Technological Frames

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify and explain the barriers that prevented the case study organization, an Australasian university, from implementing a groupware package. This is an insider action research case study, using qualitative semistructured interviews, group and individual training to look at users' technological frames around the implementation and use of a groupware product. Technological frames were used to enable a systematic examination of the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge of technology; in particular, the use of technological frames reveals aspects of user resistance. While addressing criticisms of the technological frames genre, this study uses technological frames as a lens to examine the underlying drivers and impediments to information systems (IS) implementation. In this case study, changes to a groupware product failed to be implemented, not because of user resistance to the product, but because of organizational politics. This study demonstrates how the culture of an organization may stifle the implementation of IS.

Teachers' learning in extraordinary times: shifting to a digitally facilitated approach to lesson study

“…Teachers' experiences of technology use and potential changes in their perceptions It is unlikely that any technology will function as intended from its initial deployment. Rather, successful implementation depends on the ways in which it is accommodated for, in context, by the users themselves (Camilleri, 2018;Olesen, 2014). Initially, the characteristics of digital technology will tend to pertain to the functional attributes, as originally intended by the designer.…”

“…The term “technological frames”, as originally defined by Orlikowski and Gash (1994), concerns the employment of schemas which, based upon individually or collectively filtered information, allows a person or a group of people to relate to and subjectively give meaning to the technology in question. These schemas, also coined as frames, scripts or thought worlds (Olesen, 2014), employ the central tenet of assumptions, knowledge, expectations and cognitive structures that individuals, towards whom a particular technology is directed to, employ to understand the situation they are in.…”

“…Though discreetly operating in the background, these assumptions and expectations will subtly influence nascent observable traits and outcomes directed towards the technology being used (Camilleri, 2018; Davidson, 2006; Orlikowski and Gash, 1994). Therefore, by examining these almost invisible traits and taken-for-granted assumptions acting at the micro level (Orlikowski, 2000), an understanding on how technological frames can potentially convert notions and assumptions to perceived reality and facts (Camilleri, 2018; Olesen, 2014; Davidson, 2006; Orlikowski and Baroudi, 2002) will be understood and lead to insightful use within the reality of an online lesson study.…”

Being ethically resilient during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study of Indian supply chain companies

“…The technological frame (TF) of employees reveals how the group makes sense of the technology available in their organisation. These shared frames profoundly influence decision-making activity (Olesen, 2014). TFs may create predicaments in the process of EDM.…”

O’speak for English Phonetic and Phonology Class: What’s on Students’ Mind?

“…In the teaching and learning process, the use of technology must be accompanied by the teachers' guidance and students' awareness that technology is a tool; it is not the main focus of the education. Olesen (2014) states that three technology domains consist of technology in use, technology strategy, and technology nature. Moreover, in applying technology in an educational setting, teachers and education stakeholders must acquire the concept of those technology domains so that there will be positive impacts of using technology in the education field, particularly in the teaching-learning process.…”