Human Benefit through the Diffusion of IS Design Science Research

2010-03-30
2010-04-01

Human Benefit through the Diffusion of IS Design Science Research, Working Conference, Perth, Australia, 30 March-1 April 2010 (joint with WG 8.6).

* General Chairs: Deborah Bunker and Nancy Russo
* Program Chairs: Jan Pries-Heje and John Venable
* Organizing Chair: John Venable and Jan Pries-Heje

More details are available in the CFP.

Event type: 
Working Conference

Comments

Perth conference notes, day 3

The conference started today with my presentation of a paper on "Designing Scholarly Communications", which lead to an interesting discussion. If you're interested, the paper and a space for discussion is on the website. The presentation was followed by the IFIP WG 8.2 Business Meeting--the minutes are also on the website.

=====================================================================

The next paper was a best paper nominee, The Role of Social Networks in Early Adoption of Mobile Devices by Heidi Tscherning & Lars Mathiassen. They did a study of adoption of iPhones in Denmark. She noted that she had bought a US phone and hacked it to be able to use it in Denmark. They studied role of social network in adoption. Describe process of jail breaking needed to use a US iPhone in Denmark. Theory about mobile phone adoption: organizational and individual level. Explanatory frames: utilitarian, social influence, personal characteristics. No study on how early adopters leverage social networks to overcome uncertainties related to technology. Social network perspective. Social network influence constructs: adoption threshold--proportion needed to adopt. Opinion leaders--those who carry information across group boundaries. Social contagion--individual decision to adopt influenced by social network. 4 types: information transfer, normative pressure, competitive concerns and performance network effects. Also noted importance of social learning.

Did a case study. Wanted to study a group of adopters who were relatively similar. Found a group of 5 people who were similar. Gave history of each. Looked at facebook friends. Low adoption--some of their friends had adopted, but not huge proportion. No evidence that opinion leaders had an impact. Information transfer had an impact and some evidence for competitive concerns (prestige to have phone before anyone else), but not for normative pressure or performance network effects. Social learning had an impact.

The discussant was Tor Larsen. He started off by talking about Roger's theories and noted that he can see elements of that in the paper.

=====================================================================

After lunch was a session on Participation in Design. The first paper was Participatory Design Activities and Agile Software Development by Karlheinz Kautz. He noted several problems with user participation, e.g., might not have the power to make decisions, might not be particularly well informed, etc. So, did a study of how customers and users participate in development and design activities in a project that uses agile methods. Possible user focuses: individual--try to satisfy particular users. Average--apply heuristics or general human factors. Fictive--base design on description of hypothetical archetypes of users. Direct or indirect participation. Informative, consultative or participative participation (participative can actually make decisions). Purpose: functional empowerment or democratic empowerment.

Did a case study with 12 interviews in a small development company working for a large organization that develops an operations management system for the Berlin sewer system. Looked at use of participatory design activities: planning games, presentation of working software and acceptance tests. Had actual users involved in design plus intermediaries. (Some users were a bit upset that they had to help do the design, since they'd hired someone to do it.) All different roles in involvement. Purpose was functional empowerment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next paper was Participation in Living Lab: Designing Systems WITH Users by Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn, Debra Howcroft, Anna Ståhlbröst & Anita Melander Wikman. Birgitta noted different ideas with some overlap, e.g., living labs, open innovation, etc. Her goal: clarify concept of living lab and point to possible theoretical grounding for concept, drawing on notions of participatory design. Living lab is a user-centric innovation milieu built on every day practice and research--user influence in open and distributed innovation processes. About 200 self-identified as living labs in Europe. Definition includes both a milieu and an approach. Key value includes user empowerment. From participatory design literature distinction between design for users, design with users and design by users.

Project they studied: MyHealth@Age: research collaboration between Sweden, Norway and Northern Ireland to contribute towards health and wellbeing of aging population in remote communities. E.g., monitoring, alerting. Process starts with user needs and behaviours, then requirements, prototyping, commercialization. Gave example of a development project they did. One thing they found was that the process blends users and technology but not business aspects as much. Hard for users to be partners since they didn't have any kind of contract with them, which meant first that they didn't get access to the portal and they didn't have any particular obligations to the project. Made lots of assumptions about users that they didn't have to do for any other partners. Process was not always easy for users to follow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final paper of the conference was Manufacturing accomplices: ICT use in securing the safety state at airports by Thomas Østerlie, Ole Martin Asak, Ole Georg Petersen & Håvard Tronhus. Noted that airport security has been around for a while and increasing recently. It's a form of ICT-enabled risk management; an ensemble of regulations, procedures, technologies, etc. Surveys show that Norwegian travellers find the security inadequate, but that the inadequacies don't contribute to insecure flights. Did a grounded theory study of ICT use in the airport security checkpoint, to conceptualize. Did interviews with travellers and guards. Looks at interweaving temporal rhythms at the checkpoint. Security guards experience peaks and off-peaks in flow. Fixed sequence of events. Temporal interactions can be in harmony (eg., with experienced travellers flowing smoothly) or competing. ICTs are a main source of disruptions to temporal rhythms. Guards and other travellers discipline travellers to keep flow. Travellers experience the measures as demeaning, but also ineffective because of holes. Think it's explained by the culture of fear thesis: airport security as increased regulation and bureaucratization of the "safety state". Travellers are made accomplices in process.

Perth conference notes, day 2

The first session was a panel on Opening Up the Agile Innovation Process.

Brian Fitzgerald (moderator)--Open Innovation (Ireland 1783-2010). 1783 was a short story about King George visiting an Irish gold mine and pocketing a gold nugget. Ireland 2009 was a company called Cuideachta that wanted a deal to study open innovation with the University, but proposed that it would be an exclusive deal, plus rights to license any University patents. So, another theft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ivan Aaen--Is agile innovative by nature? A critique of agile thinking for not targeting innovation. Notes that agile software development exploits modern development technologies and modern team organization to do things better, but doesn't really address innovation. Tidd et al. typology of innovation: product, process, position and paradigm, but these aren't addressed in agile development. Agile manifesto prefers working code to comprehensive documentation--a protest against prevalent mode of designing and testing to specifications with extensive documentation. Agile focuses on practices vs. standardized processes, but there's no way to capture learning on process. Similar comments on other aspects of innovation. Concludes that more could be done to promote innovation using agile.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kieran Conboy--Link between agility and innovation--Actual vs. perceived. Again noted benefits of agile. Noted a few techniques that might help with innovation and value they got. E.g., on site customer (an agile practice) and tried to see what value they're getting from it. Noted in their study of 20 companies, lots of variance. Helped a lot in a few cases, but not in many other cases. E.g., in one case the on site customer was heavily involved in the meetings and knowledgeable, which worked well; in a bad case, the on site customer apparently didn't really know much about the company, didn't really get involved in the meetings, etc. Similar comparison of how stand up meetings worked well or poorly in two different projects. Suggests looking for validated results and best practices.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lorraine Morgan--Exploring the applicability of open innovation within an agile environment. She was studying open innovation in OSS context, but now looking at agile as well. OI idea is that firms can not just look inward for innovation. Has implications for how stakeholders are viewed in agile projects--goes beyond traditional view of the customer and allows for new combinations of knowledge. So, possible extension to agile ideas.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karlheinz Kautz--How can firms operate both with an open and agile innovation process? Claimed that information systems development creates innovative products. Noted though that as Aaen did that agile and innovation don't necessarily fit together. Might do agile without all of the principles, and use input from outside.

=====================================================================

After a coffee break, there was a paper session on Design Science. The first paper was Functional Service Domain Architecture Management – Building the Foundation for Situational Method Engineering by Daniel Stock, Robert Winter and Jörg Mayer. Functional service domain is a mapping of business and IT systems. Gave an example from an insurance company. Developed a "morphology". Dimensions for domain architecture management: targets (domain definition, stakeholder); results (i.e., concerns of different groups, domain definition, viewpoints); activities. Tried model on 4 large swiss companies. Idea was to evolve morphology based on these cases.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second paper was Management Design Theories by Jan Pries-Heje & Richard Baskerville. Noted that current academic perspective frowns on developing prescriptions (Van Aken). Proposes instead focus on design science as a solution oriented perspective, like medicine or engineering with system of "technological rules": "if you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then something like action X will help". Paper has 3 cases of trying to come up with technological rules. Contribution: by applying DSR, they help managers approach complex strategic decisions and show that technological rules are a useful way to operationalize theory. Grounding: rules based on insights from social sciences. First case, process improvement. Example rule: if you want to improve software processes where you need a vision to motivate, believe there is one and only one path to a future state, then choose a directing model like CMM. 2 rules together gives a 2x2 matrix of decisions. Tried it with 25 managers from 25 companies, who found the model good and useful. Second case: user involvement is agreed to be good, but not clear when and how to do it. Their study suggested 3 factors: complexity, resources and user identity. Case 3: Organizational change. How to choose the best change strategy? Found 10 strategies (e.g., optionality, commanding, socializing, production organized, etc.) and looked for cases when each had worked. E.g., commanding strategy (change or you're fired) had worked: need change fast, primarily organizational structures that need changes, had success doing it in the past. Vs. optionality is good when employees are self-aware, knowledgeable and have opinions, and there are vast differences between tasks of employees. To use it, then computed for each organization how well each of the 10 fit (so not picking just one strategy). In example case, two best fit were optionality and commanding. Then did some consulting about which might work best in this case. Tried it in two companies with positive feedback. Trying it in more companies now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final paper of the session was Modelling Forensic Evidence Systems using Design Science by Colin Armstrong & Helen Armstrong. Noted that there are lots of different jurisdictions: 7 in Australia, 40+ in the UK and 500+ in New York State. Different perspectives: law enforcement, forensic scientists and judiciary; and different perspectives within those. Trying to develop a conceptual model of evidence for developing international standards. Collected 52 semistructured interviews and discovered not much agreement about what it meant. Lots of definitions, some in conflict. Each jurisdiction and discipline manages forensic evidence differently. There is a hierarchy: evidence handled first by law enforcement, then forensic science, then judiciary. Evolved various perspectives on evidence. Problems he's facing: divergent stakeholders with little understanding or acceptance of other perspectives. No authoritative decision makers. Question to audience: how would design science help address this? One view: no decision maker, no system. Another perspective: embrace the complexity rather than think of it as a problem to eliminate. Or view problem as translation.

=====================================================================

After lunch, there was a presentation parallel to the 8.6 paper last night, A Brief History of IFIP WG 8.2 Research: The People, the Places, the Methods, and the Issues by Nancy L Russo (Chair) and Michael Myers. Nancy reviewed the history of the group, locations and topics of conferences but focused on 1990-2010 to be consistent with previous review. 19 conferences and 420 or so papers. Some recurring themes: IS development, research methods. Have partnered with other working groups over the years. This was the first conference in region 3 though.

Analyzed papers with keywords but only a few papers use them and not consistently. Need to do more work on keywording. Top 10 active authors include Richard Baskerville and Steve Sawyer (our Steve, #2). About 1/3 female and 2/3 male where gender could be identified. Most from US, UK, Denmark and other Scandinavian and European countries, Australia. Most common affiliations: LSE, GSU, CBS, Aalborg, PSU. Most cited papers: Walsham on ANT cited 300 times in Google Scholar; Kaplan, Kvasny, Sawyer, Trauth (our Steve) cited 221 times; Galiers on choosing IS research approaches cited 189 times. A number of methodology papers cited many times.

Michael Myers noted that many people had a big influence on the group, but before 1990, e.g., Kalle Lyytinen, Rudy Hirschheim, Allen Lee, Lynne Markus or have been influenced by 8.2, e.g., Gordon Davis. The group currently has a conference and a workshop a year. Group is welcoming of new members; 8.2 tradition is taken seriously. Michael observed that there was not as vigorous a debate any more though, which provoked a fair amount of discussion about why (no one disagreed with claim).

Culture of IFIP 8.2. Willingness to engage with new technologies, new ideas and wider community. Willingness to engage with social theories like ANT, structuration theory). Willingness to debate and disagree with accepted wisdom. Attachment to the proceedings book.

Conclusions: IFIP 8.2 is one of the most successful IFIP working groups that has influenced many IS scholars and the IS field as a whole. Issues: Need to examine the publication model. Needs to be more global. Relationship with AIS? What is the value added of the group, given overlap in purposes of group and AIS.

Discussions: Trevor Wood-Harper suggests that ISJ came out of the 8.2 group (or the people, anyway). John Venables noted that 8.2 had a big influence with resolving the methodology wars with the methodology conferences. Second legacy is introduction of critical theory and emancipation as themes. Lots of discussion of future role of the group.

=====================================================================

The final panel of the day was The Role of Public Policy in Enhancing the Design and Diffusion of Information Systems and Technology for Human Benefit with John Venable (Chair), Peter Newman, Nick Letch, & Sue Ash. John Venable described human benefits as including things like health, education, freedom, quality of working life, social equity, participation in government and clean environment. Design science research could help by helping to build things that help in those areas. But to do that we need an agenda that addresses more than just business needs.

What's public policy? Lots of definitions, including course of action or inaction taken by a governmental entity with regards to a particular issue. Public policy process includes agenda setting, option formulation and implementation. Implementation options: things like projects, tax credits, etc. Questions for the panel: What role should IS researchers play in formulation and implementation of public policy to enhance the development and diffusion of systems for human benefit? What areas of systems for human benefit should we be pushing forward as a priority? Can we influence funded research?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first panelist was Nick Letch on The role of public policy in enhancing the design and diffusion of information systems and technology for human benefit, more specifically, on e-government. Nick started with some myths about e-government, e.g., it's new and better government, citizens as empowered consumers. Noted that the myths hamper progress. E.g., progress on standards is hampered by agencies protecting their own interests; myth of rational planning runs into these interests. Presented the policy cycle: issue identification, policy analysis, policy instruments, consultation, coordination, decision, implementation, evaluation. IS is a way to implement policies by delivering services, but one part. Described a study of a set of policy networks that started as an operational policy of agricultural extension aligned itself with e-government to get more funding and support. Has chart showing relation among all of the different actors. Noted though that there was less attention to getting support for ongoing operations vs. development of the system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next speaker was Peter Newman who's a professor of sustainability but has been involved in politics in prior jobs. Noted that the policy process was much more political than a rational process. Talked about a number of sustainability projects and noted where they depended on systems. E.g., control systems to support the "distributed" city, which means distributing various supporting processes in a city (water, etc.). Demonstrations going on in many places that demonstrate cost savings from the plans. Gave example from Korea of taking down an expressway built over a river in Seoul. Also noted that implementation of trains in Perth was driven by a political process; doesn't fit the mindset of the planners.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final speaker was Sue Ash who's the CEO of a public service organization for WA called WACOS. WACOS engaged in public policy process. Their policy areas are community service, essential services and services for vulnerable populations. Lots of use of IT for cost avoidance. E.g., lots of counseling is moving online. Lots of monitoring by funders for accountability that requires online services. Involved in helping low income populations keep energy. Use of smart meters is taking off. Questions about access to broadband--question if it's a right or privilege. Libraries don't have terminals, cafes are disappearing as many have wireless (but not everyone). Payments have shifted to cards; but no way to determine balance, so people using them couldn't be sure they'd be able to pay. Technology needs to be developed in ways that people can use it. On the other hand, technology to enable disabled to work has been great. Technology being able to developed to help keep people with dementia secure, but without human intervention. Issues: privacy, stigma. With energy, there was a policy shift that increased costs of energy. Did work on helping people reduce the costs, but also advocacy for low income who'd be affected, policy like bill smoothing, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question about policies about population growth, Peter Newman noted that growth of Perth meant there was money to redo the infrastructure in response. Contrast to places where population was shrinking--meant there wasn't any money to do anything.

Question: what can IT people be doing? Can help translate technology to needs. Need to find out what people really need.

Perth conference notes, day 1

The conference opened with a presentation by John Venables describing the organization and purpose of the conference. He presented a framework for IS research with three dimensions: empirical/non-empirical, descriptive vs. evaluative or normative and value naïve through value focused. He described a motive for the conference as moving design research to being more value aware, so that design science research can do much more to improve the human condition and address more than just business needs.

=====================================================================

The first paper was a nomination for best paper, Encountering Information System Design: Implications for Science by Dirk Hovorka. The title of his presentation was Incommensurability and multi-paradigm grounding in design science research: Implications for knowledge creation. Noted problems in language used to describe research that obscures certain problems, particularly in thinking about design science research (DSR) as knowledge production. In DSR, understanding is built by building solutions to solve problems. Questions how knowledge from DSR is added to the knowledge base (Hevner's rigor cycle). IS Theory Types (Gregor, 2006): Analysis, explanation, prediction: nomothetic laws vs. ideographic explanations. Explanation and prediction, design: Artifactual theories: e.g., how to do something, e.g., db optimization, conceptual modelling. Argues that theories are grounded on kernel theories, but in an unclear way. Example: organizational memory IS draws on kernel theories about model of organizational effectiveness and model of individual memory (Stein and Zwass 1995). Idea of incommensurability: different theories presenting conflicting perspectives about possible actions or language; no reference system to evaluate both. Some subjective bases for picking, but no objective approach. Design is contingent: could pick different kernel theories that would lead to different designs. Further, how does doing a design serve to test the kernel theory? His conclusion: contributes through abduction. Theories serve to inspire imagination, not a strict logical deduction. But if that's true, then new design theory isn't a way to test the kernel theories. Means that evaluation becomes more complicated. Further, how do you evaluate if people adopt the system differently than was anticipated in design.

The discussant was Karlheinz Kautz from Copenhagen Business School. He noted that the paper was different from the presentation. The paper seems to critique design science that takes an overly functionalist approach. Raised a number of critiques, e.g., is design science really to test kernel theories? Are there concrete examples of who does the mixing of theories as described?

My question: sounds like the same situation as in empirical sciences. Kernel theories aren't really falsified so much as being found to be inapplicable.

=====================================================================

After a coffee break, we had a session on Design Exemplars. The first paper was Roles in Innovative Software Teams – A Design Experiment by Ivan Aaen, Aalborg University. Wanted a method concept to enable innovation--low ceremony to allow process innovation, more flexible process, cover all phases in process, not isolating innovation to particular stages, trusting team to be creative, using multiple perspectives, etc. Noted that method design is a wicked problem: fuzzy design goals, no correctness criteria, results not testable. Dynamics are inspired by improvisational theatre: roles, settings, situations. Use games as point of departure. Structures: views (product, project, process, people); roles (challenger, responder, anchor (scrum master), child--give ideas without any responsibilities--a temporary role). Did a lab experiment with a team of students over 4 months. Experiment showed that definitions of roles were not very clear. Second round, tried to clarify roles, this time based on psychological archetypes--4 temperaments. 61 students in 8 groups over 2 days. Collected questionnaires and reflection reports. Most understood roles, and 2/3 able to apply it; 1/2 found it useful, 1/2 found other roles useful. But found roles a bit forced. Notes that students are hardly ideal test subjects. Many different student cultures anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second paper was A Case Study of Improving IT Governance in a University Context by Michael Hicks, Graham Pervan & Brian Perrin. Noted many cases of concern about corporate governance, with implications for IT governance and IT risk management. Wanted to examine factors associated with effectiveness of IT governance in universities (and more generally), and impact of IT governance on users. Noted that literature shows there's no one formula for IT governance but it has to be carefully designed. Determinants of governance: communication between business and IT, multi-costituency measures of success, participation of CIO and CEO, and so on. Collected data from interviews, e.g., IT governance mechanisms and factors: alignment, planning, use of resources, monitoring systems, risk analysis. Also looked at organizational documents. Provided interview transcripts to interviewees to check (about 5% did that). Found that in this university that the governance model was faculty (aka school) based, which he called feudal. Problems included lack of coordination and communications between faculties (e.g., 13 email systems; no overall count of IT employees); deficiencies in IT risk assessment. University had tried to change structure based on a consultancy model but unsuccessfully. Attempt to change resumed after a fairly public system failure, with more attempts to sell changes to faculties (e.g., gave money saved to the faculties). Moved to a more centralized IT division with a shared services model and a CIO with overall responsibility and a steering committee with representation. Overall positive, but problems like limited consultation with users on new software. Now collecting data from other universities (8 total) to build an overall model. Want to look at effect of research/teaching orientation, resources, etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final paper in the session was Extending Design Science Research Methodology for a Multicultural World by Carl Lawrence, Tuure Tuunanen & Michael Myers (Michael did the presentation). Their interest is in how to design for things like cell phones that are used by millions of people in different cultures. E.g., how do you get user feedback from so many users? Suggest integrating critical ethnography in the evaluation phase. Notes that most evaluation now focuses very individually, but could be modified to address cultural diversity. Use of critical ethnography in a formative context could provide better insight into culture. Culture--shared symbols, norms and values, taken for granted, which makes it harder to get at. Notes that ethnography is the way to get at that. Currently doing a large study of a technique called Wide Audience Requirements Engineering (WARE), designed for cases where there is no existing system familiar to users and many potential users. Case is design for presence awareness technology. First define the project. Then collect panels of lead users, since lead users are believed to be able to forecast majority user needs. Panel of 80 in Helsinki, Hong Kong and Las Vegas. Their data shows that people in different locations had very different needs to presence type mobile services.

=====================================================================

After lunch, we had a session on Human Benefit. The first paper was Social Consequences of Nomadic Working: A case study in an organization by Ramanjit Singh & Trevor Wood-Harper. Trevor presented. He noted that his work had been inspired by Enid Mumford. Did a study at Telia, a Swedish telecom company. Telia provides workers with a wireless laptop and cell phone so they can work from anywhere, plus flexibility in work hours. Collected data on work and life imbalance, addiction, organizational involvement, nomadic work and control, individual productivity. Based on socio-technical design principles (Fok, Kumar and Wood-Harper 1987), e.g.., organization as an open system; focus on work system not single job; members of work teams have discretion; designer as facilitator, not expert. Social consequences of nomadic work: inability to manage work with social work. Addiction from ubiquitous access. Increased presence at home may reduce visibility at work. Use of cell phones and email device may lead to increased interruptions and disruptions at home. What individuals can do: say no to additional work assignment. Better role boundary management, e.g., use voice mail to signal unavailability. Discipline to not read email too frequently. Spend time in office regularly. What organizations can do: create a nomadic culture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second paper was Using Design Research and Co-design for Organizational Transition – Business process development at Intersport Sweden by Mikael Lind, Daniel Rudmark & Ulf Seigerroth. Started by discussing different aspects of business process design: modelling as is and to be, modelling languages, tools and processes. Pragmatic perspective on business processes: speech act and material act. Transformative and coordinative aspects of processes. Collaborative modelling as a way to create commitment and alignment between business strategies, IS strategies and business models. Guidelines: main process and detailed process weren't suitable for communications--one was too abstract and the other too detailed. Principle process models were important at the beginning to establish a common grounding. Motivating dimension should be designed prior to others.

=====================================================================

The next paper was the second nomination for best paper: The Design and Engineering of Mobile Data Services: Developing an Ontology based on Business Model Thinking by Mutaz Al-Debei & Guy Fitzgerald. Noted increased demand for mobile data. Looking at business models for data. Ontology for business models: value proposition, value system (architecture and network) and value finance. Has a model for each piece: e.g., what's the value of a particular function. Has the ontology in Protégé.

The discussant asked a series of questions: design vs. engineering? A: engineering is a broader term. What's special about mobile data for the ontology?

=====================================================================

After a coffee break, there was a session on Designing Adoption. The first paper was An Adoption-Diffusion Model of RFID-based Livestock Management in Australia by Mohammad Hossain & Mohammed Quaddus. Australian farmers were required to adopt RFID identification for livestock. Interested in factors that led to adoption and implications for adoption elsewhere. Australia is largest exporter of beef, to EU, Japan and Korea and 2nd largest of beef, mutton and lamb. Importers wanted an identification system to be able to identify affected animals and any other animals that might have had contact with an affected animal. Impacts: a single cow from Canada was diagnosed with BSE in the US. Since the Canadians couldn't trace the animal, they lost their entire export market, worth $6.3b. Estimate of a cost of $9B if there were a case of foot and mouth disease in Australia. RFID chip is put in cows' ears. Mandatory for cattle since 2005 after experiments since 1999. Voluntary for other animals. Farmers using RFID for other applications, such as automatic feeding. Question: factors affecting RFID adoption and diffusion of other applications. Research based on innovation diffusion theory and expectance confirmation. Develops a several stage model of adoption and then diffusion and extended use.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second paper was Developing a Broadband Adoption Model in the UK Context by Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Navonil Mustafee, Michael D. Williams & Banita Lal. The presenter talked about efforts to build broadband networks and motivations for building such networks. Aim is to build a model of consumer adoption of broadband in the UK. Model of intention to adopt based on attitudes (relative advantage, utility, etc.), normative constructs and control. Did a survey. Final questionnaire had 17 questions. Sent out 1600 questionnaires, 300 replies, 280 usable replies. Sent out 200 questionnaires again to non-respondents and got another 40 replies, 38 usable. Final was the same as the pilot, so they included the pilot responses as well, about 40. Analyzed with regression. R2 = 0.43. Significant effects of Relative advantage, primary influences, facilitating conditions resources (a control), etc. Behavioural intention strong predictor of adoption behaviour. Service quality was a negative predictor of intention to change provider. Very strong relations.

Interesting comment from audience: the scores were so strong, suggesting common methods variance. Also note about the sample being mostly people who had adopted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third paper was Uneven Diffusion of Collaborative Technology in a Large Organization by Gasparas Jarulaitis. Study of SharePoint at an international oil and gas company. Looking in particular at metadata used to classify documents. Findings: Users couldn't create their own metadata values and some metadata values lagged. Users didn't assign those as much. System is a failure in some ways, since it's not working as intended, but users are working with it. In a different context in the company, process owners engaged with users to develop a good set of metadata values. Notes value of more careful unpacking of the process.

Question: were you surprised by the findings? Yes, it was surprising to him that users didn't adopt the system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final paper was Toward an Understanding of the Evolution of IFIP TC8 WG 8.6 Research by Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Linda Levine, Michael D. Williams, Mohini Singh, David G. Wastell & Deborah Bunker. It was a summary of the kinds of papers published in the 8.6 conferences over time. Noted that there have been about 13 conferences since the first in 1993 in Pittsburgh, including this one. He examined 11 of them, 271 papers in total. Looked at citations and found relatively few citations (it is a not very widely circulated book). But a couple papers from the first conference had more than a hundred citations. Also looked at keywords, though few papers had them.