Computerization movement and tales of technological utopianism
Computerization and controversy (2nd ed.)
The socio-political construction of caresys: how interests and values influence computerization
Networked information technologies
Formal concept analysis in information science
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
On the adoption of computing and IT by industry: the case for integration in early building design
EG-ICE'06 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
One interesting problem arising from Kling and Iacono's pioneering work on computerization movements (CMs) is the question of empirically determining a movement's success or failure. This article questions the question and argues that it is based on two assumptions that upon closer examination seem problematic. The first is that Kling and Iaconco's concept of a CM is sufficient to cover the range of CMs. Their approach to CMs is explicated, pointing out three ways in which it is limited, concluding that it should be reconceptualized. The second is that CMs are similar enough so that a single set of criteria is sufficient to judge the success or failure of any given CM. Using a heuristic analysis to examine a set of 41 CMs, a typology is introduced demonstrating that there are important differences among CMs. The article concludes that since a single set of criteria is no longer appropriate, different sets of criteria are needed to evaluate the success or failure of different types of CMs.