An Actor-Network Theory Approach

Service comprise of socio-technical (human and technological) factors which exchange various resources and competencies. Service networks are used to transfer resources and competencies, yet they remain an underexplored and ‘invisible’ infrastructure. Service networks become increasingly complex when technology is implemented to execute speciic service processes. This ultimately adds to the complexity of a service environment, making it one of the most dificult environments to examine and manage. In addition, although the emerging paradigm of ‘Service Science’ calls for more theoretical focus on understanding complex service systems, few efforts have surfaced which apply a new theoretical lens on understanding the underlying trajectories of socio-technical dynamics within a service system. This paper presents a literature review on Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and discusses how it may be employed to examine the socio-technical nature of service networks. ANT offers a rich vocabulary to describe the interplay of socio-technical dynamics which inluence the service system reconiguration. Thus, this paper offers a discussion on how ANT may be employed to examine the complexity of service systems and service innovation. DOI: 10.4018/jantti.2012070105 52 International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. mensions of service network and the impact of service innovations. This paper also discusses how ANT is a very influential across IS theory and draws on the “strengths of qualitative research to provide a powerful, but somewhat different framework for understanding IS innovation” (Tatnall & Gilding, 1999, p. 962). Thus, this paper also discusses why ANT is considered appropriate to apply within Service Science research undertakings. It pays particular attention to the concepts of ‘materiality,’ ‘inscription,’ and ‘translation’ explaining how the introduction of a service system impacts the structure of a service network. This draws our attention towards the need to understand how, within a service environment, the social influences the technical, and the technical influences the social. 2. SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGY There have been numerous conceptualisations of the relationship which exists between technology and society and many studies highlight the important factor in which information technology (IT) plays to enable and increase the transformations of organisations (Orlikowski, 1991; Demirkan et al., 2008). However, it is difficult for Service Science practitioners to accept a presumptuous attitude towards the promise of technology, and suggest that these assumptions regarding the affordance of technology are becoming a cliché (e.g., Demirkan et al., 2008). In the past, there have been two differing schools of thought on the relationship of IT and social factors. One school of thought focused on technological determinism (Winner, 1977), which suggests that technology follows it own logic and patterns of usage. Alternatively, there was considerable support for constructionism which suggests that society develops the technology and society determines technology’s role (Woolgar, 1991). These schools of thought were much debated throughout literature over in the 1970’s and 1980’s. But, in recent years, researchers began to examine the role in which both arguments played simultaneously to advance our understanding of the embedded relationship of IT and the organisation. Continued interest focused towards the question of how IT and the organisational roles interplay and how they come into ‘being,’ suggesting the need to pay more attention to the characteristics and properties which support their co-existence (Kling, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992). Nowadays, we acknowledge that there is a mid-point between the two schools of thought which offers us a ‘truer’ picture of technologies ability to ‘enable’ and ‘restrict’ transformations. There have been increasing efforts to propose suitable models to explain the socio-technical factors of organisations. One approach in particular which is gaining more research ground across diverse research fields is ANT, which offers a radical vocabulary to examine the sociotechnical building blocks on the nature of service networks. A service system comprises of sociotechnical systems which stabilise a service network through the exchange of resources and competencies which generate value. Ng et al. (2010) discuss the transformation of system thinking during the 1960’s which viewed the organisation as an ‘open system’ made up of socio-technical factors. Within this school of thought, Emery and Trist (1960) examine how a system maintains quasi-stationary equilibrium despite changes in the environment. A sociotechnical view of organisations incorporates the need to examine the hybrid nature of social (i.e., people) and the technical (i.e., things) in order to understand how actions are executed and the factors which influence the actions’ outcomes. Although technical factors are often concerned with machinery, it also includes methods and procedures to explore how work is organised as a process (Ng et al., 2010). Nowadays, technology (i.e., service systems) plays a critical role in supporting critical organisational functions which highlight the importance of understanding how socio-technical systems impact of service relational structures. This paper argues that ANT is a fitting research approach to gain insight of socio-technical systems. This work also complements the emergence of Service Science developments. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 53 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 3. THE EMERGENCE OF SERVICE SCIENCE Services comprise of socio-technical (human and technological) factors which exchange various resources and competencies. Service networks are used to transfer resources and competencies, yet they remain an underexplored and ‘invisible’ infrastructure. Service networks become increasingly complex when technology is implemented to execute specific processes to deliver a service. This ultimately adds to the complexity of a service environment, making it one of the most difficult environments to examine and manage. In response to the growing importance placed on understanding these complexities, the field of ‘Service Science’ has emerged to guide the effective design, implementation, and management of service systems. However, although Service Science calls for more theoretical focus on understanding complex service systems, few efforts have surfaced which apply a new theoretical lens on understanding the underlying trajectories of socio-technical dynamics within a service system. We suggest that ANT provides a suitable theoretical lens to examine and explain the underlying trajectories of socio-technical dynamics within a service system. The design, management and delivery of complex service systems suggest that we need to develop a scientific understanding regarding the configuration of resources to deliver service excellence. In order to extend our understanding on service delivery, there is a need to establish alternative methods to examine service formation and the value propositions which connects them. Within the service-dominant environment (Normann, 2001; Vargo & Lusch, 2008), organisations are faced with increasing challenges to develop their capabilities in complex service models (Vargo et al., 2008). The emergence of “Service Science” as a discipline in recent years confirms the fundamental change which continues to alter the nature and application of technology within business environments. Service Science is an attempt to understand the complex nature of service systems and acts as an interdisciplinary umbrella which incorporates widely diverse disciplines to construct, manage, analyse and evolve service systems (Spohrer et al., 2007). This suggests that we need a more systematic, analytical, and overarching approach to examine service co-production operations to generate knowledge regarding the overlap between the social, business, and technology factors within a service environment (i.e., bridging service management and service computing). As services become more “open,” collaborative, flexible, agile, and adaptive, there are greater pressures on business to reconfigure and meet change through strategic realignments (Carroll et al., 2010). In doing so, managers should develop an understanding as to how this impacts the ‘value’ of the service system. A service system comprises of a provider(s) and a client(s) who collaborate to deliver (i.e., co-create) and benefit from a service (Vargo et al., 2008). A service system may be defined as (IfM & IBM, 2007, p. 5): “...a dynamic value co-creating configuration or resources, including people, technology, organisations and shared information (language, laws, measures and methods), all connected internally and externally by value propositions, with the aim to consistently and profitably meet the customer’s needs better than competing alternatives.” The environment in which the configuration of resources is achieved is described as a service network. A service network comprises of clear linkages which define the service structure and interactions in which it co-ordinates its tasks to achieve a certain business objective. Since it accounts for the collective effort of all service interactions to generate and realise value, co-creation is an important concept within a service network. This suggests that ANT can assist Service Science researchers in their quest to understand the complexity of service systems. 54 International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 4. ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY–AN OVERVIEW “To put it very simply: A good ANT account is a narrative or a description or a proposition where all the actors do something and don’t just sit there.” (Latour 2005, p. 128) ANT continues to make a significant contribution to science and technology studies. ANT is often described as a systematic approach to explore the infrastructure which supports the ‘scientific and technological achievements’ within a network making it a more profound approach to researching and understanding service networks. ANT suggests that the world is made up of intertwining networks which are comprised of many complex interactions (locally and globally) which constantly reconfigure itself on a regular basis. This systematic approach focuses on the infrastructure which supports socio-technical developments and their interactions. ANT also provides us with a lens to examine the links between the so-called social and the technical and suggests that actors can be enrolled to stabilise the network. Steps may involve identifying stakeholders and their interactions; the development of an actor-network model; the identification of irreversible technologies, enablers and inhibitors of specific processes and activities which are socially embedded in a service network. ANT breaks away from the social science school of thought as it does not fix itself upon any set theory per se, but rather enjoys the radical uncertainty of human behaviour in which actions are not predetermined. ANT provides an approach to understand how both social action shapes technology and how technological innovations shape social action. Thus, ANT acts as a toolkit to explore how human and non-human actors interact with one another to make sense of their world (Latour, 2005). Law (2007, p. 2) provides an account of ANT and explains that: “Theories usually try to explain why something happens, but Actor-Network Theory is descriptive rather than foundational in explanatory terms, which means that it is a disappointment for those seeking strong accounts. Instead it tells stories about ‘how’ relations assemble or don’t. As a form, one of several, of material semiotics, it is better understood as a toolkit for telling interesting stories about, and interfering in, those relations. More profoundly, it is a sensibility to the messy practices of relationality and materiality of the world. Along with this sensibility comes a wariness of the large-scale claims common in social theory: these usually seem too simple.” ANT provides a vocabulary to examine how powerful networks emerge and pays particular attention to assemblage and the influence of objects and people. Therefore, it establishes networks and determines particular actions or behaviour. Although there are many aspects to ANT, the process of ‘translation’ is fruitful in examining the implementation of service innovation to describe how technology impacts on service network dynamics and impacts the structure of a service network. To appreciate the value of ANT, it is also important to understand the background of ANT. 5. ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY BACKGROUND The fundamental aim of ANT is to explore how networks are built or assembled and maintained to achieve a specific objective. Identities (networks and actants) are established by their represented or delegated interactions which acknowledge the importance of the inseparable socio-technical factors. ANT rejects “any sundering of human and non-human, social and technical elements” (Hassard et al., 1999) since ANT adopts socio-technical symmetry to explore actants’ (human and non-human) participation within heterogonous network assemblages through negotiation and translation. ANT provides the ability to uncover the chain of actions or influences from various actors which are carried out to deliver a specific action and outcome. Therefore, it breaks away International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 55 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. from the social science school of thought since it does not fixate upon any set theory per se, but rather enjoys the uncertainty of human behaviour in which actions are not predetermined. Latour (2005) explains that the ANT approach rejects a social dimension, social order, a social force, frame of reference; actors are not embedded in a social context, and suggest that actors know what they are doing and are connected to many other elements. In this alternative view, ‘social’ is not some glue that could fix everything: it is what is glued together by many other types of connectors (Latour, 2005, p. 5) and the specific associations provided which are of importance. This draws our attention towards the linkage, relations, assemblages, or interactions of service networks. During the interactions, one of the key factors which emerge from the negotiations is the concept of translation (Callon, 1986a). Translation is a complex view of interactions which suggest that actors: 1. Assemble similar definitions and meanings; 2. Define network representatives; 3. Encourage one another towards the pursuit of self-interest and collective objectives. After negotiation with certain states of power relations, actants eventually conceive what they want and what they can achieve. Actants have the ability to (re)construct a network which their interactions to stabilise the system. Of course, the reverse is also true, i.e., the lack of interactions can destabilise the network until it eventually dissolves. In addition, ANT identifies objects as boundary objects which foster interconnections (Star & Griesemer, 1989). They describe boundary objects as being adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them and identify four types of boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989): 1. Repositories; 2. Ideal types; 3. Coincident boundaries; 4. Standardised forms. These boundary objects relate to how information may be interpreted by different communities but with enough fixed content to maintain its reliability. They also discuss how problems from conflicting views are often managed from a variety of ways including (list extracted from p. 404): • Via a ‘lowest common denominator’ which satisfies the minimal demands of each world by capturing properties that fall within the minimum acceptable range of all concerned worlds; or • Via the use of versatile, plastic, reconfigurable (programmable) objects that each world can mould to its purposes locally; or • Via storing a complex of objects from which things necessary for each world can be physically extracted and configured for local purposes, as from a library; or • Each participating world can abstract or simplify the object to suit its demands; that is, ‘extraneous’ properties can be deleted or ignored; or • Work in the worlds can proceed in parallel except for limited exchanges of standardised sorts; or • Work can be staged so that stages are relatively autonomous. The list above places emphasis on actant configuration and their properties which may be interpreted to facilitate the exchange of resources and competencies across a service network. In addition, this list acts as a platform upon which we can develop a socio-technical view of a service network. Berg and Timmermans (2000) explain that ANT does not assume that order can hold totalitarian control but rather, order is a co-produced achievement. This is an interesting concept which links ANT to Service Science logic while both schools of thought are focused on examining the intertwining nature of co-creation and co-production interactions. One of the main differences between actors and actants is that actors have the ability to circulate actants within a system. Latour (2005) denies that sociology can never attain an objective 56 International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. viewpoint and look beyond its participants (i.e., a meta-language). Actants influence one another. Law (2008) refutes that technology is transferable since it does not originate from a fixed point and instead suggests that technology is passed and changed to a point that it becomes ‘less and less recognizable.’ Within a network, actors tend to present one another with a version of their necessities, and from that other actors understand the strategies they attribute to each other (Latour, 2005, p. 163). This often allows them to create their own society, sociology, language, and meta-language. ANT suggests that there is no single theory of action (Walsham, 1997; Latour, 2005), i.e., it denies a fixed frame of reference as indicated from a relativistic sociology (which examines deviant phenomena through a fixed theory), and instead embrace a fluctuating reference approach (“follow the actors”). Due to the complex and intertwining nature of actants within service networks, ANT presents a significant contribution towards Service Science research undertakings. It has excellent potential to provide a significant contribution towards the emerging paradigm of Service Science, for example service formation, service evolution, and service innovation. Thus, one can examine the formation of service systems through a radical and rich vocabulary offer through ANT. 6. ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY–KEY CONCEPTS AND VOCABULARY While exploring the underlying mechanics of a service network, ANT presents us with a ‘vocabulary’ to examine and discuss, for example, how the introduction of an IT system impacts the structure of a service network. Latour, Callon, and Law are among the most cited scholars whom introduce a vocabulary which is used to distinguish between objects and subjects and explore particular network phenomena, i.e., the objective and the subjective. Many ANT studies examine ‘success’ and ‘failure’ and examine the concept of ‘power’ which established actor-networks and imposing ‘order’ on actants to meet specific interests (e.g., Berg & Timmermans, 2000). Additional studies began to examine multiplicity and difference of multiple ‘orders’ (Gad & Jensen, 2010) which act almost automatically and simultaneously. ANT suggests that ‘reality’ is dependent, contextual, and emergent and refutes the notion that there may be a ‘fixed point’ of analysis. Rather than suggest that factors such as culture or globalisation impact a certain phenomena, ANT suggests that these factors need explanation and sets out to describe how environments (i.e., networks) come into being. These studies adopt ANT to incorporate a different language and viewpoint to describe the network’s operations. This is also suggested by Latour (1992), as he explains that ANT overcomes the need to discuss knowledge and objects using a one dimensional language and instead adopts a dualism as a second dimensional approach. He suggests that, “instead of being opposite causes of our knowledge, the two poles are a single consequence of a common practice that is now the single focus of our analysis” (p. 281). There are a number of key concepts which one has to become familiar with while adopting ANT. These are summarised in Table 1. Although Table 1 lists the key vocabulary used throughout ANT studies, Hassard et al. (1999, p. 392) explain that the success of ANT is with the “habit of failing to forge its own internal and external boundaries,” which presents us with a large degree of exploration freedom. Law (1999) suggests that ANT has become a strategy which has an “obligatory passage point....with a more or less fixed location” (p. 2). Latour (2005) provides what he describes as the ‘intellectual architecture’ in his account of the social explanations of social phenomenon. He explains that the word ‘social’ cannot be conceptualised as a ‘kind of material or domain’ which can be discussed using a ‘social explanation’ (p. 1). ANT is often referred to as the sociology of translation (Callon, 1986a) which suggests that one must identify the meaning of ‘assemblages’ through ANT (Latour, 2005). ANT examines the “motivations International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 4(3), 51-69, July-September 2012 57 Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. and actions of groups of actors who form elements, linked by associations, of heterogeneous networks of aligned interests” (Walsham, 1997, p. 468). There are some subtle differences between the social science literature and ANT. For example, an actor may be considered as anything which compromises of a process or a number of processes to execute a certain task, i.e., a person, group, department, organisation, or an information system. In ANT literature an actant (human and non-human) is more than what social science would describe as an actor, since an actant is often ‘enrolled’ in a certain Table 1. ANT main concepts