Success Factors in New Technology Implementation

 Pat Holahan

Kai WangHowe School of technology Management

Stevens Institute of Technology

HSATM RoundtableApril 24, 2012

Hosted by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield

 

 

Introducti on – An Unpleasant Truth

• Technological change initiatives continue to experience a failure rate approaching 70%...

(Standish 2009, IBM 2008, Raps 2004, Beer 2003, HBR 2000)

• Research has shown that the top 10 reasons why technology projects fail have nothing to do with the technology itself; it has to do with the people and implementation processes.

• “Good idea…failed implementation”

Introducti on-What We Know

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

(Davis, 1989)

Perceived Usefulness(PU)

Perceived Ease of Use(PEOU)

Attitude Toward

Technology Usage

Intention to Use

Technology

Behavior Technology Use

Construct Defi niti ons

Perceived usefulness – extent to which the technology is perceived to be better than prior practice (e.g. 4S iPhone).

Perceived ease of use – extent to which the technology is perceived as easy to master and use.

• TAM explains about 40% of the variance on individuals’ intention to use/use of a new technology (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)

• TAM explains voluntary adoption best, i.e., when the individual is autonomous in deciding to adopt/use a new technology.

• Researchers most often measure intention to use vs. actual use.

• When use is measured, most often “duration or frequency of use” is measured.

Introducti on-So What ’s Not To L ike?

How is technology typically introduced in the workplace?

What are the limitations of the TAM model given the above?

Introducti on-So What ’s Not To L ike?

Technology Acceptance in Organizati ons

• Two stages• 1st Stage - Adoption by organization• 2nd Stage – Adoption/Actual usage by

targeted users

• Contingent authority adoption decision (CAAD). • Under CAAD users may not see the

technology as useful or easy to use.

• TAM is not sufficient• Developed for voluntary adoption• Limited practical advice for managers

• Managers are concerned with both quality and consistency of use.

Introducti on – Our Research Goals

• Develop and test a generic and parsimonious technology acceptance model that focuses on determinants of perceived usefulness and ease and which relate to actions managers/technology developers can take to increase technology acceptance in the workplace.

• Operationalize technology acceptance as both consistency and quality of technology use.

• Understand how determinants of technology acceptance differentially relate to consistency and quality of use.

Example photo layout

TAM3

• Determinants for perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)

• Many determinants individual difference factors

• Many determinants specific to computer technology

( Ve n k a t e s h , B a l a , 2 0 0 8 ) 9

Example photo layout

Compatibility w/ User’s Workplace

Values

Individual Attributes

Implementation climate

Organizational Attributes

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Consistency of use

Quality of use

Technology Acceptance

Task-Technology AttributesCompatibility w/

Existing Work Processes

H1

H2

H4

H3

Research Model - Hypotheses 1-4

H2, H3

*All predicted relationships are positive

H4

Construct Definitions

Compatibility w/ User’s Workplace Values – extent to which the user perceives that technology use will foster the fulfillment of important workplace values.

Implementation Climate – extent to which the user perceives technology use is:

-- expected, -- supported,-- rewarded.

Construct Definitions

Compatibility w/ Existing Work Processes – extent to which the technology is perceived as consistent with current workflow processes or practices.

Or, extent to which current work processes will remain unchanged.

Example photo layout

Compatibility w/ User’s Workplace

Values

Individual Attributes

Implementation climate

Organizational Attributes

PerceivedUsefulness

PerceivedEase of Use

Consistency of use

Quality of use

Technology Acceptance

Task-Technology AttributesCompatibility w/

Existing Work Processes

H1

H2

H4

H3

Research Model - Hypotheses 1-4

H2, H3

*All predicted relationships are positive

H4

Hypotheses

H1: Perceived usefulness will fully mediate the effect of values compatibility on technology acceptance.

– Values compatibility is a determinant of technology adoption (Karahanna et al., 2006; Rogers, 2005)

– Values compatibility is positively related to perceived usefulness (Karahanna et al., 2006)– Effect of values on technology acceptance has been shown to be mediated by perceived

usefulness (Akour et al., 2006)

H2: Perceived usefulness will partially mediate the effect of implementation climate on technology acceptance.

– When technology use is seen as expected, supported and rewarded targeted users perceptions of its usefulness should be enhanced.

– Climate has a direct effect on implementation effectiveness (Klein et al., 2001; Holahan et al., 2004)

14

Hypotheses

H3: Perceived ease of use will partially mediate the effect of implementation climate on technology acceptance.

– When technology use is seen as expected, supported and rewarded targeted users perceptions of its ease of use should be enhanced.

– Climate has a direct effect on implementation effectiveness (Klein et al., 2001; Holahan et al., 2004)

H4: Perceived ease of use will partially mediate the effect of compatibility with work processes on technology acceptance.

– work process compatibility is positively related to ease of use• Less change, transfer of learning effect• Easier to learn (Karahanna et al. 2006).

– partial mediation: a new technology can be highly compatible with existing work practices but still be highly complex and difficult to use

Hypotheses

H5: When the implementation climate is strong, but the technology is not perceived to be congruent with the user’s workplace values, consistency of technology use will be high, but quality of technology use will be low.

H6: When the implementation climate is strong and the technology is perceived to be congruent with the user’s workplace values, consistency and quality of technology use will be high.– Compliance vs. commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Sussman &

Vecchio, 1991)– Climate is related to compliance.– Values compatibility is related to commitment.

16

Research Hypotheses 5-6

H5. When Climate is strong but Values Compat is low:

Consis of Use will be high/Quality of Use will be low

H6. When Climate is strong and Values Compat is high:

Consis of Use will be high/ Quality of Use will be high

Failed Implementation

???

Cli

mat

e

Weak

Strong

Value Compatibility HighLow

Research Results

• H1 supported• H2 supported• H3 supported• H4 partially supported: found full vs. partial mediation• H5 and H6: supported

Results – Summary

• Supported determinants of TAM variables (PU, PEOU)• Compatibility with workplace values • Compatibility with work processes• Climate

• Technology Acceptance operationalized along two dimensions:

– Consistency of use– Quality of use

• Supported differential effects of values compatibility and climate on consistency and quality of use

19

Discussion – Practi cal Implicati ons

Given the results, what are some of the pre-implementation implications for:

--Technology developers?--Technology implementers?-- Change management?

Discussion – Practi cal Implicati ons

H1: The effect of values compatibility on technology use was fully mediated by perceived usefulness.

• Users’ workplace values exert a strong influence on how useful a technology is perceived to be.

• Understand workplace values from the employees’ (users’) perspective. Useful input to technology developers.

• Address “fit” or “lack of fit” of the technology with user’s workplace values when introducing a new technology (e.g. VPS kiosks improving quality of healthcare vs. decreasing patient service)

Discussion – Practi cal Implicati ons

H2 and H3: Climate influenced perceptions of usefulness and ease of use. Climate also had a direct effect on technology use.

• Create strong implementation climates to promote technology acceptance.

• How one creates a strong climate is equifinal.

• Climate construct is a perceptual variable. Seek feedback on strength of climate.

Discussion – Practi cal Implicati ons

H4: The effect of work process compatibility on technology use was fully mediated by perceived ease of use.

• The technology’s compatibility with work processes exerts a strong influence on perceptions of how easy a new technology is to use.

• New technologies that involve only incremental change in work processes are more readily accepted.

• Consider modular development and/or phased implementation.

• Strong implementation climates can have an impact on perceived ease of use. When the new technology will involve significant change in work processes additional efforts to build a strong implementation climate will be needed.

Discussion – Practi cal Implicati ons

H5 and H6: Differential effects of workplace values compatibility and climate on technology use.

• Many times organizations do not realize a ROI from new technology deployments. How the technology is being used i.e., quality of use is an important consideration. Need to measure.

• Quality of use is a function of climate and values compatibility. Both are needed.

– A strong climate predicted consistency of use, but not quality of use. Critical that technology developers/implementers understand users’ workplace values.

Some Important Takeaways

• Understand and take into account workplace values from the employees’ perspective.

• Stress the technology’s compatibility with workplace values when appropriate.

• Create strong implementation climates – Climate construct is a perceptual variable– Seek feedback on strength of climate

• New technologies that involve only incremental change in work processes are more readily accepted– Consider phased or modular implementation if possible.– Strong implementation climates can have an impact on

perceived ease of use.