Rethinking political process in technological change: Socio-technical configurations and frames

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 17-37

  McLoughlin, Ian ^a   Badham, Richard ^b   Couchman, Paul ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL POLICY; MANUFACTURING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

AUSTRALIA;

EID: 0034035145     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095373200107210     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. C. Baldry, Computers Jobs and Skills: the Industrial Relations of Technological Change (London, Plenum Press, 1988).
2. D. A. Buchanan & D. Boddy, Organisations in the ComputerAge: Technological Imperatives and Strategic Choice (Aldershot, Gou-cr, 1983)
3. B. Burncs, New Technology in Context: The Selection, Installation and use of Numerically Controlled Machine Tools (Avcbury, Gower, 1989)
4. J. Clark, Managing Innovation and Change: People, Technology and Strategy (London, Sage, 1995)
5. J. Clark, I. P. McLoughlin, H. Rose &J. King, The Process of Technological Change: new Technology and Social Choice in the Workplace (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988)
6. P. Dawson, Organizational Change: A Processual Perspective (London, Paul Chapman, 1994)
7. S. Hill, M. Harris & R. Martin, 'Flexible Technologies, Markets and the Firm: Strategic Choice and FMS', in: I. P. McLoughlin & M. Harris (Eds), Innovation, Organizational Change and Technology (London, ITB Press, 1997), pp. 61-86
8. I. P. McLoughlin & J. Clark, Technological Change at Hark, 2nd edn (Buckingham, Open University Press, 1994)
9. A. M. Pcttigrew, The Politics of Organizational Decision-making (London, Tavistock, 1973)
10. A.M. Pettigrcu' 'Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm', Journal of Management Studies, 24, 6, 1987, pp. 649-70
11. D. Preece, Organisations and Technical Change (London, ITB Press, 1995)
12. R. J. Thomas, ll'hal Machines Can't Do: Politics and Technology in the Industrial Enterprise (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1994).
13. G. Walsham, Interpreting Information Systems (Chichestcr, Wilcy, 1993)
14. L. Willcocks & D. Mason, Computerising l\'ork: People, Systems Design and Workplace Relations (London, Paradigm, 1987)
15. L. Willcocks, W. Currie and D. Mason, Information Systems at ll'ork: People, Politics and Technology (London, McGraw Hill, 1996);
16. B. Wilkinson, The Shop Floor Politics of new Technology (London, Hcincmann, 1983).
17. I. P. McLoughlin, Creative Technological Change: The Shaping of Technology and Organisation (London, Routlcdge, 1999);
18. G. Morgan, Images of Organization, 2nd edn (London, Sage, 1997);
19. Walsham, op. cit., Réf. 1.
20. Thomas, op. cit., Ref. l, p. 10
21. R. Badham, 'Managing Socio-technical Change: A Configuration Approach to Technology Implementation', in: J. Benders, J. de Haan & D. Bcnnett (Eds), The Symbiosis of Work and Technology (London, Taylor & Francis, 1995), pp. 77-94
22. R. Badham, P. Couchman & I. McLoughlin, 'Implementing Vulnerable Socio-technical Change Projects', in: I. McLoughlin & M Harris (Eds), Innovation, Organizational Change and Technology (London, ITB Press, 1997) pp. 146-169.
23. W. J. Orlikowski, 'The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technolog)- in Organisations', Organizational Science, 3, 3, 1992, pp. 398-427
24. W.J. Orlikowski & D. J. Gash, 'Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organisations', ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 2, 1994, pp. 174-207.
25. Morgan, op. cit., Réf. 2, p. 160.
26. J. Pfeffer, Managing with Power (Harvard, Harvard Business School Press, 1992), p. 8.
27. Dawson, op. cit., Rcf. 1.
28. See e.g. Wilkinson, op. cit., Réf. 1;
29. Buchanan & Boddy, op. cit., Réf. 1;
30. Clark et al., op. cit., Réf. 1;
31. Thomas, op. cit., Rcf. 1;
32. A. Huczynski & D.A. Buchanan, Organizational Behaviour, 2nd cdn (Ixmdon, Prentice Hall, 1991).
33. Sec e.g. Clark et al., op. cit., Réf. 1.
34. Sec e.g. K. Grim & S. \\bolgar, The Machine al ll'ork (Oxford, Polity Press, 1997).
35. I. P. McLoughlin & P. Dawson, 'Technology and Organisation: Twenty Years of Schooling-Still on the Day Shift?', unpublished paper, 1999.
36. D. A. Buchanan, 'Theories of Change', Loughborough University Business School Research Series, Paper No. 5, March 1994.
37. Dawson, op. cit., Rcf. 1, pp. 172-180.
38. D. A. Buchanan & J. Storey, 'Role Taking and Role Switching in Organizational Change: The Four Pluralities', in: I. McLoughlin & M. Harris (Eds), Innovation, Organizational Change and Technolog)' (London, ITB Press, 1997), pp. 127-145.
39. Walsham, op. cit., Rcf. 1.
40. H. Salzman, 'Beyond User Participation: The Politics of Software Development', in: W. Kanvowski & R. Gonnctilleke (Eds), Manufacturing Agility and Hybrid Automation-//(Santa Monica, ÇA, IEA Press, 1988), pp. 243-247.
41. W. Bijker, Of Bi/ycles, Bakelites and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Socio-technical Change (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1995).
42. Grint & Woolgar, op. cit., Ref. 11;
43. sec also D. Knights & F. Murray, Managers Divided Organizational Politics and Information Technology Management (Chichcstcr, Wiley, 1994).
44. D. A. Buchanan & D. Boddy, The Expertise of the Change Agent: Public Performance and Back Stage Ac ihily (Kernel Hempstead, Prentice-Hall, 1992).
45. D. A. Buchanan & R. Badham, Power, Politics and Organizational Change: \\'inning the Turf Game (London, Sage, 1999).
46. W. J. Orlikowski & D. J. Hofman, 'An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupwarc Technologies,' Sloan Management Review, Winter 1997, pp. 11-21.
47. Ibid., p. 13.
48. Badham el al., op. cit., Réf. 1.
49. Buchanan & Boddy, op. cit., Réf. 21.
50. Buchanan & Badham, op. cit., Réf. 21.
51. Badham, op. cit., Ref. 4;
52. Badham et al., op. cit., Rcf. 1;
53. also J. Fleck, 'Configurations: Crystallising Contingency', International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3, 1, 1993, pp. 15-36;
54. R. Badham, 'Systems, Networks and Configurations: Inside the Implementation Process. Editorial for special issue of International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3, 1, 1993, pp. 3-13.
55. Badham, 1993, ibid.
56. Bijker, op. cit., Réf. 18.
57. See T. J. Pinch & W. E. Bijker, 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts', in: W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge MA, MIT Press, 1987), pp. 17-50.
58. See Orlikowski & Gash, op. cit., Réf. 5.
59. Ibid
60. Ibid.
61. R. Williams & S. Russell, 'Opening the Black Box and Closing it Behind You. On the Microsociology in the Social Analysis of Technology', Working Paper No. 3, Edinburgh, PICT, Edinburgh University, 1987.
62. Orlikowski & Gash, op. cit., Réf. 5.
63. J. Mathews, Catching the llaie: Workplace Reform in Australia (Sydney, Alien and Unwin, 1994).
64. The principal output here was a series of five booklets aimed at guiding change agents through the process of adopting TBCM.
65. See Mathews, op. cit., Réf. 36, for an excellent discussion of the prevailing manufacturing culture and of the basic tenets of alternative production paradigms when applied in this context.
66. Sec K. Hancock & D. Rawson, 'The Metamorphosis of Australian Industrial Relations', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 4, 1993, pp. 489-511.
67. I. P. McLoughlin, R. Badham & P. Couchman, Case Studies in the Introduction of Team-based Cellular Manufacturing in Australia (Wollongong, Wollongong University Press, 1997).
68. Clearly there are several significant methodological issues highlighted by this approach which we cannot do justice to here. These issues include, for example, the 'independence' of the account rendered and the ethics of engaging in interventions of this kind (on this see I. P. McLoughlin, R. Badham and P. Couchman, 'Empowerment and Teams: Ethics and the implementation of socio-technical systems in: J. J. Quinn and P. W. F. Davies, Ethics and Empowerment (London, Macmillan Business, 1999).
69. Suffice it to say that a key element of the action research design was to invite an independent academic with relevant expertise to conduct a retrospective summativc study and ealuation. This was done precisely in order that some critical distance could be sought between the action researcher/company collaborators own accounts and the possible interest of presenting their achievements only in their 'best light'. Indeed, although we cannot explore them here, there were significant differences within the SMART team revealed by this approach-in particular, between the views of the social science academics, academic engineers, and consultant researchers-in their retrospective accounts of aspects of the sub-projects and the outcomes of the action research as a whole.
70. For those who saw the Manufacturing Manager as the villain of the piece his refusal to grant funding to create a suitable room in the press shop to use for the training courses was seen as indicative At one point conversion of a locker room in the ladies rest room in the Press Shop appeared a possibility but this was also vetoed. In the end a far from suitable alternative room in the shop had to be used, or operators taken to another part of the factor)'. However, others saw the 'blockage' as being at more senior levels in the organization. In this view the new Manufacturing Manager had not been well briefed on the project and his ability to support it was limited by budgetary constraints imposed on him from above.
71. A situation which still prevailed at the time of the summative study when lengthy telephone negotiations were necessary for McLoughlin to gain access to the plant and speak to relevant personnel, an enterprise which was additionally limited by the visit coinciding with a major industrial dispute in the sector.
72. E. Mumford, Computer Systems in Work Design: the ETHICS method (London, Associated Business Press, 1979).
73. In one exemplary event production engineers decided that the cells would have to share the use of a post-production dcgreasing machine. This meant component products would have to queue for the machine before being passed onto assembly. The effect would be to impose a technical constraint on the autonomous operation of the cells since each would have to plan its production in relation to the output of other cells in order to avoid bottlenecks occurring at the dcgreasing machine. This clearly violated the socio-tcchnical design criteria that aimed to maximize team autonomy. In the face of this criticism production engineers at first argued that technical and financial constraints meant 'there was no option'. They then investigated the possibility of alternative de-greasing technology which would allow this task to be accomplished independently within each cell, only to come to a conclusion a month later that this was 'technically' not possible cither.
74. Bijker, op. cit., Réf. 18.
75. J. Bessant, 'Management and Manufacturing Innovation: The Case of Information Technolog)'', in: G. Winch (Ed.), Information Technology in Manufacturing Processes (London, Rossendale, 1983).
76. L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, Re-framing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (San Francisco, Josey-Bass, 1991) cited by Orlikowski & Gash, op. cit., Réf. 5.
77. Salzman, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 247.