When Does Technology Use Enable Network Change in organizations? A comparative Study of Feature Use and Shared Affordances1
Open accessAbstract
The goal of this study is to augment explanations of how newly implemented technologies enable network change within organizations with an understanding of when such change is likely to happen. Drawing on the emerging literature on technology affordances, the paper suggests that informal network change within interdependent organizational groups is unlikely to occur until users converge on a shared appropriation of the new technology’s features such that the affordances the technology enables are jointly realized. In making the argument for the importance of shared affordances, this paper suggests that group-level network change has its most profound implications at the organization level when individuals use the same subset of a new information technology’s features. To explore this tentative theory, we turn to a comparative, multimethod, longitudinal study of computer-based simulation technology use in automotive engineering. The findings of this explanatory case study show that engineers used the new technology for more than three months, during which time neither group experienced changes to their advice networks. Initially, divergent uses of the technology’s features by engineers in both groups precluded them from being able to coordinate their work in ways that allowed them to structure their advice networks differently. Eventually, engineers in only one of the two groups converged on the use of a common set of the technology’s features to enact a shared affordance. This convergence was necessary to turn the technology into a resource that could collectively afford group members the ability to compare their simulation outputs with one another and, in so doing, alter the content and structure of the group’s advice network. The implications of these findings for the literatures on technology feature use, affordances, social networks, and post-adoption behaviors in organizations are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The use of chatbots in diverse social contexts may lead to the emergence of either individualized, shared, and collective affordances through affecting the technoorganizational context.
“Second, drawing on the concept of individualized, shared, and collective affordances of Leonardi (2013), we detail how the use of chatbots in diverse social contexts may lead to the emergence of either individualized, shared, and collective affordances through affecting the technoorganizational context.”
From How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems (2020) · cites this paper as Leonardi (2013)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 444
- Authors
- Leonardi, P. M.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leonardi, Paul M.
- ORCID
- Leonardi, Paul M.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2013-09-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 749-775
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2143161739
- Cited by
- 444
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 63.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- technology affordances, network change, advice networks, computer simulation, automotive engineering, technology appropriation, post-adoption behavior, social networks
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