_____________________

_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
______________

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in

an Organisation using Structuration
Theory

by Dr. John Hassall

Working Paper Series 2000

Number WP 008/00

ISSN Number ISSN 1363-6839

John Hassall
Senior Lecturer
University of Wolverhampton, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1902 323605
Fax: +44 (0) 1902 323755
Email: [email protected]

© University of Wolverhampton 2000 - All rights reserved

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________

Copyright

© University of Wolverhampton 2000

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, photocopied, recorded, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the
copyright holder.

The Management Research Centre is the co-ordinating centre for research activity within
Wolverhampton Business School. This working paper series provides a forum for dissemination
and discussion of research in progress within the School. For further information contact:

Management Research Centre

Wolverhampton Business School
Telford, Shropshire TF2 9NT
01902 321772 Fax 01902 321777

The Working Paper Series is edited by Kate Gilbert

2 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
Abstract
The need for appropriate interpretative and evaluative frameworks for understanding groupware and
related technologies is discussed. Structuration is employed to examine some aspects of an
implementation of groupware within one organization and various interpretative outcomes developed.

3 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
The author

Dr. John Hassall

The author is a Senior Lecturer in Information Management at Wolverhampton Business School and
also works as an IT consultant. His research interests span various areas relating to decision making,
incorporating soft factors into strategy formulation and measuring effectiveness of information
technology.

4 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an

Organisation Using Structuration Theory
Introduction
Increasingly, organizations take for granted the benefits of information technologies introduced to
provide electronic forms of communication and co-ordination between groups of staff. The assumed
benefits of these technologies include more flexible working, the potential to build what are called
'virtual teams' and to improve knowledge management within the organization (Bannon, 1998;
Ciborra & Patriotta, 1996; Orlikowski, 1992; 1996). At the same time, researchers are addressing the
need to improve methods of evaluation for information systems and technologies (Hares & Royle,
1994; Remenyi, Sherwood-Smith & White, 1997), with the implicit rationale that such technologies
do not always deliver easily identified benefits.

The approach taken to evaluate the effect of groupware and network technologies, including internet
technologies, reflects an underlying rationale adopted by the worker concerned. So, for example,
there is a significant body of research which adopts a socio-technical approach, with the implicit
assumption that design of the system can be optimised in conjunction with the human activity
components to ensure the organization's objectives are achieved. This is the approach adopted by and
described in, for example, Avison and Wood Harper (1990), Mumford (1991), Kunda and Brooks
(1999). In contrast are approaches that stress an interpretative analysis of information systems,
setting them in the context of organizational change and treating them as affectors (potentially
generators) of organizational and social potential Walsham (1993). To an extent, it is felt these
workers are interested in describing and interpreting phenomena as a prelude to achieving beneficial
action in relation to organizational information systems. Whilst this is a useful activity in and of
itself, it cannot affect the actual process of information systems implementation and benefits
realisation directly. Other workers agendas, e.g. Orlikowski (1996), Bannon (1998), Ciborra and
Patriotta (1996), present as an active attempt to understand how emerging information technologies
may be employed effectively.

Complementary to these perspectives, a holistic or systems approach offers a view in relation to the
effect of new information systems and technology since it might be expected to include both
technological and social potentials. The work reported in this paper employs the theory of
structuration (Giddens, 1984), to frame and discuss the effect created by new information
technologies within an organization in terms of the capabilities and potentials introduced to the
existing system(s) and social structures.

The perspective of structuration

Systems perspectives, methods and systemic analyses are typically based upon an abstracted view of
the system of interest. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) emerges from the 'process' worldview of
hard systems analysis in that conceptual models, developed from root definitions, parallel the
abstraction processes in engineering design, Checkland (1981), Checkland and Scholes (1990). SSM
differs from hard systems analysis by the possibility of developing alternative perspectives through
alternative root definitions. Learning is also incorporated as an important part of SSM, but, in the
end, a choice of feasible action needs to be taken.

It is possible to consider groupware implementation using SSM amongst many systems approaches.
Thus, in considering the introduction of new technology, a variety of systemic identities could be

5 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
explored, the potentials introduced by the technology would be incorporated into conceptual models
which could lead to the adoption of appropriate technical solutions and practices aimed at bringing
about the desired effect. This implicitly iterative process could be aimed at growth in use of the
technology towards agreed beneficial outcomes. An alternative might be to adopt a model such as
the Viable System Model, employing it as a diagnostic tool to identify areas where technology could
facilitate improved variety management and conformation towards improved viable system design
Beer (1979; 1985).

A further approach, still seeking an holistic (systemic) understanding, is to consider the perspective of
an individual working within an organization. This individual is an actor involved in bringing about
many transformations in SSM terms, thus forming a part in many systems (holons), Checkland and
Scholes (1990). In any organization, the actor has a choice of what to do but the choice is a
constrained one by virtue of the actor’s participation within the organization. However, the
organization does not have total power to determine what the choice(s) of an actor will be in a
particular circumstance; and many commentators consider that the actor and the systems or
organizations with which she or he interact should be considered holistically. Notably Giddens, in
the development of structuration theory, insists upon an action/structure duality; the actor by virtue of
interaction with the organization being both constrained by and, in a sense, creating the structure(s) of
the organization Giddens (1984). For Giddens this is brought about by modalities that link particular
types of interaction with particular structural elements. The three key types of modality are
interpretative schemes, facilities and norms. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Structure signification domination legitimation

(Modality) Interpretative facility norm

scheme

Interaction communication power sanction

Adapted from Giddens (1984, p. 29)

Figure 1. The theory of Structuration
To expand upon this scheme, the structure element relating to interpretation is signification.
Signification has the ability through the modality of an interpretative scheme to affect the way in
which communication interactions are performed. Also, communicative actions can through
interpretative schemes, change the form of signification. A simple example of this might be the way
in which an email message is interpreted by the receiver and sender, leading, over time, to
development of a protocol for use.

The value of structuration theory in considering information systems in organizations has been
discussed, by Walsham (1993, pp 60-68) Noting firstly the contextualist approach, which emphasizes
the linkage between context and process:

This linkage is of key importance for understanding the impact of computer-based information
systems in organizations, which are both constrained by the context in which they are
developed and, in turn, are a factor in maintaining or altering that context.

Walsham goes on to discuss the application of structuration theory to the field of information systems
within organizations. Walsham's approach is largely interpretivist, but commentators with a more

6 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
socio-technical or systems based approach also accept the validity of this agenda. For example,
Sutton (1998, pp 41) provides the following conclusion.

The classical view of IT/IS as a supporter and follower of organizational objectives and needs
is shown to be unduly conservative. Rather, at its most effective, IT/IS is an equal contributor
to the identification of overall organizational goals and exploitation of strategic opportunities.
We must guard against forms of words and institutionalisation of procedures which, however
subtly, limit our thinking to the former viewpoint.

The two-way process by which technological capability affects individuals and organizational
choices, actions and their interpretations has been noted by many commentators. For example,
Dudley and Hassall (1995) have developed this theme towards application in terms of understanding
the various tensions around the implementation of a client database within a large organization
(1996). Structuration itself has been employed as a framework for considering media choice, where
technology is manipulated to perform work and has the result of reproducing or changing social
context (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992), (Most commonly noticeable in the
way in which persons who might not normally interact at a social level within work may find
themselves engaged in genial communication via email).

Experiences with groupware

When new technology is introduced to the organization, we might expect adjustments to occur to the
modalities experienced by the users; and in turn for the organization to be affected by adjustments in
the nature of interactions of the users. So, a way of seeking insights into the process of adoption of
and adaptation to new technology is to look for evidence of adjustments in these modalities.

Considering this approach in more detail, it seems clear that new technology is most easily associated
with the facilities modality. Facilities, as has been seen, are processes, procedures and physical
capabilities available to actors that are concerned with domination on the part of the organization and
the exercise of power on the part of the user/actor. Indeed, we could say that power is exercised most
often by actors within organizations, through physical means, to produce effects. In information
systems, for example, a facility may represent the way in which, on the one hand, individual users of
a system are able to perform particular tasks (for example create an order for a product or service)
and, on the other hand, the organization is enabled to constrain the capabilities of individual users to
create more than a certain size of order without the intervention of another more privileged user.
Most organizations explicitly split responsibilities for the commitment of physical resources and
money between many different people; and the technological facilities enabling this are the specific
information systems employed. The technology provides, and increasingly is, the physical
manifestation of facilities that enable the balance between power for the individual and domination
(regulation) by the organization. But what of the other modalities, interpretative schemes and norms?
Can we show how information technology affects these?

During the period 1996 to 1998, a longitudinal study was conducted covering the introduction of
Novell GroupWise (Rogers & McTague, 1996), within an English County Council. A number of
surveys were carried out during the process of data gathering, including data from a variety of
departments across the Council. The main objective of the longitudinal study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the technology in changing the patterns of working and methods of performing
particular business linked tasks.

The outcome of this work, including the development of several ways of evaluating groupware effect
upon the organization based upon user judgements, is reported in Hassall (1999). Among the key

7 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
findings of this research were that patterns of use of the groupware technology were established early
in implementation and did not show significant progressive development over time. This finding
suggests that implementation of new technology on its own cannot easily bring about new ways of
working, leading in turn to the need for further research into the socio-cultural context and the use of
interpretative methods and schemes such as structuration. The current paper is a development based
upon selected data from the study in which structuration is used to examine how adjustments to
modalities may be taking place.

Facilities
As already suggested, it is easy to find evidence within the case data of changes to facilities
introduced by the new groupware system. We have only to look at the business tasks for which the
system was judged most useful by various respondents within the Social Services and Health
department. (A single department has been selected based upon its high proportion of respondents,
over 50%. However, conclusions from the surveys across all departments mirror those being drawn
here).

The impact of the groupware system in terms of providing access to others diaries together with the
ability to schedule meetings is seen as important by both non managers and managers. In general, it
was found that the highest impact was felt in use of the system for those functions where an explicit
designed feature of the software was being employed. This was in contrasts to (again generally)
disappointing use of the system for new and creative applications of the technology such as managing
teams or organising shared work on reports and projects. So, a view is that with respect to the facility
modality, there is a greater effect exerted on individuals actions and interactions than is occasioned
by their actions in altering the form or mode of domination. The technological facilities provided
will tend to reproduce and re-enforce existing patterns of power and control within the organization.

Table 1. Business tasks for which groupware most useful

Task description Staff Managers

Number % Number %
To inspect others diaries/own diary 44 66 11 52
management
Message management 7 10 1 5
Sending documents as attachments 9 13 6 29
Accessing or sending broadcast 3 4 1 5
information
Scheduling meetings 34 51 13 62
Informal communications 39 58 6 29
Task list management 20 30 5 24
Adapted from Hassall (1999, p. 167)

Interpretive Schemes
An example from the study in which the interpretative schemes may be discerned is the way in which
the use of email is viewed as a complement to, or in place of, other methods of communication. Part
of the research study involved interviews with 22 subjects covering a variety of areas in relation to
the implemented groupware technology. Several people in the interviews expressed the opinion that
email offered a means of communication which was, (to paraphrase), "…more formal than a

8 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
conversation but less formal than a paper memo…". Several more, particularly managers, cited the
ability to have a record that information had been communicated.

If a novel form of communication is introduced and made available to people within an organization,
they must, in the absence of explicit instructions for use, determine for themselves when and for what
to employ the communications medium. In the absence of prior experience, such a determination
will be governed, partly at least, by the anticipated effect upon the receiver. So, the sender of email
must make judgements which inevitably lead to a evolving interpretative scheme which, in time, is
shared by other users within the organization. Wider experiences also suggest that such interpretative
schemes can lead to widely differing email cultures with the same technologies and within the same
or similar types of organization. As an example, the author recently participated in an on-line
conference group where the issue of whether contributions to the forum should be considered
'copyright' of the creator was raised. Some members of the group took up this issue and debated it in
earnest… others (including the author) were perplexed by this issue, believing that the conference
group was simply an electronically mediated 'virtual' discussion and the contributions, speech acts,
subject to an informal interpretation.

Norms
The evolution of norms of behaviours in relation to technical facilities provided, like the
interpretative scheme, can be complex. When deciding to implement a system comprising groupware
technology managers within an organization may typically express a variety of aspirational objectives
to be obtained. The aspirations for groupware products may be framed as a desire to develop new
and more flexible ways of working, ways of sharing knowledge and developing 'virtual' teams
(Orlikowski, 1992; 1996; Hassall, 1999; 1998). In effect, this represents an aim relating to the
'norming' or 're-norming' of behaviours around the new technological paradigm. But, as structuration
would suggest, such an aim is far from easy to pursue in the light of the action/structure duality. In
much the same way that different communications cultures will emerge around different
interpretative schemes, so the development of the norm modality will exhibit a dynamic nature.

The dynamic shifts in the norm modality may be illustrated with further reference to Table 1 and the
differences in the responses of managers and non-managers. Whereas 58% of non-managers list
informal communications as a most useful task, only 29% of managers do so. Moreover, the
situation is reversed in the case of the use of document attachments, 29% of managers listing this as a
most useful task and only 13% of non-managers. The latter result undoubtedly reflects, at least in
part, differences in the nature of managers and non-managers jobs. However, it is also possible that
these two items taken together are suggestive of a dialectic between the two groups. Possibly
managers are more likely to articulate the use of GroupWise in a business connected and formal way;
they seek to sanction its use for purposes directly linked to the business. Non-managers, by contrast,
are not thinking of the use of the technology in as focused a fashion, but articulate its use and
function in relation to a more social rather than business context.

Implications for practice

Based upon considerations of structuration theory, earlier work on systemic refocusing, Dudley and
Hassall (1995; 1996) and results of surveys and case studies within various organizations, Hassall
(1998), it is considered that groupware systems aim to affect those modalities which dynamically
determine the balance between interactions (work?) and structure(s) of organizations. Planning for
successful implementation must recognise the power of this action and structure dynamic. But how
should this problem be approached?

9 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
Often the problem of implementation of information systems is framed as that of defining
requirements in sufficient technical detail and in a way that reflects organization socio-technical
realities, Eason (1996). The particular situation with groupware and related products, including those
now emerging on the Internet, is that (on the whole) they present technical capabilities rather than
functions and applications directly to the end user actor, requiring he or she to model their working
world in order to use them Orlikowski (1992). So, the focus for development may need to shift
towards consideration of the end-user actors, their skills, aspirations and internal models, which may
have far greater effect upon the overall organizational impact of new information technologies than
any explicit technological capability that is introduced.

Discussion and reflection

Structuration is a perspective that presents action (of persons within an organization) as partially
constrained by and partially creating the structures (meanings, functions and norms) of the
organization. At one level this is a common sense way of looking at the world and also of
considering how technological mediation within an organization can affect, through the modalities of
interpretative schemes, facilities and norms, how organizations are changed by technology.

The model encourages a view of organizations and technology that makes apparent the interconnected
nature of technological capability and organizational and individual responses. As such it is a useful
model, and one which is increasingly being cited within the information system research field
Walsham (1993), Champion (1999), Hussain and Flyn (1999).

In the case situation discussed it is clear that a variety of observations may be framed in terms of
modalities, the specific ways in which signification, domination and legitimation are related to
interpretation, power and sanction. So, we see electronic means of communication adjusting the
interpretation of communicative events (the curious formality/informality of email). We appreciate
how managers are provided with powerful facilities to schedule meetings and events by direct access
to staff diaries and we witness signs of tension over the degree to which communications media
should be employed for social functions at work, as opposed to business functions. Structuration thus
provides a way of framing and interpreting outcomes, which illustrates and illuminates the interaction
of technological capabilities with the socio-cultural environment of the organization.

Conclusion
The theory of structuration has been presented as an interpretative framework in the case of
implementation of groupware technology. The central conception of structuration, action and
structure duality, represents a useful perspective for information systems and organizational research.

A number of specific examples of data extracted from a longitudinal study of groupware

implementation have been discussed and interpretation attempted. The results show that the theory of
structuration can be useful for generating insights from such case data.

10 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
References
Avison, D. E. & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1990) Multiview - An Exploration in Information Systems
Development: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Bannon, L. J. (1998) Computer Supported Collaborative Working: challenging perspectives on work

and technology, information technology and organizational transformation, In: R. Galliers & W.
Baets (Eds) Innovation for the 21st Century Organization ,(John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester),
Chapter 2.

Beer, S. (1979) The Heart of Enterprise John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Beer, S. (1985) Diagnosing the System for Organizations ,(John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester).

Champion, D. (1999) Structuration Theory and Conversation Modelling: a possible interpretivist

approach to bridging the gap in information systems design, In: 4th UKAIS Conference proceedings:
Information Systems - The Next Generation April 7-9 York University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill)
pp. 616-623.

Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking Systems Practice (Wiley, Chichester).

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action (Chichester: Wiley).

Ciborra, C. U. & Patriotta, G. (1996) Groupware and Teamwork in New product Development: the
case of a consumer goods multinational, , In: C. U. Ciborra (Ed) Groupware and Teamwork, Invisible
Aid or Technical Hindrance? (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester) pp. 23-60.

Dudley, P. & Hassall, J. C. (1995) Systemic refocusing strategy, an emancipatory approach to

intervention, In: K. Ellis, A. Gregory, B. R. Mears-Young & G. Ragsdell (Eds) Critical Issues in
Systems Theory and Practice (London: Plenum) pp. 465-478.

Dudley, P. & Hassall, J. C. (1996) Applying Systemic Refocusing Strategy to Information Systems
Innovation, In: R. M. Mason, L. A. Lefebvre & T. M. Khalil (Eds) Technology Management in a
Changing World (Oxford: Elsevier Advanced Technology) pp. 41-50.

Eason, K. (1996) Division of Labour and the design of systems for computer support of cooperative
work Journal of Information Technology Issue 11 pp. 39-50.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society (Oxford: Polity Press).

Hares, J. & Royle, D. (1994) Measuring the Value of Information Technology (Chichester: Wiley).

Hassall, J. C. (1999) Developing Performance Models for Co-operative Information Systems in an

Organizational Context PhD Thesis, Aston University.

Hassall, J. (1998) Evaluating Co-operative Information Technologies Using Fuzzy Measures, In: 3rd
UKAIS Conference proceedings: Matching Technology with Organizational Needs April 15-17
Lincoln University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill) pp 393-404

11 Management Research Centre 2000

Interpretation of Groupware Effect in an Organisation using Structuration Theory-
_______________________________________________________________________
__________________
Hussain, Z. I. & Flynn, D. (1999) Applying Structuration Theory within Information Systems
Research, In: 4th UKAIS Conference proceedings: Information Systems - The Next Generation April
7-9 York University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill) pp. 624-633.

Kunda, B. & Brooks, L. (1999) Applying Socio-Technical Approach for COTS Selection, In: 4th
UKAIS Conference proceedings: Information Systems - The Next Generation April 7-9 York
University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill) pp. 552-565.

Mumford, E. (1991) Participation in Systems Design - What can it offer?, In: B. Shakel & S.
Richardson (Eds) Human Factors for Informatics Usability (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press) pp. 267-290.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation,

In: CSCW Conference proceedings: Computer Supported Co-operative Work pp. 362-369. Struggling
with tisone, it was good enough for the PhD and so ECIs, so I suggest we leave it as it was.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996) Evolving with Notes: organizational change around groupware technology,
In: C. U. Ciborra (Ed) Groupware and Teamwork, Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance? John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester) pp. 23-60

Poole, M. S. & DeDanctis, G. (1990) Understanding the Use of Group Decision Support Systems: the
theory of adaptive structuration, In: J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds) Organisations and Communications
Technology (Newbury Park: Sage) pp. 173-193.

Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M. & White, T. (1997) Achieving Maximum Value From Information
Systems: a process approach (John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester).

Rogers, S. & McTague, R. (1996) Novell's GroupWise 5 User's Handbook (San Jose, CA: Novell
Press).

Sutton, D. (1998) Matching Technology with Organizational Needs is a Two Way Process, In: 3rd
UKAIS Conference proceedings: Matching Technology With Organizational Needs April 15-17
Lincoln University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill) pp. 40-50.

Walsham, G. (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations (John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
Chichester

Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) Genres of Organizational Communication: a structurational

approach to studying communication and media Academy of Management Review 17(2) pp. 299-326.

12 Management Research Centre 2000