Technological Frames as Conceptual Framework

Early throughout the data collection of this study, an emergent pattern could be recognized. Despite an open-minded outset, employees’ perception of the implementation purpose of ESS differed from the employer’s actual intent. Thus, as a better impression of the collected interview data was obtained, the Technological Frames Theory as the conceptual model for the present study became more and more evident (Walsham 2006). It serves as a theoretical structure focusing on technological frames of reference to examine interpretations associated with organizational IT. The concept of technological frames is used in research to better understand the adoption decision and user perceptions of technologies (e.g., Angst and Agarwal 2009; Lin and Silva 2005; Mazmanian 2013; Mishra and Agarwal 2010). Technological Frames represent cognitive structures by which users of technology understand the position and role of technology, its usage, and the effects and consequences resulting from usage (Orlikowski and Gash 1994).

The Origin of Technological Frames

The fundamental work for technological frames was conducted by Orlikowski and Gash in 1994. They developed a conceptual framework which builds the cornerstones of the socio-cognitive research on information technology. They concluded that people of a particular social group have similar understandings of technologies and its artifacts. This research is concerned with the cognitive structures held by different groups in an organization toward end-user computing. Orlikowski and Gash’s basic argument explaining the relevance of technological frames as a theoretical view in IS research was the premise that humans behave on the basis of their subjective understanding of their environment (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Weick 1979), with these interpretations being incorporated into the context of technologies in companies.

The Characteristics of Technological Frames

Orlikowski and Gash (1994) defined technological frames as ‘that subset of members’ organizational frames that concern the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge they use to understand technology in organizations. This includes not only the nature and role of the technology itself, but the specific conditions, applications, and consequences of that technology in particular contexts’ (p. 178). They set the basis for a variety of research on technological frames by identifying three main domains characterizing the interpretations of the technology in focus and its role in the company (e.g., McGovern and Hicks 2004; Olesen 2014; Shaw and Ang 1994; Yoshioka et al. 2002). The first domain was the nature of the technology, which is related to the view of people on the system and the understanding of the abilities and functionality of the solution. Second was the technology strategy, including the people’s images of why the employer has acquired and implemented an IS. It refers to the understanding and interpretation of what has driven the decision to adopt the system and its related value for the employer. As a third domain, they identified the people’s interpretation of how the technology is used in the day-to- day business, along with the settings and outcomes linked with this usage (Orlikowski and Gash 1994).

These three aspects help to foster conclusions about the different perceptions of technologies and the related usage from various stakeholder groups. Therefore, frames not only exist on the level of individual people, but also on the social group level where individuals within the group share common technological frames which direct their interpretations, understanding and usage behavior with the related technology (e.g., Davidson and Pai 2004; Olesen 2014). In their empirical study, Orlikowski and Gash (1994) identified three main social groups in companies that have different technological frames for IT – namely, the technologists who execute the implementation of the enterprise system, the user group of the system, and the manager group which decides if the technology should be adopted. The primary focus of technological frames research is on the upcoming problems when frames of relevant social groups are different and are therefore incongruent (Orlikowski and Gash 1994). This incongruence of frames of the organization’s important stakeholder groups indicates significant differences in presumptions, expectations, or knowledge about several key characteristics of the related technology and can result in significant consequences for the success of an IS. For example, frame incongruence is recognizable when users think that technology is provided to only make the employer work harder and faster and control their behavior, while managers expect the technology to change the way their organization is doing business (Orlikowski and Gash 1994). On the other hand, congruence in technological frames would indicate that people in social groups have similar expectations about the impact and role of the technology in business decisions, the means of usage, or, for example, the type and regularity of the technology’s support and maintenance. Therefore, Orlikowski and Gash (1994) defined the notion of congruence in technological frames as ‘referring to the alignment of frames on key elements or categories. By congruent, it is not meant identical, but related in structure (i.e., common categories of frames) and content (i.e., similar values on the common categories)’ (p. 180). When there is incongruence, it may result in wrong expectations, inconsistent actions, resistance, suspicion, and limited use of the technology. The central interest of Orlikowski and Gash was to interpret IT and organizational change with the application of technological framing. In particular, they aimed to understand the costs arising from incongruent frames and suggested that awareness and related interventions could help to overcome this incongruence and to bring different frames within an organization into line.

For the research of this section and the related research questions, the Technological Frames Theory serves as the structure for the employee’s interpretations about ESS and the influencing factors on their willingness to use the technology by disclosing sensitive information. Moreover, it helps to explain the reason why employees do have different perceptions on ESS than their employers and what consequences are behind it. The main goal of the application of the theory is not to elaborate on the incongruence of frames and give implications on how to align those frames, but rather it will help to structure the analysis of the qualitative data and to better understand the fundamental issues and challenges that employees have when it comes to the usage of ESS. Besides, recent studies on technological frames suggest the need to look beyond the organizational borders and to include environmental and cultural aspects into the analysis (e.g., Davidson 2006), which will also be a subject of this research.