Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 607

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal

Hickson, David J., Pugh, D. S., Pheysey, Diana C.·1969·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

A classification of concepts of technology as operations technology, materials technology, and knowledge technology, is proposed. The construction of scales measuring operations technology at an organizational level of conceptualization, makes it possible to test the broad hypothesis that organizational technology is strongly related to organizational structure, by linear and nonlinear correlational analysis. On a stratified sample of diverse organizations in the English midlands, and on a subset of manufacturing organizations, this sweeping technological imperative hypothesis was generally not supported in successive tests. Operations technology was, however, associated with some variables, which are similar in that all were job-counts denoting the proportions employed in specified categories. This result, together with a detailed comparison with Woodward's findings in south-east Essex, leads to a reinterpretation of the role of technology. Operations technology is shown to affect only those structural variables immediately impinged on by the workflow. Thus the smaller the organization the more completely its structure is pervaded by the immediate effects of this technology; the larger the organization the more these effects are confined to variables such as the proportions employed in activities that are specifically linked with workflow, and technology is not related to the wider administrative and hierarchical structure. This interpretation, it is suggested, offers a synthesis for the long-standing divergence in organization theory between statements by classical management writers of management principles irrespective of technology, and the stress by behavioral scientists on the relevance of technology.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2391134

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 607

Metadata

Authors
Hickson, D. J., Pugh, D. S., & Pheysey, D. C.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1969-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
378
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022766280
Cited by
607
References
1
FWCI
28.56
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.