• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dimensions of e -ICT in the Arctic North 2
 

Dimensions of e -ICT in the Arctic North 2

on

  • 246 views

Course at Lapin Yliopisto 2005, Session set 2

Course at Lapin Yliopisto 2005, Session set 2

Statistics

Views

Total Views
246
Views on SlideShare
246
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dimensions of e -ICT in the Arctic North 2 Dimensions of e -ICT in the Arctic North 2 Presentation Transcript

    • Day 3 – (technical, ICT) Innovation• What are (technological) innovations?• Where are innovations coming from?• Technology adap- and adoptation as organisational innovations – the voluntary and – the forced approach for implementationOliver Krone © 2005/6 71LaY/ YTK
    • What are (technological) innovations?• Innovations are different to inventions• Differentiating element is, that the invention is confined to the locality of it is origin, and• thus does become widespread either within in a single organisation, or across a whole industry“Innovation is [..] a social transformation in a community”(Denning, 2005, 15)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 72LaY/ YTK
    • What are (technological) innovations? IIprocess of innovation consists of five steps: 1. searching for opportunity meaning the search for unexpected, or incongruencies in a process 2. analysis in the form of generation of business plan 3. listening while presenting the suggestion to others in the market 4. focus as being the development of a concise summary of the idea, and thereby refuse to extend the to early to customer or clients needs 5. leadership as being the implementation of the innovation in the market and selling it as “best of breed”Oliver Krone © 2005/6 73LaY/ YTK
    • Where are innovations coming from? I• organisational innovations can be distinguished into two categories – administrative innovation- focus on how to run the organisation more efficient, and thus originating in the hierarchy of the organisation and than being fed down and – technical innovation- as being improved ways of performing activities that are suggested for general implementation, and therefore originating more at the operational levelOliver Krone © 2005/6 76LaY/ YTK
    • An innovation model based on the level of impactOliver Krone © 2005/6 79LaY/ YTK
    • ICT as organisational innovation II• Organisational change is happening irrespective of the fact whether the adoption of new procedures, or• the implementation of new software, serves only the ICT department, or the whole organisation• Implementation of ICT induced innovations rests on the cooperation of the entire organisation to implement it successfullyOliver Krone © 2005/6 81LaY/ YTK
    • Scope and breadth of Type III InnovationsOliver Krone © 2005/6 83LaY/ YTK
    • technology adap- and adoptation I• Technology acceptance model (TAM) is – less general in the assumptions and parameters observed, and – suggested to be more suitable for explaining adoption of ICT• implementation of ICT is result of the combination of the – “[..] perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and – users’ attitudes, intentions, and actual computer adoption behaviour” (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 85LaY/ YTK
    • technology adap- and adoptation II• Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) posits that – the adaptation ICT is dependent on expectation of an individual that the utilisation is in accordance with personae’s attitude and – subjective norms.• Thereby the utilisation of an application is considered as being a behaviour that is in principle intended from the software point of view. (initially moral or ethical neutral)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 86LaY/ YTK
    • ICT innovation implementation in org. settings II• Adoption= split into three main sets of activities – “primary adoption”= managerial decision to adopt an innovation after a search for optimisation options – “secondary adoption”= two level process that considers motives of the management and employees. • Management consideration for adoption along TRA parameters • Employees= “when and how they adopt it – through what experiences, with what obstacles encountered, and how these events influence organizational assimilation and outcomes“ – actions taken by managem. in order facilitate the adoption of the innovation might also incl. means that render the utilisation of ICT necessaryOliver Krone © 2005/6 95LaY/ YTK
    • ICT innovation implementation in org. settings III• Engrainment = divided into two sub- constructs: – breadth of use refers to number of adopters within a firm [..], – while depth of use is [..] describing how extensively the innovation is used and – its level of impact within the firm”Oliver Krone © 2005/6 96LaY/ YTK
    • Innovation and impact on ”life” I• in order to impact on ”life” innovations – in the first instance have to be allowed for the particular level of society – this means, that the existence of an innovation per se does not change anything – only if the innovation is set into context of one’s life, changes are going to happenOliver Krone © 2005/6 89LaY/ YTK
    • Innovation and impact on ”life” III• Applying this notion to the Arctic areas, one is tempted to argue, that – Something that is great for other areas is not necessarily of value as well there, because of • Lack of suitability, • Different needs, • Missing knowledge, and related transfer options of the innovationOliver Krone © 2005/6 91LaY/ YTK
    • Innovation and impact on ”life” IV• ICT per se are not affecting society• that, as shown in many models, only after crossing a certain threshold societal impact can be measured• just as much as ICT implemented in organisations do not change anything, it is ICT+X≈ change, whereby X= – process changes/ modifications, – Learning about the characteristics of ICT and how to use thoseOliver Krone © 2005/6 92LaY/ YTK
    • The Rogers Innovation adoption curveSource:http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~renglish/370/notes/chapt11/, 01/28/2006Oliver Krone © 2005/6 93LaY/ YTK
    • Day 4 – Knowledge Integration• The term ”knowledge” – meaning and ingredients• Constructionistic character of knowledge – Academic disciplines – The relevance of domain knowledge claims• Origins of KI• KI and its contentOliver Krone © 2005/6 97LaY/ YTK
    • On the dual character of Knowledge”.. explicit Knowledge ..can be articulated in formal language including grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, across individuals formally and easily.[…] Tacit knowledge.. is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and the value system” (Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995, viii)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 99LaY/ YTK
    • Elaborating on Dualities• ”Knowledge is something that is possessed. It is something about but not in the tangible world. And it is static, in that possessing it does not require that it be always in use.”• ”Knowing” refers to the epistemic work that is done as part of action or practice. By knowing.. [not meant] necessary to action, but ..something .. part of action” (Cook/ Brown 1999, 387)• “Knowledge is about possession;it is a term of predication” “Knowing is about relation:it is about interaction between the knower(s) and the world” (ibid.)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 100LaY/ YTK
    • „Reality“ and „knowledge“ II• For “idealist” the world is empty in terms of objects which are external to human beings, until they are experienced for the first time. On gaining individually the experience of the existence of the object, and describing it, individual “knowledge” has been created.• For “objectivists” the object is always existent; it is only that an individual is taking notice of it. Knowledge relates to the existence of an object with a description of it, and this description is then, in some definitions, knowledge.Oliver Krone © 2005/6 103LaY/ YTK
    • „Reality“ and „knowledge“ IIIThe objectivist/ idealist divide is result of the problem“[..] that the world does not classify itself, that it must be actively ordered and organized and the particular encountered in it actively grouped together”. (Barnes, 1995, p. 96)• in respect to world many different forms and ways of ordering are existent, and• all of these are true to the world.• the choice which ordering is dominant is result of an interactionist agreement among members of a given societyOliver Krone © 2005/6 104LaY/ YTK
    • „Reality“ and „knowledge“ V• The answer is no, if one takes an epistemological point of view.• Insofar as knowledge is just one interpretation of„reality“, western knowledge has been deciphered in the 60‘s as being as much a „story“ as „oral culture“ myth.• Having said this, western knowledge, potentially more then indigenous knowledge, is biased and geared to find• better reality describing sets of knowledge, under the assumption that all knowledge is always only an approximation to (natural) reality (cp. Hesse, 1980, p. 188+190-3)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 106LaY/ YTK
    • A necessary excurse – systems theory and KI• complexity is the degree of integration and implications of a given decision field’ – Is a property of a system’s environment - external• contingency is a state of a system that offers it different courses of action. Contingency is a property that is immanent to complex, internally differentiated systems. – Is a property that is immanent to a system - internal• Sense is understood as a category that is an expression of collective shared normative (symbolic) orders, and includes “values, objectives, and strategies” and how to achieve theseOliver Krone © 2005/6 107LaY/ YTK
    • Academia and Knowledge – a bizarre effect III• Intradisciplinarity- it takes place if two researchers from the same discipline work together, but have different areas of specialisation• Interdisciplinarity- researchers from different disciplines in the same broader field of sciences cooperate. While they share basic insights and methods of reflection, their knowledge sets are dedicated and specialised. Most likely they are sharing paradigms.• Multidisciplinarity - cooperation of different academic disciplines that are working jointly, each in its domain, on a shared problem. Different paradigms might beOliver Krone © 2005/6 such a research setting involved in 111LaY/ YTK
    • Knowledge Integration II• „It [KI] examines the processes under which a successful exchange of Information and Knowledge is happening“ (Hislop, 2003)• “synthesis of individual specialised Knowledge into situation-specific systemic knowledge” (Alavi/ Timawa, 2001)• “the compilation of systemic networked meta- knowledge which forms a bridge between previously isolated areas of knowledge and experience. It relies on the ability to define problems independently of disciplines and to solve them on an interdisciplinary basis“ (Ganz/ Hermann, 1999)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 116LaY/ YTK
    • Knowledge Integration V(Steinheider, 1999)Oliver Krone © 2005/6 119LaY/ YTK
    • Social Identity Theory Group-membership -assimilation to prototype - social attraction hypothesis - Leadership based on Prototypicality Leadership allows - change in def. Of Prototype - define new Norms - pressure on Deviant members Results: -Leaders are not selected based on capabilities - overall in the Orga. Management is a rep.of a dominant Type - overall Org. are becoming prone to be abusive to others(Hogg/Terry 2000) Oliver Krone © 2005/6 121 LaY/ YTK
    • sources of self-efficacy enactive mastery vicarious experiences verbal persuasion lead to Knowledge = -representation of rules physiological and affective states -and strategies for effective actions is part of embodiescognitive Models=influences for the production “of skilled actionand as interpersonal standards [for Individuals]for making corrective Adjustments affect Interaction ”common Ground” -line of actions - sharing aim “Epistemic style” - expressing sanctions Learning and cognitive style - face saving Conceptions of Interdisciplinarity Oliver Krone © 2005/6 123 LaY/ YTK