Advertisement

A Case Study of User Adherence and Software Project Performance Barriers from a Sociotechnical Viewpoint

Conference paper
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 787)

Abstract

A marine propeller company and a technical university collaborated to optimize the company’s existing propeller design software. This paper reviews the project based on a sociotechnical perspective to organizational change on (a) how the university-company project and user involvement were organized, and (b) what the main management barriers were and why they may have occurred. Fieldwork included interviews and observations with university and company stakeholders over thirteen months. The data was analyzed and sorted into themes describing the barriers, such as lack of a planned strategy for deliverables or resource use in the project; the users exhibited low adherence towards the optimized software, as well as there was limited time and training allocated for them to test it. Lessons learned suggest clarifying stakeholder roles and contributions, and engaging the users earlier and beyond testing the software for malfunctions to enhance knowledge mobilization, involve them in the change and increase acceptance.

Keywords

Software development User participation Sociotechnical systems Organizational change Knowledge transfer 

References

  1. 1.
    Vesting, F.: Marine propeller optimisation - strategy and algorithm development. Doctor of Philosophy. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox, W.M.: Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: past and present. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 31(1), 91–105 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendrick, H.W., Kleiner, B.M.: Macroergonomics: An Introduction to Work System Design. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., Ropponen, J.: A framework for software risk management. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 8(1), 53–68 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leavitt, H.J.: Applied organizational change in industry: structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In: March, J.G. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, pp. 1144–1170. Rand McNally & Company, Chicago (1965)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tait, P., Vessey, I.: The effect of user involvement on system success: a contingency approach. MIS Q. 12(1), 91–108 (1988). Management Information Systems Research Center, University of MinnesotaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arroyabe, M.F., Arranz, N., de Arroyabe, J.C.F.: R&D partnerships: an exploratory approach to the role of structural variables in joint project performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 623–634 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curedale, R.A.: Design Thinking: Process and Methods Manual. Design Community College, Woodland Hills (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlsen, J.T.: Project stakeholder management. Eng. Manag. J. 14(4), 19–24 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sjödin, D.R., Frishammar, J., Eriksson, P.E.: Managing uncertainty and equivocality in joint process development projects. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 39, 13–25 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, Y.S.: The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J. Technol. Transf. 25, 111–133 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirwan, B.: Soft systems, hard lessons. Appl. Ergon. 31, 663–678 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schein, E.H.: Organizational Culture and Leadership. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maguire, M.: Methods to support human-centred design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 55(4), 587–634 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czarniawska, B.: Social Science Research: From Field to Desk. SAGE, London (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silverman, D.: Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.L.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joffe, H., Yardley, L.: Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks, D.F., Yardley, L. (ed.) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasmussen, J.: Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf. Sci. 27(2/3), 183–213 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vicente, K.J.: The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the Way People Live with Technology. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersson, J., Bligård, L.-O., Osvalder, A.-L., Rissanen, M.J., Tripathi, S.: To develop viable human factors engineering methods for improved industrial use. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karlsson, M.: User requirements elicitation: a framework for the study of the relation between user and artefact. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norman, D.A.: The ‘problem’ of automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 327(1241), 585–593 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bainbridge, L.: Ironies of automation. In: Rasmussen, J., Duncan, K., Leplat, J. (eds.) New Technology and Human Error. Wiley, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York City (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parent, R., Roy, M., St-Jacques, D.: A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. J. Knowl. Manag. 11(6), 81–93 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bligård, L.-O., Österman, C., Berlin, C.: Using 2D and 3D models as tools during a workplace design process - a question of how and when. In: 46th Nordic Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Long, S., Spurlock, D.G.: Motivation and stakeholder acceptance in technology-driven change management: implications for the engineering manager. Eng. Manag. J. 20(2), 30–36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giacomin, J.: What is human centred design? Des. J.: Int. J. All Asp. Des. 17(4), 606–623 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO: ISO 9241-210 Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. In: ISO 9241-210. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations