8/13/2019 655615

1/12

IBIMA Publishing

Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JIBBP/jibbp.html

Vol. 2!2 "2!2#$ %rticle I '(('!($ !2 pages

)I: !.(!*!/2!2.'(('!(

Copyright 2012Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios. This is an open access article distributed

under the Creatie Co!!ons Attribution "icense unported #.0, $hich per!its unrestricted use, distribution,

and reproduction in any !ediu!, proided that original $or% is properly cited. Contact author& Azadeh

Pishdad '(!ail& pisay001)!y!ail.unisa.edu.au

Technology and Organizational Evolution:An Institutionalisation Perspective

Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

*n conte!porary business organizations, technology proides the +oundation around $hich

organizations eole and !ature. *t not only aids organizations in enabling strategic businessobecties through auto!ation o+ operations, but $ith their in+or!ation processing and decisionsupport capabilities, these technologies also aid in business planning and !anage!ent. Thus, the

scope o+ these technologies e-tends +ro! strategic enablers to strategic adisors. The literaturesuggests arious perspecties on the role o+ technology in organization, i.e., techno(centric, hu!an(

centric, and technology institutionalisation. This paper ai!s to loo% at technology li+ecycle process,

through the lens o+ technology institutionalisation perspectie. According to the institutional ie$and theories, there are arious sub institutions operating in a broader eniron!ent o+ organization,

such as organizational culture, social structure, and co!petitie eniron!ent. The organizationthries on the !utual interactions o+ these sub institutions and establishes its legiti!acy. hen

technology beco!es institutionalised, it is ta%en +or granted by its users $ithin the organization.This !eans that they are co!+ortable $ith technology and can e!ploy its +eatures e++ectiely intheir routine actiities $ithout re/uiring +unctional consultant or coach support. oreoer, an

oerie$ o+ literature on technology deinstitutionalisation and institutional change is presented inthis paper $hich ai!s to study ho$ old technologies o+ the organization and legacy syste!s are

changed and replaced $ith ne$ ones.

Keywords& Technology institutionalisation *nstitutional theory *nstitutional change Technology

deinstitutionalisation.

Introduction

Technology1 in an organization eolesthrough continuous interaction $ith other

organizational sub(institutions li%e people,

culture, technological in+rastructure,custo!ers, co!petitors, suppliers and etc.

1Technology in this paper re+ers to hard$are, so+t$are,co!!unication net$or%s, and syste!s that ac/uire,process, store, and delier in+or!ation to e-ternal and

internal sta%eholders in order to +acilitate businessprocesses. Here the ter! technology +ocuses onin+or!ation syste!s, ho$eer, also enelopsin+or!ation technology

Technology i!ple!entation in conte!porarybusiness organizations, thus, should not be

ie$ed as si!ple installation and one o++endorse!ent o+ technology instead the

organization should engage in the process o+

technology assi!ilation3 institutionalisationto !aintain its legiti!acy, technical cohesion,

and econo!ic +itness on an on(going basis.The literature suggests di++erent approaches

to de+ine the role o+ technology through itsli+ecycle, i.e., techno(centric, hu!an(centric,and innoation(institutionalisation

perspecties. 'ach o+ these perspecties,!ainly, e!phasizes one aspect o+ technology

8/13/2019 655615

2/12

8/13/2019 655615

3/12

# 4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

t$o set o+ theories +ocus on the

i!ple!entation o+ technology inorganizations. These theories hae,there+ore, been used e-tensiely in research

and practice. Ho$eer, technologies li%ein+or!ation syste!s are !uch !ore than

si!ple installation and endorse!ent o+technology. The role and scope o+in+or!ation syste!s eoles continuously,

such that the organizations eole $ith theireolution. There+ore, there is a need tobridge up the gap bet$een techno(centric

perspectie, hu!an(centric perspectie, andinnoation(institutionalisation perspectie

and theories.

According to the institutional ie$ andtheories, there are arious sub institutions

operating in a broader eniron!ent o+organization, such as organizational culture,

social structure, and co!petitie

eniron!ent. The organization thries on the!utual interactions o+ these sub institutions

and establishes its legiti!acy 9# Po$el and

8/13/2019 655615

4/12

8/13/2019 655615

5/12

@ 4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

structure to !a-i!ize their utilities.

Ho$eer, so!e pre+erences o+ theindiiduals in responding to rules,induce!ents and incenties re!ain

unchanged 9Hall and Taylor 1==I Peters2000 Dhepsle 200@:. The third approach to

institutionalis! is historical, $hich relies onthe concept o+ Jpath dependency;. The ideabehind this concept is that the inception o+ an

institution $ill hae continued e++ects oerits behaior +or the re!ainder o+ itse-istence, $hich e-plains sustainability and

persistence o+ strategies, structure andactions. '!pirical institutionalis! ans$ers

the /uestions regarding organizationaldi++erences in strategy and policy choices andinstitutional stability according to their

+or!al and in+or!al structures 9Hall andTaylor 1==I Peters 2000 Pierson and

D%ocpol 2002:. 7inally, constructiistinstitutionalis! is the ne$est approach toinstitutional analysis $hich describes the

role o+ ideas and discourses in organizationalpolitics. This proides a !ore dyna!ic

approach to institutional change than thepreious !entioned approaches 9Dch!idt200>:.

Institutional Iso#orphic Pressures

*nstitutional iso!orphis! is a process in$hich organizations try to e-cel in their

practice o+ social rules, ideals, and practices

by aligning the!seles $ith theeniron!ental conditions. Theseinstitutional pressures push organizations to

adopt shared notions and routines. Thus, theinterpretation o+ intention to adopt

technology and the preailing conte-t o+ theorganization is a++ected by its perception o+these pressures. Coercie 9constraining:,

nor!atie 9learning:, and !i!etic 9cloning:are three iso!orphic !echanis!s $hichin+luence organizations in gaining

operational e++iciency, si!ilarity $ith peers,and success 9#

Po$el and :.

8egulatie, cultural(cognitie, and nor!atieare three institutional ie$s representing

theses iso!orphic pressures $hich are not!utually e-clusie and !ay beinterdependent. 7or e-a!ple, organizational

actors !ay interpret, negotiate and sociallyconstruct the !eaning o+ rules and

regulations on the basis o+ nor!atie andcultural(cognitie considerations 9'del!anet al. 1===:, $hich are also use+ul in

e-plaining the di++usion o+ technologyinnoation 9Dcott 2001 Currie 2011:. 7igure

1 de!onstrates these three institutionaliso!orphic !echanis!s and the conceptsrelated to each o+ the!.

$ig %& Institutional Iso#orphis# 'echanis#s( Pressures )Developed or This *esearch+

8/13/2019 655615

6/12

8/13/2019 655615

7/12

E 4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

Institutional !hange

Traditionally, research hae been !ainly+ocused on the institutional e++ects o+

technologies by using three !echanis!s o+institutional iso!orphis! and little attention

has been gien to study ho$ technologiescould be a part o+ the process o+deinstitutionalisation and

reinstitutionalisation. :. hen

institutional iso!orphic pressures increase,the institutionalisation process e!erges. nthe other hand, $hen they decrease,

deinstitutionalisation process starts.

8/13/2019 655615

8/12

4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices >

+or resources 9"ounsbury 2002

8/13/2019 655615

9/12

= 4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

cognitie legiti!acy. This is $hen ideas are

ta%en +or granted as a natural andappropriate arrange!ent and are acceptedas the de+initie $ay o+ organizational

behaiour.

!onclusions and $uture Directions

Technology institutionalisation is an

eolutionary and nonlinear process and itssuccess depends on a nu!ber o+ conte-tual,technical, eniron!ental, social, cultural, and

other institutional +actors and their !utualinteractions. These interactions contribute to

organizational !aturity, legiti!acy, andsuccess and de+ine technologyi!ple!entation, institutionalisation,

deinstitutionalisation andreinstitutionalisation in the organization.

7urther!ore, although organization itsel+ isan institution, it consists o+ a ariety o+ subinstitutions. The !utual interactions o+ these

institutional pressures not only de+inetechnology i!ple!entation3 assi!ilation,

but also hae bearing on institutionalisationo+ technology through the process o+institutional iso!orphis!. The ai! o+ this

paper is, thus, to reie$ literature on ho$technology institutionalisation occurs in

organizations, and !ore precisely ho$institutional logics are di++used $ithinorganizations through three iso!orphic

processes i.e., coercie, !i!etic andnor!atie. oreoer, ho$ these

technologies are changed by the process o+institutional change, deinstitutionalisation,and reinstitutionalisation. This paper

concludes considering the e++ects o+institutional pressures proide ne$ insights

into ho$ the behaiors o+ indiiduals $ithin

an organization are in+luenced byorganizational nor!s, alues, regulations,

and culture. n the contrary, ho$ they !ayresult in deinstitutionalisation and

reinstitutionalisation o+ organizational +or!sand practices.

Do!e research the!es or di!ensions that$ould be interesting to inestigate are

including technology institutionalisationchallenges, +actors in+luencing and are

in+luenced by the institutional eniron!ent

conditions on $hich stable structuresbeco!e destabilized and call +or change theconse/uences o+ deinstitutionalisation

process +or !aintaining ne$ institutionalarrange!ents relationships bet$een

organizational characteristics, e-ternalpressures and institutional process reasonso+ resistance to change. These the!es are

i!portant to e-plore because they proide+oundation +or understanding ho$technologies in general and in+or!ation

technologies in particular beco!e e!beddedin the organization.

*eerences

Abrutyn, D. 5 Turner, 4. 92011:. LThe ld*nstitutionalis! eets the e$

*nstitutionalis!,L +ociological Perspectives$@B9#:, 2>#(#0I.

6aptista, 4. 9200=:. L*nstitutionalisation as aProcess o+ *nterplay bet$een Technology and

*ts rganizational Conte-t o+ Mse,L Journal of

Information ,echnolog-$ 2B9B:, #0@(#1=.

6erger, P. ". 5 "uc%!ann, T. 91=IE:. The

Docial Construction o+ 8eality& A Treatise inthe Dociology o+ Kno$ledge, onon: ,he

Penguin Press$P. 2B=.

6orc%, 7. 9200B:. *nstitutional Theory& A

e$ Perspectie +or 8esearch into *D3*TDecurity in rganizations, H*CDD, P. E01>Ib,Proceedings o+ the #Eth Annual Ha$aii

*nternational Con+erence on Dyste! Dciences9H*CDD0B: ( Trac% E.

6urns, 4. 5 Dcapens, 8. . 92000:.

LConceptualising anage!ent Accounting

Change& An *nstitutionalist 7ra!e$or%,L0anagement %ccounting 1esearch$ 1191:, #(

2@.

Clegg, D. 8. 91==0:. odern rganizations&rganization Dtudies in the Post(odern

orld, onon: +age Publications.

Clegg, D. 8. 5 6ailey, 4. 8. 9200>:.

*nternational 'ncyclopedia o+ rganizationDtudies. ,housan )as: +agePublications.

8/13/2019 655615

10/12

4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices 10

Currie, . ". 92011:. *nstitutional Theory o+

*n+or!ation Technology. ,he )3for4anboo of 0anagement Information

+-stems: 5ritical Perspectives an 6ew

irections:1#E(1E#.

8/13/2019 655615

11/12

11 4ournal o+ *nnoation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

"atour, 6. 9200@:. 8easse!bling the Docial&

An *ntroduction to Actor(et$or%(Theory.)3for$ ;E.

"ounsbury, . 92002:. L*nstitutional

Trans+or!ation and Dtatus obility& ThePro+essionalization o+ the 7ield o+ 7inance,L%caem- )f 0anagement Journal$ B@, 2@@(

2II.

ac9=:, 1B#@(1BB>.

Peters, 6. ?. 92000:. *nstitutional Theory&Proble!s and Prospects, Political DcienceDeries I=, Institute for %vance +tuies$Vienna.

Pierson, P. 5 D%ocpol, T. 92002:. LHistorical*nstitutionalis! in Conte!porary PoliticalDcience,L In Political +cience: ,he +tate of theiscipline$ 'ds. *. Katznelson and H. S. ilner.e$ Ror%& orton, Pp. BB@O>>.

Po$ell, . . 5 :. Linancial%ccountabilit- an 0anagement$ 1=92:, =#(

11I.

8/13/2019 655615

12/12