the implementation of IT. In fact, it
has been pointed out in several researches that different cultural attributes and different
organisational culture types affect IT implementation in very different ways. Some
cultural characteristics and cultural environments actually promote the chances of IT
implementation success, while some others might undermine the efforts made during
the process (Dasgupta et al. 1999; Hill et al. 1998; Harper & Utley 2001).

From a broader perspective, the relationship between organisational culture and IT

implementation may be better understood by examining the interactions between an
organisation and IT implementation in general. According to Walton (1989, pp. 29-31),
there are at least seven different ways in which IT and the organisation interact. An
analysis of these interactions explains why IT can not be implemented without
considering organisational change issues. First, for the new IT system to be effective,
new organisation policies or designs, such as a different distribution of authority, new
training programs, broader and more flexible jobs or different selection criteria, may be
required. Second, the introduction of an IT system may elicit unanticipated
69
organisational dynamics, such as new contests for power, altered patterns of
communication, or more pervasive monitoring of behaviour. Third, in many cases, IT
itself may be further elaborated and revised by end users to better suit their personal
preferences. Fourth, IT may create or promote new organisational solutions. In many
ways, IT can change organisational practices and the ways businesses operate.
Advanced ITs enable organisational members to work together across space and time,
promoting the concepts of mobile offices and home-based professionals. In a way these
changes might make the concept of a centralised or decentralised structure more relative
since with the help of IT (especially advanced IT) an organisation might be able to
enjoy the flexibility and responsiveness characteristics of a decentralised organisation
while achieving the integration and control of a centralised organisation. Fifth, IT can
accelerate and refine organisational adaptation to changing conditions by early detection
of possible problems, often achieved with the help of quick, consistent and
comprehensive information. Sixth, IT systems and organisational forms can sometimes
be considered as alternatives since each is capable of performing similar functions
(often with regard to communication and coordination). Lastly, the introduction of a
new IT system can create opportunities for introducing organisational changes that
management might view as desirable independently of the requirements or potential
effects of the system. For example, management might set higher standards of
excellence, promote a more open communication style or a more organisation-wide
versus a territorial view following the implementation of a new IT system. It can be
seen quite apparently from the above analysis that in most of these seven ways of
interactions between the organisation and IT, references can be made to aspects of
organisational culture to some extent. Therefore, organisational culture should be
viewed as a very important factor affecting the implementation of IT in an organisation.
In other words, as concluded by Walton (1989, p. 31), the IT implementation process
should be ‘guided by organisational values’.

Although increasing attention has been given to organisational culture in recent IT

implementation literature, empirical research specifically addressing the relationship
between organisational culture and IT implementation is still sparse. Some studies
merely aim to identify the social/cultural factors affecting IT implementation without
attempting to establish a model of how the relationship between these two
organisational variables work. In an extensive study by Hill et al. (1998), the following

70
factors have been viewed as having an impact on IT adoption and implementation in the
sociocultural context of the Arab world:
• Social class / status in organisation
• Educational level
• Leadership in organisation
• Personal relations in work group and between levels of organisation
• Allegiance to family and kin group
• Communal world view
• Religion
• Valuing the past
• Face-to-face interactions
Sociocultural factors considered to be impediments for IT implementation has been
identified as (Hill et al. 1998):
• Loyalty to work group and/or national traditions
• Attitudes towards outside influences
• Fear of change
• Fear of loss of identity
• Fear of being controlled
• Conflict with personal values (e.g. religious)
• Lack of worker motivation
• Lack of education
• Isolation of IT departments
The following social and cultural factors are viewed as impetus for IT implementation
(Hill et al. 1998):
• Younger generations
• Top level managers as role models for workers
• Link to world system
• Increased knowledge base
Interestingly, the research results also indicated that “Teach children” and Western
education are viewed by some as impetus for successful IT implementation.

In another research by Dasgupta et al. (1999), existing Western models are tested and
extended to organisations in a developing country. The findings of the research support

71
a model stating that IT adoption and level of IT implementation will be higher in
organisations that have ‘high performance-oriented’ cultures (as compared to
organisations that have ‘high stability-oriented’ cultures). In the study, the authors
classified organisational culture into two main types:
• Performance–oriented culture which is represented by five variables of people
orientation, team orientation, detail orientation, innovativeness and outcome
orientation.
• Stability-oriented culture which is represented by variables such as
easygoingness (or lack of aggressiveness on growth and rewards) and stability
(or lack of predisposition towards change).
The researchers found a correlation between performance-oriented culture variables and
the level of IT implementation in the organisation and went on to state that
organisations with cultures that have high performance-oriented cultural values have a
high level of IT implementation. However, no significant relationship was found
between stability-oriented cultural values and the level of IT implementation. Since the
implementation of IT brings change to an organisation and since an organisational
culture that displays high stability-oriented values would naturally resist change, it is
logical to expect that stability-oriented cultural values are negatively related to IT
implementation, but such a relationship did not find support in the research. The authors
of the study argue that probably, even stability-oriented cultures need to implement a
certain amount of IT to survive and be competitive in the current environment.
However, one of the final conclusions of the research confirms that organisational
culture is an important determinant of IT implementation in organisations and managers
should appreciate and carefully consider the role of organisational culture in adopting
and implementing ITs.

Another model of relationship between organisational culture and IT implementation

was proposed by Harper & Utley (2001) who conducted a three-year study to
investigate whether an organisation’s cultural climate and its balance of concern for
production issues vs. people issues play a role in IT implementation success. Data from
this study suggest a correlation between specific cultural attributes and the successful
implementation of information technology systems. More specifically, the authors
found that people-oriented rather than production-oriented cultural attributes exerted the
most significant influence. In the research, organisational cultures were assessed along
two parameters: (1) Degree to which an organisation’s culture exhibits concern for
72
people attributes (i.e., fairness, trust, enthusiasm for the job, collaboration with others)
and (2) Degree of cultural concern for production attributes such as precision,
compliance, risk- taking, competition etc. An analysis of the results identified 5 types of
cultural styles (see also 2.2.2 B):
• Cultural style 1: High level of concern for both people and production issues
• Cultural style 2: High level of concern for people issues but low level of concern
for production issues
• Cultural style 3: Low level of concern for people issues but high level of
concern for production issues
• Cultural style 4: A compromise cultural style described by the balance of
average concern for both people and production issues.
• Cultural style 5: Little concern for people or production

IT implementation in organisations participating in the study was assessed and an

average IT implementation success score was assigned to each organisation. The
analyses were then conducted to determine what attributes in the culture and how
different cultural styles affect IT implementation success. The researchers found that
while an organisation’s people-oriented cultural values were linearly related to the
successful implementation of IT, an organisation’s production-oriented cultural values
were not. The analyses also revealed that organisations with cultural style 1 were the
most successful in implementing IT systems. In trying to determine if a particular
cultural orientation was more successful in implementing IT, an observation was noted
by the researchers. As the people-oriented component dropped, so did the IT success
scores. The overall IT success score for organisations with cultural style 2 was higher
than that of organisations with cultural style 3 although the former’s production-
oriented component was much lower. In fact, IT success scores for organisations with
cultural style 2 were second only to those of organisations having cultural style 1. In
order to determine which specific cultural attributes contributed to the most successful
IT implementation, correlation coefficients were computed for each of the cultural
attributes and the success scores for IT implementation. The analysis revealed the
following cultural attributes (in descending order) that had a significant positive
correlation with the successful IT implementation: autonomy, trust, team-oriented work,
flexibility and sharing information freely. Likewise, the following cultural attributes (in
descending order) were shown to have a significant negative correlation with IT
implementation success: rule-orientation, compliance, carefulness, preciseness, and
73
predictability. The analysis further supported the earlier findings which asserted that
people-oriented cultural attributes dominated the successful implementation of IT.
Based on these results the researchers suggested that in essence, an organisation’s
culture should be ideally balanced with both people and productivity components.
However, the organisation culture must adequately address appropriate human elements
to successfully implement IT systems. One should identify the attributes of the existing
culture and then begin the process to lessen or remove those cultural attributes that
prevent or slow successful implementation of IT, while establishing organisational
cultural attributes that support successful IT implementation (Harper & Utley 2001, pp.
11-15).

2.5 Conclusions
Good scholarship requires that the conceptual framework of any research should ideally
be underpinned by relevant theory and work already done in that area of research.
Hence, for purposes of the present research, existing literature and past researches were
perused with the intent of culling information on different aspects of organisational
culture and IT implementation in an organisation. It also necessitated exploring tools
used by other researchers to assess organisational culture and level of IT
implementation success. All this was to be looked at in the context of other works that
studied the relationship between organisational culture and other aspects of an
organisation in general and IT implementation in particular. Information from this
chapter was used to develop the research methodology in Chapter 5, explain the
findings in Chapter 6 and inform the recommendations in Chapter 7.

74