Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research

Abstract

This article concerns theories about why and how information technology affects organizational life. Good theory guides research, which, when applied, increases the likelihood that information technology will be employed with desirable consequences for users, organizations, and other interested parties. But what is a good theory? Theories are often evaluated in terms of their content---the specific concepts used and the human values served. This article examines theories in terms of their structures---theorists' assumptions about the nature and direction of causal influence. Three dimensions of causal structure are considered---causal agency, logical structure, and level of analysis. Causal agency refers to beliefs about the nature of causality: whether external forces cause change, whether people act purposefully to accomplish intended objectives, or whether changes emerge unpredictably from the interaction of people and events. Logical structure refers to the temporal aspect of theory---static versus dynamic---and to the logical relationships between the "causes" and the outcomes. Level of analysis refers to the entities about which the theory poses concepts and relationships---individuals, groups, organizations, and society. While there are many possible structures for good theory about the role of information technology in organizational change, only a few of these structures can be seen in current theorizing. Increased awareness of the options, open discussion of their advantages and disadvantages, and explicit characterization of future theoretical statements in terms of the dimensions and categories discussed here should, we believe, promote the development of better theory.information technology, organization change, causal structure

CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development

“…The focus here is on developing a context-based, process-oriented description and explanation of the phenomenon, rather than an objective, static description expressed strictly in terms of causality (Boland, 1979(Boland, , 1985Chua, 1986;Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). In the language of Markus and Robey (1988) and Mohr (1982), the paper develops a process not a variance theory. Such a theory describes and explains the process of adopting and using CASE tools in terms of an interaction of contextual conditions, actions, and consequences, rather than explaining variance using independent and dependent variables (Elsbach and Sutton, 1992:708).…”

“…In this, the framework proposed here is different from existing frameworks on technology adoption and implementation, which tend to share three characteristics: (i) they consist of causal models, based on the deterministic assumptions of either a technological or organizational imperative (Markus and Robey, 1988), and hence discount the importance of human intentions and action in shaping the adoption and use of technology; (ii) they are variance models (Markus and Robey, 1988), and hence do not adequately capture the contextual and processual issues that are fundamental to examining organizational change (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Pettigrew, 1990); and (iii) they focus primarily on activities of development and implementation, and hence do not examine the use or consequences of a new technology.…”

“…I then develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes the findings in terms of three central categories: strategic conduct, institutional context, and change process. The grounded theory approach was useful here as it allows a focus on contextual and processual elements as well as the action of key players associated with organizational change--elements that are often omitted in IS studies that rely on variance models and cross-sectional, quantitative data (Markus and Robey, 1988;Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991). While the findings of this grounded theory study are detailed and particularistic, a more general explanation can also be produced from the results (Eisenhardt, 1989;Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Leonard-Barton, 1990).…”

The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research

“…Thus, an emergent process perspective focuses primarily on the embedded and dynamic meanings, interests, and activities that are seen to produce an ensemble of technological relations (Kling, 1991;Markus and Robey, 1988). Scholars working from this perspective sought to explain how the particular interests and situated actions of multiple social groups shaped the designs, meanings, and uses of new technologies over time (Ciborra and Lanzara, 1994;Fulk, 1993;Heath and Luff, 2000;Prasad, 1993;Thomas, 1994;Zuboff, 1988).…”

Varieties of User-Centeredness

“…The socio-technical design represents an intermediate position (interactive view) suggesting that the social subsystem and the technical subsystem should be designed in parallel in order to achieve joint optimization. Recently the views that the adaptation of technology and work is more emergent process (emergent view) has gained acceptance [60], [62]. Technological determinism has been rejected and interpretive flexibility of IT information/software system but organizational work processes (activities) to be supported by the system.…”