The term workaround sounds somewhat subversive, yet many of us using digital applications will sometimes engage in a workaround. It happens when an application is too slow, asks for information you do not have or do not wish to share, when you simply don’t get the thing to do what you want, or when it tells you that you are not authorized while you really need to get the job done. As a workaround is a deviation from prescribed application use, can it be legitimate?

Workarounds are a reaction to an experienced misfit of which there can be many: usability misfits, data misfits, functional misfits, cultural misfits, role misfits, and control misfits. A workaround may then be seen as a pragmatic solution, although other people will just muddle through or accept to get stuck. A workaround can entail to circumvent the application, for example by picking up the phone instead, or it can consist of devising a use of the application that the designers did not intend. When an application blocks your performance, a workaround may be the only road ahead. Therefore, rather than emphasizing the non-compliant nature of workarounds, we make a distinction between negative and positive workarounds.

So, when is a workaround positive? Is that when it enables us to effectively perform our own task, or are there more criteria? In a study, in two hospitals, we asked 116 professionals and managers about the misfits they encountered in their electronic health record system, how they coped with these misfits, and after the consequences of workarounds they themselves and colleagues engaged in. We found that workarounds that are simultaneously non-compliant with the designed application and non-conforming with the organization’s intent must be considered harmful as they led to negative spirals. For example, a physician who is unsure of the diagnosis-related group code, enters a random one in the required field to get on with the consult (non-compliant use) and refrains from correcting it later on, which prevents adequate treatment reimbursement (non-conforming with organizational intent). Such harmful workarounds typically aggravate data misfits (missing and wrong data) or usability misfits (harder to access and retrieve data).

In contrast, positive workarounds also occur. First, harmful workarounds would often lead to collective counter-reactions. A counter-reaction could be to collectively devise and enforce a positive workaround for the misfit instead; to change the application when its design inappropriately imposed a certain use; or to extend the application to solve a deficiency in its functionality or data model. As the latter two options are more costly and will take time to effectuate, it may pay off to, in the meantime, actively stimulate collective workarounds that comply with the underlying organizational intent.

Second, in professional environments where non-routine cases are the daily norm, individual workarounds may be necessary—provided these workarounds conform with organizational policies. Tolerating this flexibility enables employees to effectively manage exceptions and urgent situations. Third, to the extent that software engineers and other IT professionals apply 80/20 rule in their design, allowing users in these work environments discretion to adapt application use to their needs can be essential.

To conclude, a workaround is positive when it enables individuals to perform their tasks and complies with organizational intent. Organizations could consider focusing less on compliance with digital applications, but require that workarounds conform with overarching organizational policies.

Author: Marjolein van Offenbeek - m.a.g. van offenbeek@rug.nl