CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,957Information Systems Theories and ImplementationManagement and Organizational StudiesInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations

Open access
Orlikowski, Wanda J.·1992·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper develops a new theoretical model with which to examine the interaction between technology and organizations. Early research studies assumed technology to be an objective, external force that would have deterministic impacts on organizational properties such as structure. Later researchers focused on the human aspect of technology, seeing it as the outcome of strategic choice and social action. This paper suggests that either view is incomplete, and proposes a reconceptualization of technology that takes both perspectives into account. A theoretical model—the structurational model of technology—is built on the basis of this new conceptualization, and its workings explored through discussion of a field study of information technology. The paper suggests that the reformulation of the technology concept and the structurational model of technology allow a deeper and more dialectical understanding of the interaction between technology and organizations. This understanding provides insight into the limits and opportunities of human choice, technology development and use, and organizational design. Implications for future research of the new concept of technology and the structurational model of technology are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A technology introduced into an organization is open to multiple interpretations; successful embedding will require opening up a space for dialogue, listening to concerns, and allowing people time to argue out the challenges and learn from the experiences of others before a "closure" over possible interpretations is reached.

    “Also highly relevant to the health and care environment is what Weick called “technology as equivoque” [103] and Orlikowski (drawing on earlier work on the social construction of technology) called “interpretive flexibility” [104]: a technology introduced into an organization is open to multiple interpretations; successful embedding will require opening up a space for dialogue, listening to”

    From Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies (2017) · cites this paper as [104]

  • In cases where impacts of public sector performance are difficult to measure, feedback on new technologies depends heavily on stakeholders' value-based perceptions as well as on political, ideological or cognitive frameworks.

    “In cases where impacts of public sector performance are difficult to measure, the feedback on new technologies depends heavily on stake-holders' value-based perceptions (e.g., seeing individual or collective gains; Taylor 2016) as well as on political, ideological or cognitive frameworks that these stakeholders apply when confronting or applying technologies (Orlikowski 1992).”

    From Technological capacity in the public sector: the case of Estonia (2018) · cites this paper as Orlikowski 1992

  • Such a socio-technical structure facilitates collective intelligence, in which social capital plays the facilitation role.

    “Such a socio-technical structure facilitates collective intelligence (Orlikowski, 1992), in which social capital plays the facilitation role.”

    From Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness (2016) · cites this paper as Orlikowski, 1992

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Orlikowski, W. J.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Orlikowski, Wanda J.
ORCID
Orlikowski, Wanda J.
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1992-08
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
398-427
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
OpenAlex
W2101419153
Cited by
4,957
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 248 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 123 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 195 · 2018: 164 · 2017: 123 · 2016: 167 · 2015: 198 · 2014: 237 · 2013: 220 · 2012: 211
FWCI
105.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Organization Science (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
technology concepts, information technology, organizational structure, strategic choice, social action, dialectical understanding, organizational design, technological progress

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