Description
See attachment.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Module 1 Review
Module 1 Review
The goals for Module 1 were for you to learn how to “see” or “describe” a sociotechnical system, or work
system, or work environment. We looked at some factors typified by socio-technical work systems, like
individuals, culture, technology, and policy. Generally, we can break down a sociotechnical work system
into social and technical subsystems.
Then, we looked at Sittig and Singh’s 8-dimensional sociotechnical model of health care organizations.
This model describes a standard way to look at socio-technical factors in a health care work environment.
This model also shows how the relationships between the factors. Now that you understand sociotechnical factors, every time you think of a problem, you should have a more complex understanding of
the problem — both its causes and solutions. For instance,
Think about this as a map. If someone asks you to describe the city in which you live, where would you
start? What features do you include? You can think of the 8-dimension model as a map of the city. A road
map shows where all the roads are. A physical map shows geographical features including rivers, lakes,
and mountains. A political map shows boundaries for Congressional, statehouse, and state senate
districts. Each map describes a certain aspect of your city.
The 8-dimensional model shows the sociotechnical elements of a health care work environment. This is
what a health care organization “looks like” through a sociotechnical lens. This framework that we use for
this course.
‘
This unit introduces three major frameworks/models developed to examine the relationship of tasktechnology-people within the healthcare sociotechnical system.
Objectives
At the conclusion of this unit, the student will be able to
•
•
•
Summarize each of three major frameworks/models that have been used to explain the adoption of
technology in healthcare.
Articulate the similarities and differences among the frameworks/models.
Outline how to apply one or more of the frameworks/models to a case.
Now that you understand what a sociotechnical system is, we will be examining how to identify and
manage the challenges at the interface of humans and technology itself, in other words, at the level of the
user and the technology, can we explain who will adopt what and why when implementing HIT? Let’s
focus on a small part of Sittig and Singh’s 8-dimensional model that focuses on the interface between
humans and technology — Personnel (People/individuals), Workflow/Communication (Tasks), and User
Interface/Clinical Content/Software/Hardware (Technology). What you should notice is that the models,
theories, and frameworks this week shift the focus from describing work systems to predicting or
explaining outcomes like performance and adoption. Therefore, even though the dimensions of the
models, theories, and frameworks this week are the same as in module one, you will see that you will
need to explore different attributes of these dimensions. For instance, attributes like motivation, attitudes,
and beliefs will have more influence in the analyses this week.
This week, you will be introduced to several models for thinking about sociotechnical systems. A
colleague of mine who has co-facilitated the course in the past contributed these thoughts based on her
observations from a HIMSS Annual Conference:
“Many healthcare organizations rely heavily (or exclusively) on information provided by vendors during a
HIT selection process. Aside from the potential bias in technical information, the sales force is not usually
trained in organizational behavior or change management. While visiting the exhibit hall at HIMSS, I had
the opportunity to speak with many sales managers and directors about clinician adoption of their
products. For the most part, they were not able to express why clinicians might reject their product
beyond catchphrases and “old wives’ tales” that have no scientific basis. As future CIOs and CMIOs, it will
be necessary for you to discover and assess which sociotechnical systems theories/frameworks are most
relevant to your organization, how they were developed, and how they have been applied. This, in turn,
will allow you to critically (and independently) assess what risks might be associated with the
implementation of a new HIT product.”
We have previously visited the “Welcome to the Theories Used in IS Research Wiki”, which is sponsored
by the Brigham Young University and the University of Colorado:
•
Larsen, K. R., Eargle, D. (Eds.) (2015). Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. Retrieved [October 15,
2018] from http://IS.TheorizeIt.org
We are going to keep ourselves focused on two of the major models exploring the relation of technology
to function that are described in the Wiki:
1. Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Holden & Karsh,
2010) https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model
2. Task-technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Tasktechnology_fit
3. Fit between Individuals Task and Technology (FITT) (Ammenwerth, Iller, & Mahler, 2006) This
third framework was developed by Dr. Elske Ammenwerth, a renowned researcher in the field of
health informatics, with her colleagues. You can learn more about her and her work
at http://www.elske-ammenwerth.de/
4. Fit between Individuals, Task, Technology, and Environment. (Prgomet, Georgiou, Callen, &
Westbrook, 2019)
Just like in Module1, the process of using these models, theories, and frameworks is the same. Use the
model to describe the situation of the case. Then identify the problems or issues. Go back to the model,
theory, or framework to understand what attributes are contributing to the problem or issue. The models,
theories, and frameworks do not describe the problem; they show what is causing the problem.
Each one of these models takes a slightly different perspective on the issue. Enjoy this week of discovery!
Unit Three (Est. Reading Time 3.5 Hours)
Articles
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS
Quarterly, 19(2), 213236. http://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/249689?seq=1#page_scan_tab_conte
nts
(Google Scholar Citations = 4762)
Prgomet, M., Georgiou, A., Callen, J., & Westbrook, J. (2019). Fit Between Individuals, Tasks,
Technology, and Environment (FITTE) Framework: A Proposed Extension of FITT to Evaluate and
Optimise Health Information Technology Use. Studies in health technology and informatics, 264, 744–
748. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190322
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology, and
individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6(3),
13p. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1352353/pdf/1472-6947-6-3.pdf (Google Scholar
Citations = 406)
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health
care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159-
172. http://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153204640900096
3 (Google Scholar Citations = 1254)
Follow-up Case to Case Studies
Sittig, D., Ash, J., Zhang, J., Osheroff, J., & Shabot, M. (2006). Lessons From “Unexpected Increased
Mortality After Implementation of a Commercially Sold Computerized Physician Order Entry
System.” Pediatrics (Evanston), 118(2), 797–801. Web. Retrieve from https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CARLI_UIC/18a1ccs/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68707555
Del Beccaro, M. A., Jeffries, H. E., Eisenberg, M. A., & Harry, E. D. (2006). Computerized provider order
entry implementation: no association with increased mortality rates in an intensive care unit. Pediatrics,
118(1), pp. 290295. http://hz9pj6fe4t.search.serialssolutions.com/OpenURL_local?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:168185
77 (Google Scholar Citations = 187)
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., & Mani, S. (2009). Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic
Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? The American Journal of Medicine, 123( 3), pp. 238–44.
doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.07.027. https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CARLI_UIC/18a1ccs/cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcen
tral_nih_gov_2878665
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espades, B. S., et al. (2009). Timely Follow-Up of
Abnormal Diagnostic Imaging Test Results in an Outpatient Setting: Are Electronic Medical Records
Achieving Their Potential? Arch Intern Med, 169(17), pp. 1578-1586. https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_ni
h_gov_2919821&vid=01CARLI_UIC:CARLI_UIC&tab=CentralIndex
YouTube Videos
Introduction to Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) for Education (Substitute “healthcare
technology” for the “learning management system” in the discussion; think “clinical
workflow and procedures” as a substitute for “educational capability”)
From the same author group:
Technology Acceptance Model
Task-Technology Fit
Introduction to Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) for Education
Technology Acceptance Model
Task-Technology Fit
2.4 M2 Discussion 1 Practice Case Study
Background
In this discussion, your group will continue to analyze “Implementation of OpChart in West Medical
Building.”
Your analysis process will include, at a minimum, the development of a model of the organization’s work
system in the case using one of the theories, exploration of the goals and objectives of the technology
and for the organization, identification of the issues/problems, and exploration of how the interactions
between attributes of the model are related to socio-technical issues/problems. This forum has three
threads, one for each line of inquiry.
Socio-technical Model
For your analysis, analyze the OpChart case using Task-Technology Fit Model, Technology Acceptance
Model, or Fit between Individuals, Task and Technology Framework (FITT).
Analysis
In module 1, you learned how to state a problem, how many issues can be related to a problem, and how
social and technical attributes can interact to cause those issues. In module 2, we explore some
models/frameworks related to specific problems. Understanding these models/frameworks can help us
understand these problems better.
Your goal for this discussion should NOT be to summarize the readings in your discussion posts. You
should demonstrate your ability to identify and address specific problems using TTF, TAM, or FITT. You
should be able to conceptualize the work system using socio-technical attributes of the
models/frameworks, identify goals and objectives of technology and organizational initiatives,
conceptualize socio-technical issues/problems, and explore how interactions between the constructs
promote or impede the achievement of the goals and objectives.
ASSIGNMENT
1. Understand the Problem
After reading the case, what problem needs to be addressed? You should show that you can define a
specific problem relevant to one of the models and understand the problem from a socio-technical
perspective. As a group, you should edit each other’s problems and contribute comments to refine the
problem statement to reflect socio-technical systems thinking. You do not need to reach a consensus and
agree on a single problem statement because there are many ways to see the problem, but if you all
agree on the same problem at the end of the discussion, that is fine, too.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1. Initial Post: Choose TTF, TAM, or FITT to analyze the case. Write a problem statement
describing the case’s problem per your chosen model/framework. Be as specific as possible;
define the problem. For instance. if you want to use TTF, your problem statement must be more
than stating “poor performance.” A stronger problem statement will explain what performance is
sub-standard and explain what performance is expected. You do NOT need to summarize the
case or any of the readings. By the end of the discussion, each student should edit their original
problem statement to reflect what he/she thinks the final problem statement should be.
2. Reply Posts: Contribute at LEAST two replies to this thread.
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is one problem statement and two comments,
you should contribute enough edits and comments to show you know how to frame a socio-technical
problem specific to your chosen model. You do this by making comments to help your group-mates edit
their problem statements and considering whether to accept comments from others about your
statement.
2. Conceptualize the Work System
In this step, you, as a group, will build a socio-technical model of the organization in the case
per your chosen model/framework. You are identifying data you will use for the analysis in the
next step.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1.
Initial Post: Each student should contribute two attributes for each construct
(every box in the model). The case may not have all the attributes you want. If
that is the case, list it as an attribute you want to know more about. Explain why
each attribute is important data to have for this analysis. Describe the work
environment. Do not classify the issues using the models.
2. Reply Posts: Contribute at LEAST two replies. Would you reframe an attribute
and express it differently? Would you move an attribute to another construct?
Why do you think an attribute belongs in a construct?
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is two attributes (in any of the
four constructs) and two comments, you should contribute enough replies to show you
know how to identify attributes for each construct. You do this by making comments to
create a socio-technical model of the organization’s work system in the case. By the end
of the discussion, your group should have identified attributes for all four constructs in
the model.
3. Explore the Interactions
COLLAPSE
In step 1, you defined the problem. In step 2, you conceptualized the work system. In
this step, look at the data you collected in step 2. Discuss how interactions (between
two specific attributes that you defined in the 2nd step) in the work system promote or
impede achieving the goals and objectives. Be specific. For example, your discussion
should be more specific than talking about how clinicians need to fit with the user
interface because….. Explore specific attributes of a specific clinician (which you find in
the case) and how they do not match.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1. Initial Post: Discuss how interactions (between two specific attributes that you
defined in the 2nd step) in the work system impede the achievement of the goals
and objectives. You should discuss 2 interactions and explain how the interaction
is related to your problem. Be specific. For example, your discussion should be
more specific than exploring how Clinicians need to fit with the user interface
because….. Explore specific attributes of a specific clinician (which you find in the
case) and how they do not match. It is also insufficient to say that the problem
was that the developers did not engage the end user, so it did not meet the
users’ needs. 1) Which users and what were their attributes? What were the
technology’s attributes? 2) That problem is why users are not adopting the
technology, performing at the required level, or accepting the technology. You
should look at larger issues related to the organization’s project goals.
2. Reply Posts: Post at least 2 replies to your group mate’s initial posts.
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is two interactions in the
initial post and two comments, you should contribute enough comments to show you
know how to identify interactions that harm the joint optimization of the social and
technical systems. You do this by making comments to create a socio-technical model
of the organization’s work system in the case. By the end of the discussion, your group
should have explored how several interactions are related to a problem.
.
Module 1 Review
Module 1 Review
The goals for Module 1 were for you to learn how to “see” or “describe” a sociotechnical system, or work
system, or work environment. We looked at some factors typified by socio-technical work systems, like
individuals, culture, technology, and policy. Generally, we can break down a sociotechnical work system
into social and technical subsystems.
Then, we looked at Sittig and Singh’s 8-dimensional sociotechnical model of health care organizations.
This model describes a standard way to look at socio-technical factors in a health care work environment.
This model also shows how the relationships between the factors. Now that you understand sociotechnical factors, every time you think of a problem, you should have a more complex understanding of
the problem — both its causes and solutions. For instance,
Think about this as a map. If someone asks you to describe the city in which you live, where would you
start? What features do you include? You can think of the 8-dimension model as a map of the city. A road
map shows where all the roads are. A physical map shows geographical features including rivers, lakes,
and mountains. A political map shows boundaries for Congressional, statehouse, and state senate
districts. Each map describes a certain aspect of your city.
The 8-dimensional model shows the sociotechnical elements of a health care work environment. This is
what a health care organization “looks like” through a sociotechnical lens. This framework that we use for
this course.
‘
This unit introduces three major frameworks/models developed to examine the relationship of tasktechnology-people within the healthcare sociotechnical system.
Objectives
At the conclusion of this unit, the student will be able to
•
•
•
Summarize each of three major frameworks/models that have been used to explain the adoption of
technology in healthcare.
Articulate the similarities and differences among the frameworks/models.
Outline how to apply one or more of the frameworks/models to a case.
Now that you understand what a sociotechnical system is, we will be examining how to identify and
manage the challenges at the interface of humans and technology itself, in other words, at the level of the
user and the technology, can we explain who will adopt what and why when implementing HIT? Let’s
focus on a small part of Sittig and Singh’s 8-dimensional model that focuses on the interface between
humans and technology — Personnel (People/individuals), Workflow/Communication (Tasks), and User
Interface/Clinical Content/Software/Hardware (Technology). What you should notice is that the models,
theories, and frameworks this week shift the focus from describing work systems to predicting or
explaining outcomes like performance and adoption. Therefore, even though the dimensions of the
models, theories, and frameworks this week are the same as in module one, you will see that you will
need to explore different attributes of these dimensions. For instance, attributes like motivation, attitudes,
and beliefs will have more influence in the analyses this week.
This week, you will be introduced to several models for thinking about sociotechnical systems. A
colleague of mine who has co-facilitated the course in the past contributed these thoughts based on her
observations from a HIMSS Annual Conference:
“Many healthcare organizations rely heavily (or exclusively) on information provided by vendors during a
HIT selection process. Aside from the potential bias in technical information, the sales force is not usually
trained in organizational behavior or change management. While visiting the exhibit hall at HIMSS, I had
the opportunity to speak with many sales managers and directors about clinician adoption of their
products. For the most part, they were not able to express why clinicians might reject their product
beyond catchphrases and “old wives’ tales” that have no scientific basis. As future CIOs and CMIOs, it will
be necessary for you to discover and assess which sociotechnical systems theories/frameworks are most
relevant to your organization, how they were developed, and how they have been applied. This, in turn,
will allow you to critically (and independently) assess what risks might be associated with the
implementation of a new HIT product.”
We have previously visited the “Welcome to the Theories Used in IS Research Wiki”, which is sponsored
by the Brigham Young University and the University of Colorado:
•
Larsen, K. R., Eargle, D. (Eds.) (2015). Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. Retrieved [October 15,
2018] from http://IS.TheorizeIt.org
We are going to keep ourselves focused on two of the major models exploring the relation of technology
to function that are described in the Wiki:
1. Technology acceptance model (TAM) (Holden & Karsh,
2010) https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model
2. Task-technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) https://is.theorizeit.org/wiki/Tasktechnology_fit
3. Fit between Individuals Task and Technology (FITT) (Ammenwerth, Iller, & Mahler, 2006) This
third framework was developed by Dr. Elske Ammenwerth, a renowned researcher in the field of
health informatics, with her colleagues. You can learn more about her and her work
at http://www.elske-ammenwerth.de/
4. Fit between Individuals, Task, Technology, and Environment. (Prgomet, Georgiou, Callen, &
Westbrook, 2019)
Just like in Module1, the process of using these models, theories, and frameworks is the same. Use the
model to describe the situation of the case. Then identify the problems or issues. Go back to the model,
theory, or framework to understand what attributes are contributing to the problem or issue. The models,
theories, and frameworks do not describe the problem; they show what is causing the problem.
Each one of these models takes a slightly different perspective on the issue. Enjoy this week of discovery!
Unit Three (Est. Reading Time 3.5 Hours)
Articles
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS
Quarterly, 19(2), 213236. http://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/249689?seq=1#page_scan_tab_conte
nts
(Google Scholar Citations = 4762)
Prgomet, M., Georgiou, A., Callen, J., & Westbrook, J. (2019). Fit Between Individuals, Tasks,
Technology, and Environment (FITTE) Framework: A Proposed Extension of FITT to Evaluate and
Optimise Health Information Technology Use. Studies in health technology and informatics, 264, 744–
748. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190322
Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology, and
individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6(3),
13p. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1352353/pdf/1472-6947-6-3.pdf (Google Scholar
Citations = 406)
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health
care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159-
172. http://proxy.cc.uic.edu/login?url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153204640900096
3 (Google Scholar Citations = 1254)
Follow-up Case to Case Studies
Sittig, D., Ash, J., Zhang, J., Osheroff, J., & Shabot, M. (2006). Lessons From “Unexpected Increased
Mortality After Implementation of a Commercially Sold Computerized Physician Order Entry
System.” Pediatrics (Evanston), 118(2), 797–801. Web. Retrieve from https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CARLI_UIC/18a1ccs/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68707555
Del Beccaro, M. A., Jeffries, H. E., Eisenberg, M. A., & Harry, E. D. (2006). Computerized provider order
entry implementation: no association with increased mortality rates in an intensive care unit. Pediatrics,
118(1), pp. 290295. http://hz9pj6fe4t.search.serialssolutions.com/OpenURL_local?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:168185
77 (Google Scholar Citations = 187)
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., & Mani, S. (2009). Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic
Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain? The American Journal of Medicine, 123( 3), pp. 238–44.
doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.07.027. https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CARLI_UIC/18a1ccs/cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcen
tral_nih_gov_2878665
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espades, B. S., et al. (2009). Timely Follow-Up of
Abnormal Diagnostic Imaging Test Results in an Outpatient Setting: Are Electronic Medical Records
Achieving Their Potential? Arch Intern Med, 169(17), pp. 1578-1586. https://i-shareuic.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_ni
h_gov_2919821&vid=01CARLI_UIC:CARLI_UIC&tab=CentralIndex
YouTube Videos
Introduction to Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) for Education (Substitute “healthcare
technology” for the “learning management system” in the discussion; think “clinical
workflow and procedures” as a substitute for “educational capability”)
From the same author group:
Technology Acceptance Model
Task-Technology Fit
Introduction to Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) for Education
Technology Acceptance Model
Task-Technology Fit
2.4 M2 Discussion 1 Practice Case Study
Background
In this discussion, your group will continue to analyze “Implementation of OpChart in West Medical
Building.”
Your analysis process will include, at a minimum, the development of a model of the organization’s work
system in the case using one of the theories, exploration of the goals and objectives of the technology
and for the organization, identification of the issues/problems, and exploration of how the interactions
between attributes of the model are related to socio-technical issues/problems. This forum has three
threads, one for each line of inquiry.
Socio-technical Model
For your analysis, analyze the OpChart case using Task-Technology Fit Model, Technology Acceptance
Model, or Fit between Individuals, Task and Technology Framework (FITT).
Analysis
In module 1, you learned how to state a problem, how many issues can be related to a problem, and how
social and technical attributes can interact to cause those issues. In module 2, we explore some
models/frameworks related to specific problems. Understanding these models/frameworks can help us
understand these problems better.
Your goal for this discussion should NOT be to summarize the readings in your discussion posts. You
should demonstrate your ability to identify and address specific problems using TTF, TAM, or FITT. You
should be able to conceptualize the work system using socio-technical attributes of the
models/frameworks, identify goals and objectives of technology and organizational initiatives,
conceptualize socio-technical issues/problems, and explore how interactions between the constructs
promote or impede the achievement of the goals and objectives.
ASSIGNMENT
1. Understand the Problem
After reading the case, what problem needs to be addressed? You should show that you can define a
specific problem relevant to one of the models and understand the problem from a socio-technical
perspective. As a group, you should edit each other’s problems and contribute comments to refine the
problem statement to reflect socio-technical systems thinking. You do not need to reach a consensus and
agree on a single problem statement because there are many ways to see the problem, but if you all
agree on the same problem at the end of the discussion, that is fine, too.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1. Initial Post: Choose TTF, TAM, or FITT to analyze the case. Write a problem statement
describing the case’s problem per your chosen model/framework. Be as specific as possible;
define the problem. For instance. if you want to use TTF, your problem statement must be more
than stating “poor performance.” A stronger problem statement will explain what performance is
sub-standard and explain what performance is expected. You do NOT need to summarize the
case or any of the readings. By the end of the discussion, each student should edit their original
problem statement to reflect what he/she thinks the final problem statement should be.
2. Reply Posts: Contribute at LEAST two replies to this thread.
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is one problem statement and two comments,
you should contribute enough edits and comments to show you know how to frame a socio-technical
problem specific to your chosen model. You do this by making comments to help your group-mates edit
their problem statements and considering whether to accept comments from others about your
statement.
2. Conceptualize the Work System
In this step, you, as a group, will build a socio-technical model of the organization in the case
per your chosen model/framework. You are identifying data you will use for the analysis in the
next step.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1.
Initial Post: Each student should contribute two attributes for each construct
(every box in the model). The case may not have all the attributes you want. If
that is the case, list it as an attribute you want to know more about. Explain why
each attribute is important data to have for this analysis. Describe the work
environment. Do not classify the issues using the models.
2. Reply Posts: Contribute at LEAST two replies. Would you reframe an attribute
and express it differently? Would you move an attribute to another construct?
Why do you think an attribute belongs in a construct?
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is two attributes (in any of the
four constructs) and two comments, you should contribute enough replies to show you
know how to identify attributes for each construct. You do this by making comments to
create a socio-technical model of the organization’s work system in the case. By the end
of the discussion, your group should have identified attributes for all four constructs in
the model.
3. Explore the Interactions
COLLAPSE
In step 1, you defined the problem. In step 2, you conceptualized the work system. In
this step, look at the data you collected in step 2. Discuss how interactions (between
two specific attributes that you defined in the 2nd step) in the work system promote or
impede achieving the goals and objectives. Be specific. For example, your discussion
should be more specific than talking about how clinicians need to fit with the user
interface because….. Explore specific attributes of a specific clinician (which you find in
the case) and how they do not match.
Graphic 3: Task-Technology Fit Theory
1. Initial Post: Discuss how interactions (between two specific attributes that you
defined in the 2nd step) in the work system impede the achievement of the goals
and objectives. You should discuss 2 interactions and explain how the interaction
is related to your problem. Be specific. For example, your discussion should be
more specific than exploring how Clinicians need to fit with the user interface
because….. Explore specific attributes of a specific clinician (which you find in the
case) and how they do not match. It is also insufficient to say that the problem
was that the developers did not engage the end user, so it did not meet the
users’ needs. 1) Which users and what were their attributes? What were the
technology’s attributes? 2) That problem is why users are not adopting the
technology, performing at the required level, or accepting the technology. You
should look at larger issues related to the organization’s project goals.
2. Reply Posts: Post at least 2 replies to your group mate’s initial posts.
Expectations: While the minimum contribution to this page is two interactions in the
initial post and two comments, you should contribute enough comments to show you
know how to identify interactions that harm the joint optimization of the social and
technical systems. You do this by making comments to create a socio-technical model
of the organization’s work system in the case. By the end of the discussion, your group
should have explored how several interactions are related to a problem.
.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
