Brightening Physical University Admission Through Digital Process Virtualization: An Action Case Study in Ghana

  • John EffahEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 558)


The purpose of this study is to understand how digital process virtualization can be used to address problems with physical admission in a developing country university. Bright ICT research calls for solutions to practical problems in society including education. However, related studies in education have focused more on teaching and learning. Therefore, less is known about education management and administration. This study addresses this research gap through an action case study of a digital process virtualization project to address problems with a physical admission system in the University of Ghana. The research findings show that problems such as delays, inconvenience of submitting physical documents, difficulty of accessing lecturers in their offices to serve as referees and untimely feedback can be addressed by inscribing virtual functionalities into digital platforms for affordance actualization by users. However, in situations where personal knowledge is needed for providing academic references, additional functionalities are needed to promote digital interactions between actors.


Bright ICT Process virtualization Digital platform Higher education Virtual functionality Inscription Affordance Action case study Ghana 


  1. 1.
    Mikalef, P., Pateli, A.: Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 70, 1–16 (2017). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mikalef, P.: Developing IT-enabled dynamic capabilities: a service science approach. In: Johansson, B., Andersson, B., Holmberg, N. (eds.) BIR 2014. LNBIP, vol. 194, pp. 87–100. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmad, H.: Business process reengineering: critical success factors in higher education. Bus. Process Manag. J. 13, 451–469 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, Y.-C., Chu, P.-Y., Tseng, H.-L.: Exploring the relationships between information technology adoption. J. Manag. Organ. 15, 170–185 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Overby, E., Slaughter, S.A., Konsynski, B.: The design, use, and consequences of virtual processes. Inf. Syst. Res. 21, 700–710 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balci, B.: The state of the art on process virtualization: a literature review. In: Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savanna, pp. 1–14 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Overby, E.: Process virtualization theory and the impact of information technology. Organ. Sci. 19, 277–291 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Overby, E.: Migrating processes from physical to virtual environments: process virtualization theory. In: Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M., Schineberger, S. (eds.) Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, vol. 1, pp. 107–124. Springer, New York (2012). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, J.: Invited commentary—reflections on ICT-enabled bright society research. Inf. Syst. Res. 27, 1–5 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, J., Fedorowicz, J.: Identifying issues for the bright ICT initiative: a worldwide delphi study of IS journal editors and scholars. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 42, 301–333 (2018). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dalal, N., Pauleen, D.J.: The wisdom nexus: guiding information systems research, practice, and education. Inf. Syst. J. 29, 224–244 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braa, K., Vidgen, R.: Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research. Inf. Organ. 9, 25–47 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, J.S., Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: The creativity passdown effect: applying design theory in creating instance design. Inf. Technol. People. 28, 529–543 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latour, B.: Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Latour, B.: Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 225–258. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akrich, M.: The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 205–224. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gibson, J.: The Theory of Affordances: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leonardi, P.: When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of Human and material agencies. MIS Q. 35, 147–167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A., Turel, O.: Special issue on ‘dark side of information technology use’: an introduction and a framework for research. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 161–170 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breu, K., Hemingway, C.: Making organisations virtual: the hidden cost of distributed teams. J. Inf. Technol. 19, 191–202 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balci, B., Rosenkranz, C.: “Virtual or material, what do you prefer?” A study of process virtualization theory. In: Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Griffith, T., Sawyer, J., Neale, M.: Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Q. 27, 289–323 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiol, C.M., O’connor, E.J.: Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: untangling the contradictions. Organ. Sci. 16, 19–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibson, J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sidorova, A., Taylor, P.: Understanding business process change failure: an actor-network perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23, 51–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shin, D.-H., Lee, C.-W.: Disruptive innovation for social change: how technology innovation can be best managed in social context. Telemat. Inf. 28, 86–100 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zammuto, R., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D., Faraj, S.: Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organis 18, 749–762 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jensen, T., Vatrapu, R.: Ships & roses : a revelatory case study of affordances in international trade. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Volkoff, O., Strong, D.M.: Critical realism and affordances: theorizing IT-associated organizational change process. MIS Q. 37, 819–834 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Markus, M.L., Silver, M.S.: A foundation for the study of IT effects: a new look at DeSanctis and poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9, 609–632 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hutchby, I.: Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35, 441–456 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., Vitari, C.: Affordance theory in the IS discipline: a review and synthesis of the literature. Twent. Am. Conf. Inf. Syst. Savannah 2014(13), 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Strong, D.M., et al.: A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 15, 53–85 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hughes, J., Wood-Harper, T.: Systems development as a research act. In: Willcocks, L.P., Sauer, C., Lacity, M.C. (eds.) Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems, pp. 83–94 (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Pragmatic qualities of information systems – actability criteria for design and evaluation. In: 11th International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations (ICISO), 11–12 April 2009, Beijing, China, pp. 1–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Trauth, E.M., Hall, H., Jessup, L.M.: Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Q. 24, 43–79 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Creswell, J.: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, London (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miles, M., Huberman, M., Saldana, J.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage, London (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Govern. Inf. Q. 28(3), 320–328 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lal, B., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Investigating homeworkers’ inclination to remain connected to work at “anytime, anywhere” via mobile phones. J. Enterp. Inf. Manage. 23(6), 759–774 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lal, B., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Investigating homeworkers’ usage of mobile phones for overcoming feelings of professional isolation. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 6(4), 481–498 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations and Management Information SystemsUniversity of Ghana Business SchoolAccraGhana

Personalised recommendations