Changing Frames: Towards an Understanding of Information Technology and Organizational Change.

Gash, Debra C.; Orlikowski, Wanda J.

doi:10.5465/ambpp.1991.4976880

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While radical change offers the opportunity to implement a new vision and create fundamental change, it also invites greater risk and difficulty. Because it can be quite disruptive, radical change is 6ften associated with ambiguity and chaos (Bartunek, 1984;Gash and Orlikowski, 1991;Hedberg, 1981;Tushman and Romanelli, 1985), and usually is only attempted when managers perceive a rare opportunity or a crisis (as occurred in PCC).…”

Section: Implications For Systems Development Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Orlikowski¹

2002

Qualitative Research in Information Systems

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the findings of an empirical study into two organizations' experiences with the adoption and use of CASE tools over time. Using a grounded theory research approach, the study characterizes the organizations' experiences in terms of processes of incremental or radical organizational change. These findings are used to develop a theoretical framework for conceptualizing the organizational issues around the adoption and use of these tools--issues that have been largely missing from contemporary discussions of CASE tools. The paper thus has important implications for research and practice. Specifically, the framework and findings suggest that in order to account for the experiences and outcomes associated with CASE tools, researchers should consider the social context of systems development, the intentions and actions of key players, and the implementation process followed by the organization. Similarly, the paper suggests that practitioners will be better able to manage their organizations' experiences with CASE tools, if they understand that such implementations involve a process of organizational change over time, and not merely the installation of a new technology.ii

show abstract

Section: Implications For Systems Development Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Orlikowski¹

2002

Qualitative Research in Information Systems

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the context of groupware, those cognitive elements that have to do with information technology become particularly salient. Elsewhere, I have termed these technological frames, and described how they shape the way information technology is designed and used in organizations [7].…”

Section: Cognitive Elementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the introduction of groupware into an organization to understand the changes in work practices and social interaction facilitated by the technology. The results suggest that people's mental models and organizations' structure and culture significantly influence how groupware is implemented and used. Specifically, in the absence of mental models that stressed its collaborative nature, groupware was intepreted in terms of familiar personal, stand-alone technologies such as spreadsheets. Further, the culture and structure provided few incentives or norms for cooperating or sharing expertise, hence the groupware on its own was unlikely to engender collaboration. Recognizing the central influence of these cognitive and organizational elements is critical to developers, researchers, and practitioners of groupware.

show abstract

“…Recent work (Gash and Orlikowski 1991;Orlikowski 1991;Dougherty 1992) indicates that such research might require a more involved, case-study oriented methodology than is typical of the mainstream research on the management of technology. The richness of the problem appears to require a detail-oriented approach, at least until relevant concepts are better understood.…”

Section: Uncertainty and Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice over uncertainty and ambiguity in technical problem solving

Schrader

Riggs

Smith

1993

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management

177

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first two of these components focus on the lack of information, in a manner similar to the broad definition of (^Ibraith (1973 As implied by the arrows on Figure 1, the position of a problem does not remain fixed on the matrix during the process of problem formulation and solution.Instead, it will move as the problem solution is developed. For (Kuhn, 1962;Latour, 1987 Consequently, the problem-solving process can be specified a priori. The problem-solving task can be decomposed into well defined subtasks, using such rules as minimizing interdependence between separate tasks (Hippel 1990). Smith and Eppinger (1991) demonstrate that the Design Structure Matrix can be used to structure a well-understood design task consisting of several interdependent subtasks so that an optimal task parritioning and ordering can be determined ex ante. In other words, the efficiency of the problem-solving process can be increased by a content-spedfic organizarion of tasks. Content-specific means that the tasks to be accomplished are described, complete with spjecifications for the tangible results desired and the inputs needed. In our earlier illustration of the improvement of a semiconductor producfion process, for example, in case two (uncertainty reducrion), the manager would be able to specify a program wherein photoresist quality, chip complexity and operator skill would be systemafically measured and used within his model to improve his prediction of weekly output.Since the tasks are definable in situahons of uncertainty, it is possible to describe precisely the content of specific roles that need to be fulfilled in order to complete the problem-solving task. Job descriptions that define the content of tasks associated with the job are possible. In the illustration above, the manager knows precisely what to measure, and can construct a detailed project plan and assign welldefined tasks to his staff and specify expjected outputs. Sinnilarly, connmunicafion networks can be structured that support the problem-solving process. Project boundaries can be defined and interfaces specified. Consequently, it is possible to control the content of the problem-solving process using measures that can be defined before the actual problem solving commences. In short, the problem-solving process can be structured and controlled by employing well established approaches such as described in Frank (1971) and in Newman (1973). An appropriate organizafional structure for this kind of activity will tend to show the characterisfics of a mechanistic organization as described by Burns and Stalker (1966) (Simon 1978;Simon 1979). Consequently, only the process and not the content of the problem-solving task can be managed. The inability to define the problem-solving content becomes apparent when one investigates the task definitions of projects that

show abstract

Changing Frames: Towards an Understanding of Information Technology and Organizational Change.

Cited by 19 publications

References 24 publications

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

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

Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation

Choice over uncertainty and ambiguity in technical problem solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About