#AOM2014_183 6 SYSTEMS SAVVY: THEORY, MEASUREMENT, and IMPACT Terri Griffith, Santa Clara Univ John E. Sawyer, Univ of Delaware M. Scott Poole, Univ of deshare.net/TerriGriffith
Jan 14, 2015
SYSTEMS SAVVY: THEORY,
MEASUREMENT, and IMPACT
Terri Griffith, Santa Clara UnivJohn E. Sawyer, Univ of Delaware
M. Scott Poole, Univ of Illinois
Slideshare.net/TerriGriffith
#AOM2014_1836
Systems savvy is the ability to grasp possible functions/affordances of
technology tools and organizational processes and how these might be
meshed to best effect.
Technology & Organizational Dimensions, with a touch of Emergence
#AOM2014_1836AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
#AOM2014_1836
“[a]lthough most studies up to this point have sufficed to simply show
that social and the material are thoroughly intertwined, scholars
are just beginning to consider how such intertwinement occurs”
(Leonardi, 2012, p. 35).
#AOM2014_1836
We provide a model of systems savvy and a field validated
measurement tool
(Situational Judgment Task)
• Personal Innovativeness in IT– Agarwal & Prasad 1998– Thatcher & Perrewe 2002– Wang, Hsieh, Butler, & Hsu 2008
• Mann Gulch: Weick 1993 • Expertise
– Johnson and Mervis 1997– Murphy and Wright 1984– Tanaka & Taylor 1991
• Practical Wisdom: Aristotle
Scenarios
Interviews
Outcome Ratings
Focus Groups
6Scaled
Scenarios
Experts Novices
Field Validated Measure
Sternberg, et al. 2000Weekley,Ployhart, & Holtz 2006
#AOM2014_1836
Field Validated Scenarios
#AOM2014_1836
Technology, Organization, & Emergence
Related to research on the positive relationships between organizational change and tolerance for ambiguity and internal locus of control (e.g., Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999).
toe to e avgT+avgO0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Social Media
SysSavvyNovice
Avg Ranking of Response by Sample
#AOM2014_1836
Comparison of SJT with Likert Scale
Likert Example: When I adopt a new technology,I always consider other changes in my workflow that might help. E.g., MacDonald & Uncles (2007) consumer savvy scale
#AOM2014_1836
Binary Logistic Regression Results With Expert Status Regressed On
SJT Score
Model Summary-2 Log
likelihoodCox & Snell R Square1
Nagelkerke R Square2
148.523a .229 .378aChi-square=57.449, df=1, p<.001
Classification Tablea
Predicted Percent
Correctnovice savvy
Observednovice 179 3 98.4savvy 20 19 48.7
Overall Percent Correct Classification 89.6a. The cut value is .500
SJT scale alone accurately classifies 89.6% of the respondents, while random
assignment would differentiate only 50%.
#AOM2014_1836
Incremental Classification Accuracy of SJT Score Over Likert Scale Only
Model SummaryStep -2 Log
likelihoodCox & Snell R Square
Nagelkerke R Square
1 153.051a .213 .3512 109.815a .353 .582
Likert Scale Classification Table Predicted Percent
Correct novice savvy
Step 1Observed novice 177 5 97.3
savvy 26 13 33.3Overall Percent 86.0
SJT and Likert scale Classification Table Predicted Percentag
e Correctnovice savvy
Step 2Observed novice 177 5 97.3
savvy 14 25 64.1Overall Percent 91.4
SJT scale adds nothing to the correct classification of novices, but doubles the correct classification of system savvy individuals. Correct Classification of 91.4%
#AOM2014_1836
Future Research• Tool Use in Teams– Thomas & Bostrom 2010– Majchrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, & Ba, 2000– Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000 – Montoya, Massey, & Lockwood, 2011
• Organizational Memory: Argote 2013• Strategy -- IT Leveraging Competence – Pavlou & El Sawy 2006
• Technology Design – TSA, Healthcare.gov
[email protected]@udel.edu
[email protected]/TerriGriffith
#AOM2014_1836
US: HealthCare.gov
Thank You
Many Individuals Throughout
#AOM2014_1836
Preference Ordering of Scenario Responses
Combined technology-organization-emergent (scenario responses offering intertwined human and technical dimensions with the acknowledgement of possible adjustments over time)
Combined technology-organizations
Emergent
Organizations only
Technology only
3
1
2
4.5