Organizational change enabled by the mandated implementation of new information systems technology

Abstract

paiken @acm.org 1. AIIQXRACT Tbe abiWy to adapt to constantly changing envirmmentd pressures can be the difference between business survival and exthcth. Information Systems (IS) orgtmizations --the internal departments or div&ims responsible for guiding the deveIopment of information systems techmkgy for the parent organization --often play a cruciaI role in making change happen. IS managers have primarily focused on thetechnology change itself. However, IS managers must deai not only with technical issues, but they must also deal with the bnman issues of managing change. Therefore, it is important to understand not ~rdy the determinants of attitude toward a new ~C~Q~QW, but also to understand the determinants of attitude for the overall organizational change which is being enabled by a new information system or technology. Tbe attitude toward a change depends on a variety of factors that vary with each individual and situation. Individuals have both attitudes toward change in general, and attitudes toward each specific change that . they encounter. The attitude developed for a specific change is influenced by individual personality factors and beliefs about organizational factors such as the presence of adequate training and support. Understanding the influence of determinants used to evaluate organizational change enabled by a new IS technology can provide valuable insight for change management efforts. The purpose of this paper is to explore the determinants of attitude toward not just a new information systems implementation, but to the overall organizational change that it enables. A model is proposed which hypothesizes these factors. To test the model, an instrument based pn previous empirical research is also proposed.

Towards a Structural Model Connecting Hard Skills Soft Skills and Job Conditions and the IS Professional: The Student Perspective

“…The measures and the values for an acceptable fit are presented in Table 4 (Hodgson, 1999;Murray, 1997;Schumacker & Lomax, 1996).…”