Understanding Individual User Resistance and Workarounds of Enterprise Social Networks: The Case of Service Ltd

Abstract

She has extensive years' experience specialising in investigating the social inclusion and adoption of Information and Communications Technologies on society's 'marginal groups', the adoption, use and diffusion of innovative Information and Communication Technologies in Small to Medium Size Enterprises and large organizations. She has led projects funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Microsoft and headed Knowledge Transfer Partnerships and consultancy projects with organizations such as, British Telecom and AoL. She has published over 100 peer reviewed papers, commented in trade magazines such as, Computing and Computer Weekly and newspapers, Times Online, Guardian and has been invited to comment on the radio about the issues of broadband adoption and policies and the impacts of technology on older adults. Dr. Efrpaxia Zamani holds a Bachelor Degree in Architecture from the Faculty of Engineering, AUTH. She has been awarded with an MA in Museum Studies from the University of Leicester and an MSc in Finance & Management Engineering from the Aegean University. She has received a scholarship from the Department of Financial & Management Engineering, Aegean University where Efpraxia successfully completed her Doctoral studies (PhD) in Pervasive Information Systems in the

Conceptualizing Workarounds: Meanings and Manifestations in Information Systems Research

“…Studies also commonly explained workarounds as resulting from conflict between top-down pressure and bottom-up constraints from day-to-day operational work. Top-down pressure can include company rules and policies (Choudrie & Zamani, 2016), enterprise systems requirements from headquarters (Malaurent & Avison, 2016), or external pressure from regulations or accrediting (Azad & King, 2012;Huuskonen & Vakkari, 2013). Bottom-up constraints can include material constraints, work ethos, and staff's lack of interest in IS (Azad & King, 2012;Choudrie & Zamani, 2016).…”

“…Top-down pressure can include company rules and policies (Choudrie & Zamani, 2016), enterprise systems requirements from headquarters (Malaurent & Avison, 2016), or external pressure from regulations or accrediting (Azad & King, 2012;Huuskonen & Vakkari, 2013). Bottom-up constraints can include material constraints, work ethos, and staff's lack of interest in IS (Azad & King, 2012;Choudrie & Zamani, 2016). Studies that explained workarounds as resulting from top-down pressure and bottom-up constraints used different approaches, such as institutional theory (Azad & King, 2012;Choudrie & Zamani, 2016), negotiated order (Azad & King, 2008), process theory (Huuskonen & Vakkari, 2013), and activity theory (Malaurent & Avison, 2016).…”

“…However, researchers have also acknowledged workarounds as beneficial and, in fact, necessary in hospitals (Ash, Berg, & Coiera, 2004;Parks, Xu, Chu, & Lowry, 2017) and other settings (Button, Mason, & Sharrock, 2003;Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006). Several studies have viewed workarounds as expressing resistance (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006;Choudrie & Zamani, 2016), whereas others question this view (Button et al, 2003;Azad & King, 2012). As a complex phenomenon, workarounds have both positive and negative effects.…”

Cognitive overload in organizational knowledge management: Case study research

“…Social media (SM) are rapidly diffusing among organizations because they are considered important for competitive advantage (Choudrie & Zamani, 2016;Schlagwein & Hu, 2017). Many scholars underline that SM can bring substantial benefits to knowledge management (KM) thanks to increased communication, better collaboration, enhanced knowledge location and sharing, faster integration of new employees, and so on (Mäntymäki & Riemer, 2016;Weber & Shi, 2017).…”

Accommodating Practices During Episodes of Disillusionment with Mobile IT

“…We can see similar accommodating practices across the information systems literature, albeit not necessarily under the same names. For example, workarounds have been very much influential and authors have written quite extensively around them (e.g., Choudrie et al 2016;Seethamraju 2015;Spierings et al 2017). Rejection, similarly, has appeared in the literature, in different forms, e.g., discontinuance (Cao et al 2019) and Soliman et al (Soliman and Rinta-Kahila 2019) provide a thorough review of the different forms and conceptualizations this may take.…”