Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
1877-0509 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CENTERIS 2016
doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.235
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / International Conference on Project
MANagement / Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies,
CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2016, October 5-7, 2016
Towards a Critical Systems Thinking Approach during IT Adoption
in Organisations
Osden Jokonya
*
North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, Mmabatho, 2735, South Africa
Abstract
The increasing complexity and diversity of Information Technologies (IT) adoption in organisations may require a
multidisciplinary approach to understand its challenges. This complexity is mainly caused by different stakeholder constituencies
with different worldviews the organisations. This paper explores user perceptions on critical systems thinking approaches during
IT adoption in organisations. It is based on two case studies. The study results indicate that critical systems thinking approaches
may be useful during IT adoption in organisations. The results suggest that critical systems thinking approaches have the
potential to improve IT adoption success in organisations through addressing both technical and social issues. The results also
suggest that addressing these issues during IT adoption may result in positive outcomes.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of SciKA - Association for Promotion and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.
Keywords: : Systems Approaches, Total Systems Intervention, Critical Systems Practice, Paradigms, Meta-methodology, Emancipation,
Pluralism, IT Adoption
1. Introduction
IT adoption in organisations is complex. In organisations, there exists multiple stakeholders whose varied
interests informed by their own beliefs and values must be considered. According to Jokonya et al. (2012), IT
adoption refers to the decision to implement information technology in organisations. The main challenge of IT
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: osden.jokonya@nwu.ac.za
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CENTERIS 2016
857
Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
adoption is the need to reconcile different constituencies’ worldviews in the organisations. Many researchers
concede that a reductionist approach based on blueprint models which served organisations well in the past may not
be suitable for today’s complex organisational environment (Cordoba, 2009; Jokonya et al., 2012). Traditional
reductionist approaches offer simple solutions to complex problems where sophisticated solutions are needed
(Jackson, 2003). However, little research has been conducted on understanding the perceptions of users regarding
the importance of critical systems thinking approaches during IT adoption in organisations. These approaches have
been credited with embracing more than one approach in a single problem situation during IT adoption in
organisations (Jackson, 2010).
The literature points to the importance of critical systems thinking approaches during IT adoption in
organisations. This paper explores user perceptions of the importance of critical systems thinking approaches during
IT adoption in organisations. It is based on case studies of two organisations that agreed to participate in the
research. The study focuses on perceptions of users on the importance of critical systems thinking approaches during
IT adoption in organisations. The study was guided by the following questions: What are the users’ perceptions of
the critical systems thinking approaches during IT adoption in organisations? What are the perceived users’ expected
benefits of critical systems thinking approaches during IT adoption in organisations? This paper is structured as
follows: Section, 2, presents a brief literature on IT adoption and critical systems thinking approaches. This is
followed by section 3 which discusses the research methodology. Section 4 then presents the research results.
Finally, section 5 presents the discussion and conclusion.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Critical Systems Thinking
Most of the traditional scientific approaches (systems engineering, operations research and systems analysis)
failed to recognize the social aspect of IT adoption in organisations (Jackson, 2003). The traditional scientific
approaches were successful in optimizing performance in organisations. The challenges of traditional scientific
approaches are that they offer simple solutions to complex organisational problems where sophisticated solutions are
needed. The failure of traditional scientific approaches to cope with complex problems in organisations led to the
emergence of systems approaches (Jackson, 2003). Many challenges facing organisations, owing to the diverse
nature of the operations, may require to be confronted with more than a single systems approach (Reynolds, 2014;
Ulrich et al., 2010). This may be the case when issues to be addressed include those of emancipation, empowerment,
emotion, pluralism, efficiency and efficacy.
Jackson (2010) defines critical systems thinking (CST) as the commitment to use different systems approaches,
their related methodologies and methods together in system intervention. The trans-disciplinary nature of CST
allows the use of different approaches, methodologies and methods in a single complex IT adoption problem
situation (Jackson, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2010). The critical systems thinking approaches focus on five
commitments: critical awareness, social awareness, emancipation, theoretical pluralism and methodological
pluralism. One of the benefits from critical systems thinking is the complementary strengths of social theory and
systems thinking during IT adoption in organisations (Midgley, 2011; Jackson, 2010; Reynolds, 2014).
The critical systems thinking approaches were developed after realization of the weaknesses and strengths of
individual approaches and the need for pluralist approaches. Pluralism encourages looking at problem situations
from different perspectives and the use of different systems methodologies in combination (Jackson, 2010; Reynolds
et al., 2010). The multiple approaches to a problem situation help to get better appreciation of the problem situation
than a single approach. The diversity of approaches each addressing a particular problem situation was not a crisis
but an advantage in the ability to address a variety of IT adoption problem contexts in organisations. The
pragmatist’s point of view notes that it is important to select methods based on what works to address problem
situation. Pluralism appreciates the strengths of different methodologies and suggests situations in which they may
be used together (Jackson, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2010).
Reynolds et al., (2010) contend that critical systems thinking approaches are suitable for addressing technical
(how), social (what) and political (why) complex problem situations in organisations. Reynolds et al., (2010) argue
that systems approaches are only a partial representation of the whole problem situation. They highlight that critical
858 Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
systems thinking approaches address the inadequacies of hard and soft systems thinking by considering issues of
power relations in systems interventions. The critical systems thinking assumption is that the combination of
different system approaches is important to address their weaknesses to systems interventions (Jackson, 2010).
Critical systems thinking addresses the weaknesses of hard systems thinking and soft systems thinking, using
social theories with commitment to critique, emancipation and pluralism. Some critics are however skeptical about
the values of critical systems approaches to managers as they are mostly occupied with issues of efficiency,
effectiveness and consensus, which are of greater importance to most organisations than diversity issues (Jackson,
2010; Cordoba, 2009). It has been criticized for being too irrational and for promoting anarchy in organisations. The
next sub-sections discuss the Total Systems Intervention critical systems thinking approach.
2.2. Total Systems Intervention
Total systems intervention (TSI), a meta-methodology, was developed to encourage the combination of
methodologies to confront complex IT adoption problem situations (Jackson, 2003; Raza & Standing, 2010;
Petrovic, 2012). Total systems intervention encompasses commitments related to social awareness, critical
awareness, methodological pluralism, emancipation and pluralism at the theoretical level. TSI uses Habermas’
(1970) theory of three human interests (technical, practical and emancipatory) to represent the different systems
approaches. The technical interest is represented by the hard systems thinking with emphasis on efficiency and
efficacy during IT adoption in organisations (Jackson, 2010; Petrovic, 2012). The practical interest is represented by
the soft systems thinking with emphasis on pluralism of worldviews during IT adoption in organisations. The
emancipatory interest is represented by the emancipatory systems thinking with emphasis on empowerment and
emancipation during IT adoption in organisations (Jackson, 2010; Raza & Standing, 2010).
The human interest analysis is important to appreciate the assumption behind each approach including strengths
and weaknesses (Jackson, 2010; Ulrich et al., 2010). The critical awareness is important to understand social
contexts suitable for different systems approaches. Although pluralism focuses at the theoretical level, it has faced
criticism from those in support of paradigm incommensurability (Jackson, 2010; Raza & Standing, 2010). Paradigm
incommensurability assumptions are that it is inconceivable that different systems methodologies can be used
together in any complementary way. Critical systems thinkers legitimized pluralism using Habermas’ (1970) theory
of human interests from its critics and supporters of paradigm incommensurability (Jackson, 2010; Ulrich et al.,
2010; Reynolds, 2014). The use of different methods to deal with complex IT adoption problem situations puts total
systems intervention ahead of other systems approaches (Jackson, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2010). Total systems
intervention does not support pragmatism, like critical systems practice, as it argues that it is impossible and prefers
dominant and dependent methodology during intervention to problem situations in organisations (Jackson, 2010;
Reynolds et al., 2010). The next sub-sections discuss the Critical Systems Practice.
2.3. Critical Systems Practice
Critical systems practice (CSP) is a meta-methodology for critical systems thinking (CST) theory. The CSP
development was encouraged by the popularity of pluralism in methods in other disciplines such as evaluation
research and organisation theory (Jackson, 2011; Reynolds, 2014). The interest in multi-methodology resulted in a
community of those interested in critical system thinking. Jackson (2006) says “instead of the five commitments of
critical systems thinking, critical systems practice has three commitments: critical awareness, improvement and
pluralism”. The critical awareness commitment placed emphasis on the critique of strengths and weaknesses of
various methodologies to complex IT adoption problem situations (Jackson, 2011; Reynolds, 2014). The
improvement commitment has emphasis on promoting fairness, empowerment and emancipation as part of
improvement. The pluralism commitment encourages the use of different methods, methodologies and theories in
combination to address complex problem situations in organisations.
The CSP accepts pragmatism in that its use delivers greater benefits than a single paradigm and that different
methodologies can be used based on the nature of the intervention to the problem situation (Jackson, 2011;
Reynolds, 2014). The mix and match method allows maximum freedom to address complex IT adoption problem
situations without any restriction on tools available (Jackson, 2011; Reynolds, 2014). While CSP supports
859
Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
unrestricted multi-methods use, it demands explicit recognition of the paradigms which the methods are being used
to serve and has been credited with being able to handle complex IT adoption problem situations that may require
more than one system approach to resolve (Jackson, 2011; Reynolds, 2014). It affords the use of a wider variety of
tools in combination to respond to complex IT adoption problem situations in organisations because there may be a
need to use hard and soft systems thinking approaches to resolve the problem situation.
Critics, however, argue that the requirement to change from one conflicting paradigm to another may present a
challenge to users. Midgley (2011) concurs that at times the easy solution is that one paradigm is always favoured.
The other challenge to CSP is ethical choices because of it holistic nature. Whilst it can be acknowledged that CSP
seems difficult to use, it must also be accepted that organisation problem situations such as IT adoption are
becoming more complex and diverse, which cannot be addressed by simple solutions (Jackson, 2003; Jackson, 2010;
Reynolds, 2014). The next section discusses the research methodology used to conduct this study.
3. Research Methodology
The case study research strategy in information systems research is accepted because of its suitability to provide
understanding of the relationship between organisations and technology (Oates, 2009). Case study research has been
found to be a viable research strategy in information systems because of its in-depth approach. The case study
research provides an opportunity for the researcher to understand IT adoption in a normally inaccessible
phenomenon (Oates, 2009). The case study also means that the participants are exposed to the same IT adoption
environment, which is useful to understand their perceptions from a single setting. Most of the contemporary issues
dealt with in case study research are common to many organisations. In addition, case study research provides an
opportunity of first hand evidence on a particular phenomenon. Case study research may adopt a single case or
multiple case designs depending on the research objectives (Eisenhardt, et al., 2007). One of the contentious
questions has been how many cases are sufficient for multiple case studies and there is no simple answer as it
depends on the research purpose and question (Rowley, 2002). This research used two case studies which were
sufficient to address the research objectives and questions.
3.1. Case Study Selection
The research site was purposefully selected to help answer the research questions. The researcher used purposive
sampling in order to select data collection units that yielded the most relevant and broad range of perspectives and
information of the research area (Yin 2009). Two companies agreed to participate in the study from six that were
approached by the researcher. The basis for selecting these two organisations for the research was the diversity and
appropriateness of cases. Data was gathered about participants’ opinions on the importance of hard systems
approaches during on IT adoption in organisations.
3.2. Data Collection
The data collection, using questionnaires, took three months. About two hundred questionnaires were distributed
to employees of the two companies. The questionnaires had pre-defined questions seeking participants’ perceptions.
A five point Likert scale was used to develop the questionnaire. The questionnaire was pre-tested with a few
participants to refine the questions. The questionnaire variables were tested using Cronbach’s alpha values to see if
they were reliable and acceptable. The questionnaire variables were above 0.80, which is an indication of good
reliability at 0.88 (Van Voorhus, 2007). About ninety valid questionnaires were returned from the two companies.
The returned questionnaires represented a 45 percent response rate. Quantitative data from the questionnaires was
captured and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) version 21.
3.3. Sample Size
Quantitative research offers guidelines on sample sizes needed for different statistical procedures, unlike
qualitative research which does not have an agreed sample size (Nunnally, 1978). The sample size of 90 cases was
860 Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
therefore found to be adequate for the required statistical procedures. The descriptive statistics used include
frequency tables, T-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to provide summarized data for discovering trends,
patterns and ease of communication and understanding
4. Results
This section presents the results from the data collected using questionnaires. This section is organized as
follows: section 4.1 presents the demographic data, section 4.2 presents the frequencies of the variables, section 4.3
presents t-test results, section 4.4 presents the results from the analysis of variance and finally section 4.5 presents
the results from the correlation.
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
The Table 1 presents the respondents’ demographic characteristics which include: company type, age, gender,
departments, position, education, and involvement in IT adoption, number of years in the organisation and member
status.
Table 1. Demographics (n=90).
Variable Categories Count Percentage (%)
Company Type Manufacturing
Retail
45
45
50
50
Age 30yrs & below
31- 40 years
41-50
51 and over
27
33
23
7
30
37
26
8
Gender Male
Female
49
41
54
46
Department Finance
IT
Other
22
18
60
24
20
66
Position Other
Clerical
Managers
Supervisors
25
8
24
33
28
8
27
37
Education Matriculates
1st Degree
2nd Degree
38
32
20
42
36
22
Involvement Involved
Not involved
38
52
42
58
No of Years 2 years & below
3-5 years
6-10 years
More than 10 yrs
31
23
20
16
34
26
22
18
Co Member Members
Non Members
45
45
50
50
861
Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
The next section presents the critical systems thinking variable frequency distribution. The frequencies are based
on the results collected using the questionnaires from the two organisations which participated in the study.
4.2. Frequencies
Figure 1 below presents the frequency of the critical systems thinking variables. Sixty two percent of the
respondents agreed that stakeholder diversity of perception was important in IT adoption. Slightly more than half of
the respondents agreed that it was important to address issues of oppression during IT adoption compared to those
who disagreed or were neutral. Slightly less than a third of the respondents agreed that it was important to address
political issues during IT adoption compared to those who disagreed or were neutral. More than half of the
respondents agreed that it was important to address social issues during IT adoption compared to those who
disagreed or were neutral. Eighty percent of the respondents, 85 percent, agreed that it was important to address
critical issues during IT adoption compared to those who disagreed or were neutral. Seventy percent agreed that it
was important to address ethical issues during IT adoption compared to those who disagreed or were neutral.
Figure 1. Frequencies
Nearly three quarters of the respondents agreed that it was important to identify affected stakeholders during IT
adoption. More than half of the respondents agreed that it was important to emancipate stakeholders during IT
adoption in organisations. Most of the respondents, 73 percent, agreed that it was important to identify beneficiary
stakeholders during IT adoption compared to those who disagreed or were neutral. Seventy four percent agreed that
it was important for IT adoption to be legitimate for all stakeholders compared to those who disagreed or were
neutral. A majority of the respondents agreed on most of the critical systems variables with more the fifty percent.
They also agreed that affected stakeholders needed to be identified, emancipated for IT adoption to be legitimate.
The next section presents the T-test results.
4.3. T-Test
The T-test conducted with demographic variables and the critical systems thinking variables showed significant
differences between the companies and it is important to address ethical issues during IT adoption in organisations
862 Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
(0.022), while it is important for IT adoption to be legitimate to all stakeholders (0.050). The gender variable
showed significant difference with variable: it is important to address critical issues (0.000). The involved variable
also showed significant differences with variables: it is important to address critical issues (0.001) and it is important
to identify beneficiary stakeholders (0.018). The committee member demographic variable showed significant
differences with variable: it is important to identify the affected stakeholders (0.000) and it is important to
emancipate stakeholders during IT adoption (0.006).
Table 2. T-test results
Independent
Variable Dependent Variable F Value Sig. Categories
Company Is it important to address ethical issues during IT adoption in
an organisation? 5.471 0.022* Retail or Manufacturing
Company Is it important for IT adoption to be legitimate to all
stakeholders in an organisation? 3.939 .050** Retail or Manufacturing
Gender Is it important to address critical issues during IT adoption in
an organisation? 29.119 .000*** Male or Female
Involved Is it important to address critical issues during IT adoption in
an organisation? 12.422 .001** Yes or No
Involved Is it important to identify beneficiary stakeholders during IT
adoption in an organisation? 5.760 .018* Yes or No
Committee Is it important to identify the affected stakeholders during IT
adoption in an organisation? 40.873 .000*** Yes or No
Committee Is it important to emancipate stakeholders during IT adoption
in an organisation 13.091 .006** Yes or No
Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001., (n=90)
4.4. Analysis of variance
The Analysis of variance showed significance differences between position demographic variable and critical
systems thinking construct variables: it is important to identify the affected stakeholders (0.043) and it is important
to identify beneficiary stakeholders (0.017). Education demographic variable showed significant difference with
critical systems thinking construct variable: it is important to address issues of oppression during IT adoption in
organisations (0. 017). There was difference between matric and first degree respondents.
Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results
Independent
Variable Dependent Variable F Value Sig. Categories
Position Is it important to identify the affected stakeholders
during IT adoption in an organisation? 2.842 .043* Manager and clerical (Manager,
Supervisor, Clerical and other)
Position Is it important to identify beneficiary stakeholders
during IT adoption in an organisation? 3.592 .017* Manager and clerical (Manager,
Supervisor, Clerical and other)
Education Is it important to address issues of oppression during
IT adoption in an organisation? 4.301 .017* Matric and First Degree (Matric,
First Degree, Second Degree)
Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001., (n=90)
4.5. Correlation results
The Education demographic variable positively correlated with critical systems thinking construct variables: it is
important to address critical issues during IT adoption (0.046), it is important to address ethical issues during IT
adoption (0.018) and it is important to identify beneficiary stakeholders (0.037).
863
Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
Table 4. Correlation results.
Variable Is it important to address
critical issues during IT
adoption in an organisation?
Is it important to address
ethical issues during IT
adoption in an organisation?
Is it important to identify the
affected stakeholders during IT
adoption in an organisation?
Is it important to identify
beneficiary stakeholders
during IT adoption in an
organisation?
Education 211*
.046 .249*
.018 220*
.037
Note: * p< 0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001., (n=90)
5. Discussion and conclusion
The study results suggest that while most respondents agree that critical systems thinking is important during IT
adoption in organisations. The T-test indicated that there are significant differences in the perceptions of the
respondents based on their demographic variables. Overall, the, there are some significant differences on
respondents’ perceptions. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicated that there are also significant
differences in perceptions based on respondents’ demographic characteristics. The results support the literature in
that different stakeholder constituencies have different worldviews with regards to IT adoption in organisations.
Correlation analysis also showed that the less the education the respondents possessed, the more oppression
becomes an issue during IT adoption in organisations. The result supports the literature that some stakeholders are
marginalized during IT adoption in organisations. This therefore calls for emancipatory systems approaches during
IT adoption in organisations.
The results therefore support literature in that the complexity of IT adoption in organisation may require a trans-
disciplinary approach which draws concepts and ideas from different disciplines with different strengths in the
interest of complementarity. Based on results, this study therefore contributes to knowledge on the importance of
critical systems thinking during IT adoption in organisation. The value of critical systems thinking is enhanced by
the addition of multi-disciplinarity in addressing some of the complex challenges of IT adoption in organisations.
The limitation of the study is that it is based on a case study whose results which cannot be generalized. However,
this provides an opportunity for further study using other research strategies. In conclusion, the paper stimulates
further research in understanding the contribution of critical systems thinking to complex IT adoption in
organisations based on its holistic nature of embracing multiple systems approaches.
References
1. Cordoba JR Critical reflection in planning information systems: A contribution from critical systems thinking, Information Systems Journal,
2009; 19(2):123–147.
2. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME, Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and challenges, Academic of Management Journal, 2007;
50(1):25-32.
3. Habermas J, On Systematically Distorted Communication. Inquiry, 1970; 13(1/4):205-218
4. Jackson MC, Reflections on the Development and contributions of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice System Research and
Behavioural Science, 2010; 27:133-139.
5. Jackson MC, Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
6. Jokonya O, Kroeze, JH, van der Poll JA “Towards a framework for decision making regarding IT adoption”, Proceedings of the South
African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, ACM, NY, USA, 2012; p. 316-325.
7. Midgley G, Theoretical Pluralism in Systemic Action Research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 2011, 24(1):1-15.
8. Nunnally JC, Psychometric Theory (2
nd
ed.). New York McGraw-Hill, 1978.
9. Oates BJ, Researching Information Systems and Computing, Sage, UK, London, 2009.
10. Petrovic PS, A Critical Systems Meta-methodology for Problem Situation Structuring, International Journal of Decision Support System
Technology, 2012; 4(1):1-13.
11. Raza AS, Standing C, Towards a Systemic Model on Information Systems' Adoption Using Critical Systems Thinking. Journal of Systems
and Information Technology, 2010, 12(3):96–209.
12. Reynolds M, Equity-Focused Developmental Evaluation using Critical Systems Thinking. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, 2014, 20(1):75-95.
13. Reynolds M, Holwell S (2010). Introducing approaches. In: Reynolds, Martin and Holwell, Sue eds. Systems Approach to managing
Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer, 2010:1-2.
864 Osden Jokonya / Procedia Computer Science 100 ( 2016 ) 856 – 864
14. Rowley J, Using Case Studies in Research, Management Research News. 2002, 25(1).
15. Van Voorhus RWC, Morgan LB, Understanding Power and Rules of Thumb for determining Sample sizes”, Tutorials in Quantitative
Methods for Psychology, 2007, 3(2):43-50.
16. Yin RK, Case study research, Design and methods. 4. ed. Thousand Oaks, California, 2009.
