Tomorrow's Library

Saldanha & Krishnan (2012) Organizational Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies: An Empirical Analysis . Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 22 (4), 301-333.

This article echoes the sentiment of the Lewis et al (2003) – a common thread in discussion of business use of IT (see Stewart, 2003) – that tools are needed to enable organisations and businesses make a properly informed decision about the utility and benefit of adopting a new information technology or program.  This is an initial research foray into determining the contributing factors to enterprise adoption of Web 2.0 applications.

Given the analogy by O’Reilly (2005, para.10) of Web 2.0 acting as the global brain, with hyperlinks, tags, etc between information as synapses and blogs, Twitter, etc as the conscious thought, it is little wonder that businesses are looking to harness the capacity of this growing class of technology to improve their knowledge management, etc. However, according to Saldanha and Krishnan, they are currently doing this in a dearth of information about factors that will influence their and other enterprise’s ability to do so. This echoes Lewis et al’s position that there is not enough research done in the area and obviously a need for this article. In this case, however, the results and analysis that comes from the research, rather than providing a clear direction for subsequent work, points to a myriad tangential possibilities for ensuing research. This is a consequence of the nature of Web 2.0 as an emerging class of technology that has yet to be fully defined, let alone have its possibilities recognised, utilised and analysed.

The collaborative nature of web 2.0 is both a boon and a burden to business seeking competitive advantage. Despite a McKinsey survey showing that almost 60% of respondents see web 2.0 as a driver of competitive advantage (Bughin, Manyika, and Miller, 2008, cited in Saldanha and Krishnan, p. 312), the competitiveness of the industry was found not to be proportional to adoption. A possible reason for this includes concerns with leakage of information which would adversely affect competitive advantage. However as O’Reilly points out, the more you restrict the freedom of information flow in Web 2.0 applications, the less functionality you are likely to get from the very aspects that set this technology apart from other IT (2005, p. 2, Sidenote: para. 5). Thus the authors’ assertion that Web 2.0 technology vendors “need to make Web 2.0 technologies more compatible with other technologies” possibly flags a general lack of vision in business. It also flags another limitation of the study, that survey participants’ understanding of the definition of Web 2.0 is possibly quite variable and/or influenced by the later examples given by the survey itself and that the study is effectively only looking at the adoption by business of mainstream rather than fledgling Web 2.0 applications.

The key finding of this study is really how much information and research is lacking into the adoption and use of this emerging class of IT. The differences highlighted by this study between Web 2.0 and other IT, such as its open-standards, bottom-up adoption pathway, dependency on a critical mass of users and its inexpensive nature are reasons that conventional models of IT adoption in business are not applicable here. It is also one worth noting when reading Nicholas Carr’s 2003 IT doesn’t matter, in that Web 2.0 was in its infancy when this “seminal” piece (Brown, J. S. and Hagel, J. in Stewart, 2003) was written. Carr was referring to a different class (and more physical definition) of IT and probably with a limited understanding of the potential of the emerging “social computing” trend.

References:

Carr, N. (2003). IT doesn't matter. Harvard Business Review, May 2003, 41-49. Retrieved via EBSCOhost Business Source Complete database in the CSU Library

Lewis, D., Hodge, N., Gamage, D & Whittaker, M. (2011) Understanding the role of technology in health information systems. Working Paper Series 17. University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/wp17/

O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from O’Reilly Media Inc. website: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Saldanha, T.J.V & Krishnan, M.S. (2012). Organizational adoption of Web 2.0 technologies: An empirical analysis. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 22 (4), 301-333. DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2012.723585

Stewart, T. A. (ed) (2003) Does IT matter? An HBR debate. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Web_Letters.pdf

Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries (2012) Tomorrow's Library: Discussion Paper. State Government of Victoria.

This is certainly the odd one out of the 3 articles. The style is not academic and the few supporting statistics and references are both aging and sketchy. Five to seven years is the average age of the quotes and statistics provided as thought-provokers, when considered in the light of the 2.5 year cut off given for “items considered obsolete” and the general rate of technology development, seems somewhat dated. However, this is the first stage of the “landmark” (p. 2 para. 3) library review project: the brochure-styling being designed to capture the audience’s attention with the intention of acquiring input from this group of stakeholders – the practitioners. In a sense, this article is from a stage prior to that of the Lewis article, which was written after a forum in which the practitioners had their say about the challenges and priorities they see as important in their jobs. This article invites industry participation in the “forum” of the Ministerial Advisory Committee’s (MAC) initial stage of the “Tomorrow’s Library” project, and one might expect a literature analysis and report similar to the Lewis article to ensue.*

IT is mentioned in 3 sections of the article, but possibly surprisingly, more IT-related issues are raised in the “Service Delivery” section than in the “Technology” section. Only brief mention is made in the “Library Buildings” section (p. 6) about IT, in its broader sense of incorporating IT infrastructure into building design. Is there a danger here that buildings themselves could suffer obsolescence when built especially to house technology? The suggestion by Carr (in Stewart, 2003, p. 17) is, “the more tightly an advantage is tied to the technology, the more transient it will be.” The MAC seem to have covertly recognised that the main issues with IT are not with the physical technology but with the services associated with it – the people-power it requires. This section also gives the impression that more input is forthcoming, which one hopes will include some empirical data.

The “Technology” section (p. 8) contains some comment on the plethora of technological opportunities available to enhance library services, however this section is where the MAC really seems to need the most input from practitioners and literature analysis. As Tapscott (as cited in Kennan, 2014, para. 6) said in 1996: “For individuals, organizations, and societies that fall behind, punishment is swift”. The bent of the discussion here is really focussed on the implications of rapidly developing technology for an increase in community expectations. This discussion is continued in the next section, “Service delivery” (p. 10). In this section the authors really identify the problems facing 21^st century libraries: that increasingly, libraries are expected to “bridge the gap” in educating people about these technologies – a “challenge” when staff are aging and retiring and new recruits to the industry are fewer. The difficulty, says the paper, is in “attracting qualified and experienced staff” (p. 10, para. 4). There are some large issues at play here, much broader than the scope of the article, which seeks input from the front lines. It would suggest that what is needed (another common thread through the three articles) is more empirical (rather than purely anecdotal) research that is up-to-date with what is happening (now, not 5 years ago) in libraries, and in particular, what works and what doesn’t: where, when and why.

References:

Kennan, M A. (2014) The Digital Environment - IT fundamentals: Introduction [INF405 Module 1.1]. Retrieved June 7, 2014, from Charles Sturt University website: http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF405_201460_W_D/page/36481ada-3d37-46d3-806b-cf8fde1c1fda 

Lewis, D., Hodge, N., Gamage, D & Whittaker, M. (2011) Understanding the role of technology in health information systems. Working Paper Series 17. University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/wp17/

Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries (2012) Review of Victorian Public Libraries Stage 1 Report. State Government of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/public-libraries/tomorrows-library-stage-1-and-2

Ministerial Advisory Council on Public Libraries (2012) Tomorrow's Library: Discussion Paper. State Government of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.plvn.net.au/sites/default/files/TLTD002_Tomorrow's Library Discussion Paper final web.pdf

Stewart, T. A. (ed) (2003) Does IT matter? An HBR debate. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Web_Letters.pdf

Lewis, D., Hodge, N., Gamage, D & Whittaker, M. (2011) Understanding the role of technology in health information systems. Working Paper Series 17. University of Queensland.

This article was born out of a meeting of the Pacific Health Information Network (PHIN) and the subsequent Pacific Health Information System Development Forum.  Thus the ensuing literature review was informed by practitioners’ living experience of the challenges faced by different health organisations in the Pacific in adopting ICT. The authors are clear in the summary about the intended "fourfold" objectives of the paper and there is a well-posited need for these outcomes. The paper is sectioned in terms of these outcomes, however the recurring themes that come across in the reading are that: 1. not enough research has been done in the area; 2. a one-size fits all approach is not appropriate; and 3. a tool is needed for the myriad health organisations in the Pacific to use – to determine the “rational” application of ICT in order to avoid failure and waste.  The literature review is thorough and well tied-together and led unswervingly to the paper’s discussion conclusions.

It is difficult to find fault in an article so well supported by evidence, professional opinion, and reason. The single tenuous assumption in the article is where the authors admit that there is little empirical evidence that ICT projects in the Pacific experience failure at the same (or higher) rates as in developed nations. This flouts the conventional wisdom, say the authors: that ICT in health leads to helpful and positive outcomes. However, as the authors point out, in neither the developing nor developed worlds, is this conventional “wisdom” backed up empirically. Regardless of the interplay between the established broad conception of ICT as panacea (alluded to by many including Carr, 2003) and the lack of research data available into ICT project success in the Pacific region (Lewis et al, 2012), it is certainly difficult to mount an argument against using an assessment tool to identify the capacity of an organisation to respond to ICT in general – other than that many would fail at the first hurdle.

The culminating proposal is to develop a “maturity model” to assist organisations and governments in the Pacific region to identify their individual state of affairs and thus identify a sensible direction for investment in ICT. The authors point out that according to these types of models, “electronically immature” organisations will be “reactive...solving immediate crises...” with “unpredictable health care quality”, implying that perhaps funds could be better directed in these cases. Vanuatu is cited as an example of a system struggling to meet basic health care needs. Some may argue this is the perfect opportunity for technology to ease the burden. The authors suggest, considering that basic infrastructure (such as a reliable electricity supply) is so lacking, any application of ICT may be likely to fail at this stage. The funds required to support new technology or systems could be better spent in initial (basic infrastructure or even pre-ICT) stages. At the least it is prudent to identify the best entry point (e.g. mobile phones) for technology, based on a rational analysis and available data.  Again, the suggestion that the more we can discover about both an organisation’s receptiveness to ICT and the potential benefit delivered by a particular ICT project, the better, is unequivocal. It is the same point made by Carr (2003) and respondents in the “Does IT matter?” debate (Stewart, 2003): that businesses should not assume that IT is going to deliver benefits wholesale and that application of judgement is required.

Another point in the article and throughout the literature, is the human element in the success or failure of IT ventures – the necessity of sponsorship by management and the receptiveness of the end-user. In the Pacific region, say the authors, sourcing people with the expertise to assist the integration of the technology and the training of people has been shown to be difficult, as is convincing busy health professionals and staff that the time required to learn the new tech is time well spent, considering the challenges they already face in the day-to-day. This latter is a problem not unique to health organisations or to specific parts of the world. For example, in a UK study, Tearle (2003, para. 2) comments that in UK schools, the “gap between ‘actual use’ and ‘potential use’ [of ICT] is not being reduced” due to moving “goal posts”, and emphasises the importance of change as a staged process. She suggests that “the high expectation of the role ICT could play in schools places both opportunities and challenges for those involved in its implementation and application for teaching and learning.” A literature analysis by Bingimlas (2009 p. 243, para. 4) in Australia recommends that “effective professional development, sufficient time, and technical support need to be provided to teachers” after finding that “the major barriers [to effective integration of ICT] were lack of confidence, lack of competence, and lack of access to resources”, while as Pelgrum (2001, p. 177, para. 2) found in an international study, “even under very favorable [material] conditions still 40% of the educational practitioners indicated that a lack of hardware was a major obstacle” This suggests a complex interplay between multiple factors in the adoption of ICT. In health applications in particular, say Lewis et al, end users (doctors and other health service professionals) may simply choose not to use the new technology on the grounds that it compromises patients’ health or security. Essentially, more time and professional development is needed which requires more human resources – not always available in remote Pacific communities.

It is obvious that some judgement and framework is needed in the selection and application of ICT, but the undercurrent in the Lewis article is the “digital divide” – little enough study is done in the area in the developed world, the authors say, but closer to none in the developing world. The authors mention the difficulty in some areas of getting human resources (person power) to remote islands which could remain as a barrier to ICT progress for some time. It is useful to know what the barriers are, however, and that is the essential conclusion of this article. Add the lack of research data and IT expertise to the unique challenges in primary health care on islands and in remote communities to well-meant but un-researched and consequently misdirected sponsorship by aid organisations or governments, and the result is ICT that, at best, is ignored by the end-user and at worst, leads to “an automated mess” (USEPA, 2012, cited in Lewis et al, 2011). To implement ICT effectively requires closing the gap in the infrastructure first.

References:

Bingimlas , K. A. (2009) Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245. Retrieved via EBSCOhost Education Research Complete database in the CSU Library Carr, N. (2003). IT doesn't matter. Harvard Business Review, May 2003, 41-49. Retrieved via EBSCOhost Business Source Complete database in the CSU Library

Lewis, D., Hodge, N., Gamage, D & Whittaker, M. (2011) Understanding the role of technology in health information systems. Working Paper Series 17. University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/wp17/

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001) Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education 37, 163–178

Stewart, T. A. (ed) (2003) Does IT matter? An HBR debate. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/Web_Letters.pdf

Tearle, P. (2003) ICT implementation: What makes the difference? British Journal of Educational Technology 34(5), 567-583. DOI: 10.1046/j.0007-1013.2003.00351.x

My board "Tomorrow's Library's Technology"

Welcome to my blog for INF405 Assignment 1: Critical Reviews