CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 86Information Systems Theories and ImplementationHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyComplex Systems and Decision Making

The Vicious Circles of Skill Erosion: A Case Study of Cognitive Automation

Open access
Rinta-Kahila, Tapani, The University of Queensland Business School, Penttinen, Esko, Aalto University School of Business, Salovaara, Antti, Aalto University / University of Helsinki, Soliman, Wael, University of Agder, Norway / University of Jyväskylä +2 more·2023·Journal of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1jais.00829
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cognitive automation powered by advanced intelligent technologies is increasingly enabling organizations to automate more of their knowledge work tasks. Although this often offers higher efficiency and lower costs, cognitive automation exacerbates the erosion of human skill and expertise in automated tasks. Accepting the erosion of obsolete skills is necessary to reap the benefits of technology—however, the erosion of essential human expertise is problematic if workers remain accountable for tasks for which they lack sufficient understanding, rendering them incapable of responding if the automation fails. Though the phenomenon is widely acknowledged, the dynamics behind such undesired skill erosion are poorly understood. Thus, taking the perspective of sociotechnical systems, we conducted a case study of an accounting firm that had experienced skill erosion over a number of years due to reliance on their software’s automated functions. We synthesized our findings using causal loop modeling based on system dynamics. The resulting dynamic model explains skill erosion via an interplay between humans’ automation reliance, complacency, and mindful conduction. It shows how increasing reliance on automation fosters complacency at both individual and organizational levels, weakening workers’ mindfulness across three work task facets (activity awareness, competence maintenance, and output assessment), resulting in skill erosion. Such skill erosion may remain obscure, acknowledged by neither workers nor managers. We conclude by discussing the implications for theory and practice and identifying directions for future research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1jais.00829

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Agnew, A., Forrester, P., Hassard, J., & Procter, S. (1997). Deskilling and reskilling within the labour process: The case of computer integrated manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 52(3), 317-324.
  2. Allen, R. T., & Choudhury, P. (2022). Algorithm- augmented work and domain experience: The countervailing forces of ability and aversion. Organization Science, 33(1), 149-169.
  3. Alter, S. (2013). Work system theory: Overview of core concepts, extensions, and challenges for the future. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(2), 72-121.
  4. Arnold, V., Clark, N., Collier, P. A., Leech, S. A., & Sutton, S. G. (2006). The differential use and effect of knowledge-based system explanations in novice and expert judgment decisions. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 79-97.
  5. Arnold, V., & Sutton, S. G. (1998). The theory of technology dominance: Understanding the impact of intelligent decision aids on decision maker's judgments. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 1(3), 175-194.
  6. Asatiani, A., Malo, P., Nagbøl, P. R., Penttinen, E., Rinta-Kahila, T., & Salovaara, A. (2021). Sociotechnical envelopment of artificial intelligence: an approach to organizational deployment of inscrutable artificial intelligence systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(2), 325-352.
  7. Asatiani, A., Penttinen, E., Rinta-Kahila, T., & Salovaara, A. (2019). Implementation of automation as distributed cognition in knowledge work organizations: Six recommendations for managers. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems.
  8. Axelsen, M. (2012). Continued use of intelligent decision aids and auditor knowledge: qualitative evidence. Proceedings of the 18 th Americas Conference on Information Systems.
  9. Axelsen, M. (2014). Technology impeded knowledge acquisition and retention: The effects of long- term use of intelligent decision aids on auditor professional knowledge [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. The University of Queensland.
  10. Baker, J., & Singh, H. (2019). The roots of misalignment: Insights on strategy implementation from a system dynamics perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(4), Article 101576.
  11. Beane, M. (2019). Shadow learning: Building robotic surgical skill when approved means fail. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 87- 123.
  12. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications (Revised ed.). George Braziller.
  13. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197-208.
  14. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.
  15. Bravo, E. R. (2015). Automation and substitution of human knowledge: Assessment within the information system context. Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems.
  16. Burton-Jones, A. (2014). What have we learned from the smart machine? Information and Organization 24(2), 71-105.
  17. Butler, B. S., & Gray, P. H. (2006). Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 211-224.
  18. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Meaning of complacency in English. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved in 2023 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/ english/complacency.
  19. Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage: How our computers are changing us (1st ed.). Norton.
  20. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and Procedures for developing a grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.
  21. Davis, C. J., & Hufnagel, E. M. (2007). Through the eyes of experts: A socio-cognitive perspective on the automation of fingerprint work. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 681-703.
  22. Dowling, Leech, & Moroney. (2008). Audit support system design and the declarative knowledge of long-term users. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, (5), 99-108.
  23. Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus paradox: An analysis of a totally destructive system. Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 176-184.
  24. Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., Qian, Y., & Feng, B. (2018). System dynamics modeling for information systems research: Theory development and practical application. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), 1303-1329.
  25. Fiol, C.-M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2003). Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 54-70.
  26. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press.
  27. Galletta, D. F., Durcikova, A., Everard, A., & Jones, B. M. (2005). Does spell-checking software need a warning label? Communications of the ACM, 48(7), 82-86.
  28. Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 9-33.
  29. Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2014). Automation bias: Empirical results assessing influencing factors. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(5), 368-375.
  30. Hampton, C. (2005). Determinants of reliance: An empirical test of the theory of technology dominance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 6(4), 217- 240.
  31. Hansen, S. W., Gogan, J. L., Baxter, R. J., & Garfield, M. J. (2019). Informed collaboration in health care: An embedded-cases study in geriatric telepsychiatry. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 514-547.
  32. Jussupow, E., Spohrer, K., Heinzl, A., & Gawlitza, J. (2021). Augmenting medical diagnosis decisions? An investigation into physicians' decision-making process with artificial intelligence. Information Systems Research, 32(3), 713-735.
  33. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A Multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90).
  34. Krakowski, S., Luger, J., & Raisch, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the changing sources of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 44(6), 1425-1452.
  35. Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589- 613.
  36. Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 539-550.
  37. Martinez-Moyano, I. J., McCaffrey, D. P., & Oliva, R. (2014). Drift and adjustment in organizational rule compliance: Explaining the "regulatory pendulum" in financial markets. Organization Science, 25(2), 321-338.
  38. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 51(2), 164-179.
  39. Mascha, M. F., & Smedley, G. (2007). Can computerized decision aids do "damage"? A case for tailoring feedback and task complexity based on task experience. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8(2), 73- 91.
  40. Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 14-33.
  41. Mayer, A., Strich, F., & Fiedler, M. (2020). Unintended consequences of introducing AI systems for decision making. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(4), 239-257.
  42. McCall, H., Arnold, V., & Sutton, S. G. (2008). Use of knowledge management systems and the impact on the acquisition of explicit knowledge. Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 77-101.
  43. Mees-Buss, J., Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2020). From templates to heuristics: How and why to move beyond the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2). https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1094428120967716 · DOI
  44. Moray, N. (2003). Monitoring, complacency, scepticism and eutactic behaviour. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(3), 175-178.
  45. Newell, S., & Marabelli, M. (2015). Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long- term societal effects of "datification." The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(1), 3-14.
  46. Oliver, N., Calvard, T., & Potočnik, K. (2017). Cognition, technology, and organizational limits: Lessons from the Air France 447 disaster. Organization Science, 28(4), 729-743.
  47. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explaination. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711- 724.
  48. Rinta-Kahila, T., Penttinen, E., & Lyytinen, K. (2021). Organizational transformation with intelligent automation: Case Nokia Software. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 11(2), 101-109.
  49. Rinta-Kahila, T., Penttinen, E., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). Getting trapped in technical debt: Sociotechnical analysis of a legacy system's replacement. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 1-32.
  50. Rinta-Kahila, T., Someh, I., Gillespie, N., Indulska, M., & Gregor, S. (2022). Algorithmic decision- making and system destructiveness: A case of automatic debt recovery. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 313-338.
  51. Rosemann, M., & Vessey, I. (2008). Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: Rhe role of applicability checks. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 7-22.
  52. Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701.
  53. Salovaara, A., Lyytinen, K., & Penttinen, E. (2019). High reliability in digital organizing: mindlessness, the frame problem, and digital operations. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 555-578.
  54. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719.
  55. Scheepers, R., Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (2018). Cognitive automation as part of Deakin University's digital strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(2), 89-107.
  56. Schuppan, T. (2014). E-government at work level: Skilling or de-skilling? Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1927-1934).
  57. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). Crown Books.
  58. Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8-25.
  59. Stone, G. D. (2007). Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology, 48(1), 67-87.
  60. Sutton, S. G., Arnold, V., & Holt, M. (2018). How much automation is too much? Keeping the human relevant in knowledge work. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 15(2), 15-25.
  61. Thatcher, J. B., Wright, R. T., Sun, H., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Klein, R. (2018). Mindfulness in information technology use: Definitions, distinctions, and a new measure. MIS Quarterly, 42(3), 831-847.
  62. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.
  63. Trauth, E. M., & Jessup, L. M. (2000). Understanding computer-mediated discussions: positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 43-78.
  64. Triki, A., & Weisner, M. M. (2014). Lessons from the literature on the theory of technology dominance: Possibilities for an extended research framework. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 11(1), 41-69.
  65. Wallace, M., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1982). Industrial transformation and the decline of craft: The decomposition of skill in the printing industry. American Sociological Review, 47(3), 307-324.
  66. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rinta-Kahila, T., The University of Queensland Business School, Penttinen, E., Aalto University School of Business, Salovaara, A., Aalto University / University of Helsinki, Soliman, W., University of Agder, N. /. U. O. J., Ruissalo, J., & Aalto University School of Business
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University of Agder (NO)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2023
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
1378-1412
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1jais.00829
OpenAlex
W4386554296
Cited by
86
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 7
FWCI
37.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • University of Auckland
  • University of New South Wales
  • Academy of Finland (298879)
  • Aalto-Yliopisto
  • Jenny ja Antti Wihurin Rahasto
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
Keywords
skill erosion, cognitive automation, automation reliance, complacency, mindfulness, knowledge work, accounting firms, socio-technical systems, system dynamics, human expertise, competence maintenance, activity awareness

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