Organizational Resistance to Automation Success: How Status Quo Bias Influences Organizational Resistance to an Automated Workflow System in a Public Organization
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Determine how organizational resistance impacts the implementation of automated workflow systems.
- Create a theoretical framework, based on status quo bias theory, to assist in interpreting how organizational resistance to change can influence the implementation of automated workflow systems.
- Gather data from a public organization, in order to create a case study capable of analysing and interpreting the impact of organizational resistance to change.
- This paper firstly reviews the literature concerning user resistance to automated workflow systems. Secondly, it develops a theoretical framework based on status quo bias theory, followed by demonstrating how this can clarify why resistance can arise to automated workflow systems. Thirdly, there is a discussion of the methodology employed in this study. Finally, there is an analysis and discussion of the results, followed by the final conclusions.
2. Literature Review
“When a system is introduced, users in a group will first assess it in terms of the interplay between its features and individual and/or organizational-level initial conditions. They then make projections about the consequences of its use. If expected consequences are threatening, resistance behaviours will result. During implementation, should some trigger occur to either modify, or activate, an initial condition involving the balance of power between the group and other user groups, it will also modify the object of resistance, from system to system significance. If the relevant initial conditions pertain to the power of the resisting group vis-a-vis the system advocates, the object of resistance will also be modified, from system significance to system advocates. Resistance behaviours will follow if threats are perceived from the interaction between the object of resistance and initial condition”.[25] (p. 461)
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. The Use of the Lens of Status Quo Bias Theory
3.2. The Benefts of the Lens of Status Quo Bias Theory for Interpreting Resistance to Change
- Organizational employees' resistance to a change of system tends to be commensurate with the level of the resulting costs i.e., changes in roles and structure. Status quo bias theory can help identify the issues related to transition costs and the reactions of employees.
- Resistance increases when organizational members experience uncertainty concerning these costs, i.e., during the implementation of automated workflow systems. Status quo bias theory can help define how such uncertainty impacts resistance to change.
- Status quo bias theory can assist in understanding employees’ cognitive misperception of new systems, as well as how and why they resist, i.e., as a result of misunderstanding the benefits of new systems. It is, therefore, vital to acquire an in-depth understanding of the views of employees before, during and after any change, in order to recognise the processes involved in such resistance.
- It is important to examine the psychological commitment of organizational employees during times of change, so as to demonstrate how and why resistance can occur. It can also reveal that encouraging employees’ commitment to an organization can help them understand (and overcome) resistance to change.
3.3. There Are Also a Number of Further Theories Employed by Research into Information Systems Exploring Resistance to Change in Organizations, as Discussed Below
3.3.1. Work Systems Theory (WST)
3.3.2. Political Variant of Interaction Theory
3.3.3. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
3.3.4. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
4. Methods
5. Analysis and Discussion
5.1. How Employees’ Resistance Impacted by the Adoption of Automated Workflow Systems
5.1.1. Job Security
“Job and work losses can be a result of automation, and thereby influence resistance in the workplace. Thus, many jobs will be automated and there will be no requirement for people to do specific tasks. However, there will be a change in the skills and jobs required… I remember one manager I dealt with while automating a number of processes in an organization, said: ‘If we automate, what is the need for managers and employees anymore?’”. (Software Automation Engineer)
5.1.2. Changes in Laws and Rules
“We faced strong resistance to rules on the legal front. We also had arguments in terms of interpreting the rules and laws. In addition, the old school did not like to see any changes, and preferred to continue with the same methods and approaches at work. We faced difficulties with the infrastructure, as well as the integration required and its extension. Every party has a view and these are all correct, if a suggestion is not strong enough and cannot be supported, it will fail and face resistance.” (Automation Consultant)
5.1.3. Lack of Understanding or Knowledge of the Technology
“Some resisters try to stress the problems arising from automation and sometimes out of fear for the future, including the need to learn new skills and tools and a lack of understanding of the technology. People take an adversarial stance towards things they don’t know about.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“As there used to be implementers who fought hard to stop us, and they may have felt uncertain about the results of automation, we had to explain our intention and plans clearly.” (Automation Consultant)
5.1.4. Lack of Trust in the Technology
“There is a level of uncertainty in the adoption of automation, and this uncertainty exists when employees fear that they might have to follow a lengthy process to ensure the success of automation, even if they support it. They also fear that the organization may replace them with those who already have the skills required post-automation.” (Software Automation Engineer)
5.1.5. Perceived Risks and Costs Associated with Change
“We saw that managers and employees were reluctant to adopt the new work methods and processes, because they had to adapt to a new situation. So yes, employees understand that there are costs involved when moving to a new working setting.” (Automation Engineer)
“Resistance happens when users, employees, or managers in an organization refuse to work with the new business processes, due to lacking the required skills, or in the absence of the necessary infrastructure or tools. The developer and implementer are required to coordinate with many parties in the organization. So, they refuse for the reasons just mentioned and say they need training, or don’t have the skills needed; or that the previous working methods were successful, so there is no need to automate. This can result in many risks.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“Yes, we saw a kind of psychological uncertainty and risks relating to what automation brings to the organization. We previously worked with the employees, but if we asked certain questions they tended to give false answers. Today, the tools make the decisions instead of them. So, automation reduces the need for these kinds of decisions to be taken by employees, and the systems perform this for many tasks at work. Therefore, we raised this with senior management, who supported us in overcoming this issue.” (Automation Consultant)
“Some people resist due to the fear that they can’t learn and adapt to new methods and skills. We applied change management thinking in the organization, and delivered training and sent emails and workshops. We also arranged events with employees, in order to encourage them to support our efforts towards automation.” (Automation Consultant)
“There is a kind of psychological uncertainty. I noticed someone who used to work as a supervisor of business functions was using manual tools. When a decision was taken to automate these processes, he opposed the management’s vision for over three years. This resulted in conflict between different parties within the organization and fears of a loss of work.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“It is possible to learn to use new tools and methods in work, but there is now an increasing awareness that people have to become better educated. However, there is still a kind of resistance to learning new skills and tools.” (Software Automation Engineer)
5.1.6. Change of Business Processes, Alongside Organizational Structure and Power
“The influence of automation on business processes will be merged, resulting in the removal of paperwork. There will be automation for archives and services and databases and categorization.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“It depends on whether the new business processes will require full automation. You need management that controls what comes first. I believe it will look different in future, with the IT department being very powerful once most of the business processes in the organization have been automated.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“The IT department and implementers of automation will be the first to benefit from automation in organizations. Let me give you this example: in banks, there are branches and the main administration. The opening of accounts, along with most services, are now automated and take place online. This reduces the power of branches in favour of the main administration, who still have power over the banks.” (Software Automation Engineer)
“IT people, support, technical teams and marketing are the new powerful personnel in an automated organization. They generally benefit from the potential of automation in the market, and automation will be the backbone for the organization, which will empower certain personnel with specific tasks.” (Software Automation Engineer)
5.1.7. Discomfort of Making Difficult Decisions
“There used to be resistance to automation, and we confronted this by taking the business as it is and performing a gap analysis to correctly understand the problems. We found that specific processes were performed by certain people, which we changed, after raising the awareness of senior management, in order to ensure their support. One reason for resistance at the individual level was that they wished to continue working as they had done previously.” (Automation Consultant)
5.2. Implications for Research, Practice and Society
6. Conclusions
- This research consisted of a qualitative interpretive case study analysing semi-structured interviews that led to effective answers and interpretations of why and how resistance can occur during the process of automation in a public organization. However, it focused on a previous implementation (i.e., prior to 2016), inferring the possibility that, due to the length of the intervening time, the reflections of the interviewees may differ from their actual experiences during the implementation.
- This study employed semi-structured interviews with those involved in the implementation process. However, it experienced difficulties in obtaining alternative sources of data (i.e., documents or focus groups), which can strengthen both the analysis and interpretation.
- How resistance to emerging technologies in both developed and developing countries tends to differ from that opposed to the traditional mode of IS within organizations.
- How to develop a clear theory of resistance by a critical review of the current theorizing concerning this subject in the IS field.
- How to include a number of theoretical perspectives borrowed from disciplines including sociology and organizational sciences (i.e., innovation theory) into the understanding of technological systems in organizations, in order to promote interesting results and interpretations of organizational resistance to IS.
- To examine whether mature technologies are generally resisted in different public and private organizations in both developed and developing countries, followed by suggesting relevant solutions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mikalef, P.; Gupta, M. Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, S.M.C.; Guerreiro, J.; Tussyadiah, I. Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 129, 911–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramanian, N.; Ye, Y.; Xu, M. Substituting human decision-making with: Implications for organizational learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2022, 47, 448–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrontis, D.; Christofi, M.; Pereira, V.; Tarba, S.; Makrides, A.; Trichina, E. Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies and human resource management: A systematic review. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 33, 1237–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brous, P.; Janssen, M.; Herder, P. The dual effects of the Internet of Things (IoT): A systematic review of the benefits and risks of IoT adoption by organizations. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 101952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popovič, A.; Hackney, R.; Tassabehji, R.; Castelli, M. The impact of big data analytics on firms’ high value business performance. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 20, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albarghouthi, M.; Qi, B.; Wang, C.; Abbad, M. ERP adoption and acceptance in Saudi Arabia higher education: A conceptual model development. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (Ijet) 2020, 15, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ElFarmawi, W. Challenges affecting the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system: An analysis. J. Syst. Integr. 2019, 10, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
- Cline, G.B.; Luiz, J.M. Information technology systems in public sector health facilities in developing countries: The case of South Africa. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2013, 13, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stohr, E.A.; Zhao, J.L. Workflow automation: Overview and research issues. Inf. Syst. Front. 2001, 3, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dykman, C.A.; Davis, C.K. Addressing resistance to workflow automation. J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 2012, 9, 115–123. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Aalst, W.M.; Jablonski, S. Dealing with workflow change: Identification of issues and solutions. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 2000, 15, 267–276. [Google Scholar]
- Samhan, B. Revisiting technology resistance: Current insights and future directions. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 2018, 22, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samuelson, W.; Zeckhauser, R.A. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1988, 1, 7–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacovou, C.L.; Benbasat, I.; Dexter, A.S. Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 465–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, B. Managing the transition of technology life cycle. Technovation 2003, 23, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Oliveira-Dias, D.; Marín, J.M.M.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Lean and agile supply chain strategies: The role of mature and emerging information technologies. Lean and agile supply chain strategies: The role of mature and emerging information technologies. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2022, 33, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotolo, D.; Hicks, D.; Martin, B.R. What is an emerging technology? Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1827–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hirschheim, R.; Newman, M. Information systems and user resistance: Theory and practice. Comput. J. 1988, 31, 398–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dickson, G.W.; Simmons, J.K. The behavioral side of MIS Some aspects of the “people problem”. Bus. Horiz. 1970, 13, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keen, P.G. Information systems and organizational change. Commun. ACM 1981, 24, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baroudi, J.J.; Olson, M.H.; Ives, B. An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Commun. ACM 1986, 29, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leidner, D.E.; Kayworth, T. A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 357–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, B.; Berner, E.S.; Wyatt, J.R. Lying strategies to overcome user resistance in a group of clinical managers to a business software application: A case study. J. Organ. End User Comput. (JOEUC) 2004, 16, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lapointe, L.; Rivard, S. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 461–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doolin, B. Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information. Inf. Syst. J. 2004, 14, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laumer, S.; Maier, C.; Eckhardt, A. Why Do They Resist?—An Empirical Analysis of an Individual’s Personality Trait Resistance Regarding the Adoption of New Information Systems. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information System, Pretoria, South Africa, 7–9 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Laumer, S.; Maier, C.; Eckhardt, A.; Weitzel, T. Work routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations: Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2016, 25, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merhi, M.I.; Ahluwalia, P. Examining the impact of deterrence factors and norms on resistance to information systems security. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 92, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abollado, J.R.; Shehab, E.; Bamforth, P. Challenges and benefits of digital workflow implementation in aerospace manufacturing engineering. Procedia CIRP 2017, 60, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zayas -Cabán, T.; Haque, S.N.; Kemper, N. Identifying opportunities for workflow automation in health care: Lessons learned from other industries. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2021, 12, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zayas-Cabán, T.; Okubo, T.H.; Posnack, S. Priorities to accelerate workflow automation in health care. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2023, 30, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doherty, P.; Perry, I. The cultural impact of workflow management systems in the financial services sector. Serv. Ind. J. 2001, 21, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Liffman, D.Y.; Karunamoorthy, D.; Abebe, E. Distributed ledger technology for document and workflow management in trade and logistics. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Italy, Torino, 22–26 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, W.J.; Blood, A.J.; Chaney, K.; Clark, E.; Glynn, C.; Green, R.; Laurent, J.S.; Mailly, C.; McPartlin, M.; Murphy, S.; et al. Workflow Automation for a Virtual Hypertension Management Program. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2021, 12, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar]
- Lohman, L. Connecting and Communicating with Faculty through Workflow Automation Platforms. J. Fac. Dev. 2022, 36, 73–76. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, M.L. Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Commun. ACM 1983, 26, 430–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alsulaimi, A.; Abdullah, T. Management of Stakeholder Communications in IT Projects. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Computer Applications & Information Security (ICCAIS), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 19–21 March 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, M.L. The politics of implementation: Top management support and user involvement. Syst. Object. Solut. 1981, 1, 203–215. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, M.L.; Pfeffer, J. Power and the design and implementation of accounting and control systems. Account. Organ. Soc. 1983, 8, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Markus, M.L.; Bjørn-Andersen, N. Power over users: Its exercise by system professionals. Commun. ACM 1987, 30, 498–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newman, M.; Noble, F. User involvement as an interaction process: A case study. Inf. Syst. Res. 1987, 1, 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschheim, R.; Klein, H.K. Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun. ACM 1989, 32, 1199–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.W.; Kankanhalli, A. Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sıcakyüz, Ç.; Yüregir, O.H. Exploring resistance factors on the usage of hospital information systems from the perspective of the Markus’s Model and the Technology Acceptance M. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2020, 16, 93–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khaouli, E.A. Employees’ Resistance to Organizational Change in the Case of Automation. Ph.D. Thesis, Notre Dame University-Louaize, Koura, Lebanon, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Selander, L.; Henfridsson, O. Cynicism as user resistance in IT implementation. Inf. Syst. J. 2012, 22, 289–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.C.; Huang, S.L.; Chiang, S.C. User resistance to the implementation of information systems: A psychological contract breach perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2018, 19, 306–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ilie, V.; Turel, O. Manipulating user resistance to large-scale information systems through influence tactics. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imihi, M.; Ouiddad, S.; Ouchane, K.; Elouidani, A.O. Determinants of resistance to the use of ERP in the context of farms in Morocco. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. 2020, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Bateh, J.; Castaneda, M.E.; Farah, J.E. Employee resistance to organizational change. Electron. Int. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. (IJMIS) 2013, 17, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirish, A.; Batuekueno, L. Technology renewal, user resistance, user adoption: Status quo bias theory revisited. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2021, 34, 874–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Liu, M.; Liu, X. Why do employees resist knowledge management systems? An empirical study from the status quo bias and inertia perspectives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 65, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Joshi, K. Examining the use of status quo bias perspective in IS research: Need for re-conceptualizing and incorporating biases. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 27, 733–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimitropoulos, P.E.; Koronios, K. Board gender diversity and cash holdings: Empirical evidence from the European sport and leisure sector. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ntasis, L.; Koronios, K.; Pappas, T. The impact of COVID-19 on the technology sector: The case of TATA Consultancy Services. Strateg. Chang. 2021, 30, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koronios, K.; Dimitropoulos, P.; Kriemadis, A.; Douvis, J.; Papaloukas, M.; Ratten, V. Empowerment and performance in SMEs: Examining the effect of employees’ ethical values and emotional intelligence. In A Guide to Planning and Managing Open Innovative Ecosystems; Emerald Publishing Limited: West Yorkshire, UK, 2020; pp. 83–98. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, E.; Büttgen, M.; Bartsch, S. How to take employees on the digital transformation journey: An experimental study on complementary leadership behaviors in managing organizational change. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 143, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steininger, D. M Linking information systems and entrepreneurship: A review and agenda for IT-associated and digital entrepreneurship research. Inf. Syst. J. 2019, 29, 363–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lokuge, S.; Sedera, D.; Grover, V.; Dongming, X. Organizational readiness for digital innovation: Development and empirical calibration of a construct. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Electron. Econom. 1979, 47, 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, C.J. The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 129, 139–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Polites, G.L.; Karahanna, E. hackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alter, S. Work system theory: Overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior; Dorsey Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems Theory and Results; Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Walsham, G. Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1995, 4, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsham, G. Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2006, 15, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlikowski, W.J.; Baroudi, J.J. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farrall, S. What Is Qualitative Longitudinal Research. In LSE Methodology Institute’s Discussion Paper No. 11; London School of Economics: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Harrell, M.C.; Bradley, M.A. Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups; Rand National Defense Research Institute: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, C.; Scott, S.; Geddes, A. Snowball Sampling; SAGE Research Methods Foundations: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Almatrodi, I. The Power/Knowledge of Consultants and Project Management Office in Enterprise System Implementation: A Case Study of a Saudi Arabian University. Ph.D. Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Coupe, T. Automation, job characteristics and job insecurity. Int. J. Manpow. 2019, 40, 1288–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwabe, H.; Castellacci, F. Automation, workers’ skills and job satisfaction. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazareno, L.; Schiff, D.S. The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on worker well-being. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschang, F.T.; Almirall, E. Artificial intelligence as augmenting automation: Implications for employment. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 35, 642–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuziemski, M.; Misuraca, G. AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommun. Policy 2020, 44, 101976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tariq, M.U.; Poulin, M.; Abonamah, A.A. Achieving operational excellence through artificial intelligence: Driving forces and barriers. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 68662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.D.; Seppelt, B.D. Human factors in automation design. In Springer Handbook of Automation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 417–436. [Google Scholar]
- Delgado, J.M.D.; Oyedele, L.; Ajayi, A.; Akanbi, L.; Akinade, O.; Bilal, M.; Owolabi, H. Robotics and automated systems in construction: Understanding industry-specific challenges for adoption. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plesums, C. Introduction to Workflow. In Workflow Handbook; Fischer, L., Ed.; Future Strategies Inc.: Lighthouse Point, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 19–38. [Google Scholar]
- Kobielus, J.K. Workflow Strategies; IDG Books Worldwide: Foster City, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Warren, J.; Myungsin, C. Culture, organizational dynamics and workflow implementation: The case of a failed implementation. J. Inf. Technol. Case Appl. Res. 2007, 9, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zammuto, R.F.; O'Connor, E.J. Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies’ benefits: The roles of organization design and culture. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1992, 17, 701–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, J.; Sheth, A. Adaptation and Workflow Management Systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference WWW/Internet, Lisbon, Portugal, 19–22 October 2005; Volume 2005, pp. 356–364. [Google Scholar]
- Mlay, S.V.; Zlotnikova, I.; Watundu, S. A quantitative analysis of business process reengineering and organizational resistance: The case of Uganda. Afr. J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 5, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Pap, K.; Pavlović, T.; Sabati, Z.; Barišić, M.; Koren, A. Digital workflow system in graphic production. In Proceedings of the 10th International Design Conference DESIGN, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 19–22 May 2008; p. 1459. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, W.K.; Hsu, F.T.; Chen, C.L. The Impacts of Digital Technology on Service Design and Experience Innovation: Case Study of Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage under the COVID-19 Pandemic. Systems 2022, 10, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, M.; Meisen, T.; Plociennik, C.; Berg, H.; Pomp, A.; Windholz, W. Stop guessing in the dark: Identified requirements for digital product passport systems. Systems 2023, 11, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carriço, N.; Ferreira, B.; Antunes, A.; Grueau, C.I.; Barreira, R.; Mendes, A.; Covas, D.I.; Monteiro, L.; Santos, J.F.; Brito, I.S. An Information System for Infrastructure Asset Management Tailored to Portuguese Water Utilities: Platform Conceptualization and a Prototype Demonstration. Systems 2023, 11, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
The Interview Questions |
---|
|
Theme | Evidence (Examples From Interviews) | Support for Analysis and Interpretation |
---|---|---|
Job security | However, resistance can arise because the employees in the organization want to keep their jobs… (Software Automation Engineer). | Supported by the literature and lens of status quo bias theory |
Changes in laws and rules | We faced strong resistance to rules on the legal front. We also had arguments in terms of interpreting the rules and laws… (Automation Consultant). | Supported by the literature and lens of status quo bias theory |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Almatrodi, I.; Li, F.; Alojail, M. Organizational Resistance to Automation Success: How Status Quo Bias Influences Organizational Resistance to an Automated Workflow System in a Public Organization. Systems 2023, 11, 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040191
Almatrodi I, Li F, Alojail M. Organizational Resistance to Automation Success: How Status Quo Bias Influences Organizational Resistance to an Automated Workflow System in a Public Organization. Systems. 2023; 11(4):191. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040191
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlmatrodi, Ibrahim, Feng Li, and Mohammed Alojail. 2023. "Organizational Resistance to Automation Success: How Status Quo Bias Influences Organizational Resistance to an Automated Workflow System in a Public Organization" Systems 11, no. 4: 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040191