The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change
Abstract
While various theories have been proposed to explain how technology leads to organizational change, in general they have focused either on the technology and ignored the influence of human agency, or on social interaction and ignored the technology. In this paper, we propose a new theory of technology-mediated organizational change that bridges these two extremes. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted a three-year study of an enterprise system implementation. From the data collected, we identified embeddedness as central to the process of change. When embedded in technology, organizational elements such as routines and roles acquire a material aspect, in addition to the ostensive and performative aspects identified by Feldman and Pentland (2003). Our new theory employs the lens of critical realism because in our view, common constructivist perspectives such as structuration theory or actor network theory have limited our understanding of technology as a mediator of organizational change. Using a critical realist perspective, our theory explains the process of change as a three-stage cycle in which the ostensive, performative, and material aspects of organizational elements interact differently in each stage.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 · Cited by 4,957
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · cited 9×
“When embedded in technology, organizational elements such as routines and roles acquire a material aspect, in addition to the ostensive and performative aspects identified by Feldman and Pentland (2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNotes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity
Law, J. (1992) · Systems Practice · doi:10.1007/bf01059830 · Cited by 3,244
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 6×
“…as a result of implementing the ES and why—we identified CR as an appropriate lens through which to identify the theoretical concepts that would explain how organizational members interpreted the organizational changes they observed (Suddaby 2006), and to begin to build theory from these concepts.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective
Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0103 · Cited by 1,071
Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148695 · Cited by 642
Cited by
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12639 · Cited by 2,550
Leonardi, P. M. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23043493 · Cited by 1,889
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416521003654160 · Cited by 733
Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0186 · Cited by 518
Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions
Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., Elbanna, A., Ravishankar, M. N., & Srivastava, S. C. (2015) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9500-y · Cited by 448
Lehrer, C., Wieneke, A., vom Brocke, J., Jung, R., & Seidel, S. (2018) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1451953 · Cited by 404
Bygstad, B., Munkvold, B. E., & Volkoff, O. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.13 · Cited by 257
Self-citationSykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Johnson, J. L. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.03 · Cited by 210
“This is especially true as prior work has shown that ES implementations can take several years to move through all stages (Volkoff et al. 2007).”
Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work
Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 · Cited by 178
Mahmud, I., Ramayah, T., & Kurnia, S. (2017) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2017.05.005 · Cited by 131
Lins, S., Schneider, S., Szefer, J., Ibraheem, S., & Ali, A. (2019) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04425 · Cited by 26
Addo, A. A. (2016) · THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES · doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2016.tb00565.x · Cited by 11
Deep Learning for Enterprise Systems Implementation Lifecycle Challenges: Research Directions
Hassanien, H. E.-D., & Elragal, A. (2021) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics8010011 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 832-848
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2169929013
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 49.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
