Procuring Accessible Third-Party Web-Based Software Applications for Inclusivity: A Socio-technical Approach
Niamh Daly, Ciara Heavin, James Northridge
This study investigates how universities can improve their decision-making processes when procuring third-party web-based software to enhance accessibility for students and staff. Using a socio-technical systems framework, the research conducts a case study at a single university, employing qualitative interviews with procurement experts and users to evaluate current practices.
Problem
The procurement process for web-based software in higher education often fails to adequately consider web accessibility standards. This oversight creates barriers for an increasingly diverse student population, including those with disabilities, and represents a failure to integrate equality, diversity, and inclusion into critical technology-related decisions.
Outcome
- Procurement processes often lack standardized, early-stage accessibility testing, with some evaluations occurring after the software has already been acquired. - A significant misalignment exists between the accessibility testing practices of software vendors and the actual needs of the higher education institution. - Individuals with disabilities are not typically involved in the initial evaluation phase, though their feedback might be sought after implementation, leading to reactive rather than proactive solutions. - Accessible software directly improves student engagement and fosters a more inclusive campus environment, benefiting the entire university community. - The research proposes using the SEIPS 2.0 model as a structured framework to map the procurement work system, improve accessibility evaluation, and better integrate diverse expertise into the decision-making process.
Host: Welcome to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge, the podcast where we break down cutting-edge research for today’s business leaders. I’m your host, Anna Ivy Summers.
Host: Today, we’re diving into a fascinating study from the Communications of the Association for Information Systems titled, "Procuring Accessible Third-Party Web-Based Software Applications for Inclusivity: A Socio-technical Approach".
Host: It investigates how large organizations, specifically universities in this case, can make better decisions when buying software to ensure it’s accessible and inclusive for everyone. Here to unpack it all is our analyst, Alex Ian Sutherland. Alex, welcome.
Expert: Thanks for having me, Anna.
Host: So, let's start with the big picture. When a company or a university buys new software, they're looking at cost, features, and security. Why is accessibility often an afterthought, and what problem does that create?
Expert: That’s the core of the issue. The study found that the typical procurement process often fails to properly consider web accessibility standards. This creates significant barriers for a growing number of people, including those with disabilities. It’s a failure to integrate equality and inclusion into critical technology decisions.
Host: It sounds like a classic case of not thinking about all the end-users from the start.
Expert: Exactly. The researchers found that crucial accessibility evaluations often happen *after* the software has already been bought and paid for. One professional in the study put it perfectly, saying their team often has "no say in that until the software actually arrives." At that point, fixing the problems is far more costly and complex than getting it right from the beginning.
Host: So how did the researchers get inside this complex process to understand what’s going wrong?
Expert: They took a really interesting approach called a socio-technical systems framework. In simple terms, they didn't just look at the technology itself. They mapped out the entire system: the people involved, the tasks they perform, the organizational rules, and the tools they use.
Host: And they did this within a real-world setting?
Expert: Yes, they conducted a case study at a large university. They interviewed ten key people, from the IT and procurement experts who buy the software, to the students and staff with disabilities who actually use it every day. This gave them a 360-degree view of where the process was breaking down.
Host: A 360-degree view often reveals some surprising things. What were the key findings?
Expert: There were a few that really stood out. First, as we mentioned, accessibility testing happens far too late, if at all. It's not a standardized, early-stage checkpoint.
Host: So it's reactive, not proactive.
Expert: Precisely. The second key finding was a major misalignment between what software vendors say about accessibility and what the organization actually needs. There's a lack of rigorous, standardized testing.
Host: And what about the users themselves? Were they part of the process?
Expert: That was the third major finding. Individuals with disabilities—the real expert users—are almost never involved in the initial evaluation. Their feedback might be sought after the tool is already implemented, but by then it’s about patching problems, not choosing the right solution from the start.
Host: That seems like a huge missed opportunity. But the study also found a silver lining, right? When the software *is* accessible, what’s the impact?
Expert: The impact is huge. Accessible software directly improves engagement and creates a more inclusive environment. One user in the study said, "I now want to actively participate in class. I'm not sitting there panicked... I now realize that I know what I'm doing, and I can participate easier." That’s a powerful testament to getting it right.
Host: It absolutely is. Alex, this study was based in a university, but our listeners are in the corporate world. Why does this matter for a CEO, a CTO, or a product manager?
Expert: This is the most crucial part. The lessons are universal. First, businesses need to reframe accessibility not as a legal compliance checkbox, but as a core design value and a strategic advantage. It expands your potential customer base and strengthens your brand.
Host: So it’s a market opportunity, not just a requirement.
Expert: Exactly. Second, proactive procurement is a powerful risk management tool. The study highlights the high cost of retrofitting. By building accessibility into your purchasing process from day one, you avoid expensive re-engineering projects down the line. It’s simply smart business.
Host: That makes perfect sense. What else can businesses take away?
Expert: The idea that inclusive design is simply good design. One of the professionals interviewed noted that when you make content more accessible for an inclusive community, you "enhance the quality of the content for all of the community." A clear, simple interface designed for accessibility benefits every single user.
Host: So, to wrap this up, what is the single most important action a business leader can take away from this research?
Expert: It's about changing the process. Don't just ask vendors if their product is accessible; demand proof. More importantly, bring your actual users—including those with disabilities—into the evaluation process early. Their insight is invaluable and will save you from making costly mistakes.
Host: In short: prioritize accessibility from the start, involve your users, and recognize it not just as a compliance issue, but as a strategic driver for better products and a more inclusive culture.
Host: Alex, this has been incredibly insightful. Thank you for breaking it down for us.
Expert: My pleasure, Anna.
Host: And thank you to our audience for tuning in to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge. Join us next time as we translate another key piece of research into actionable business intelligence.
