Changing Minds,   Changing Organizations,   Changing Technologies Gigi L. Johnson, EdD  Maremel Institute      MOC PDW    ...
Who is telling what technology story?             For what end?        To “get user to adopt”? Or to change organizational...
Technology: A Fixed Answer?                                     MeasuredMgmt. Selection   Implementation   “Penetration”  ...
Technology: Changing Minds  Frames &               Intentional   Pre-DecisionalAssumptions                                ...
Our Path TodayConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
ConceptsConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
Org. Structures Create/Created By           Technology Frames                             Technology                      ...
Embracing a Nexus of                                             Organizational                                           ...
First…
What istechnology?
"Technology is anything that was   invented after you were born”   --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010  What istechnology?
"Technology is anything that was   invented after you were born”   --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010  What istechnology?  ...
What, then, is Technology?
What, then, is Technology?• Tools that extend our abilities?• Tools that we use in our given context(s)?• System(s) includ...
Changing Narratives, ChangingTechnologies, Changing MindsConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Org...
A Tale of Two CasesCase 1                            Case 2• K-12 School District            • Major University• 2010-2011...
Affordances:        Possible and Perceived UsesAll "action possibilities" recognizable in anenvironment  – Gibson, 1977, T...
Brands: Online Tools• Yah. I mean…I shouldn’t say, there is an online connection, I use Facebook.  Um. Send a lot of email...
Minimal narrative to expand         affordances and options• Brands become shortcuts in conversation and decisions,  undis...
Case 1:Narrative Example:                    What is a cell phone?                   .•   G.     What else is a cell phone...
Case 1: Identified Themes and Frictions   Driver                   Stories                             Value              ...
Time/Place/Data ConnectionsConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Organizational AssumptionsChangin...
Technology Extends Senses         Connects Time and Place•   Telephone•   Pen•   Clock•   Telescope•   Recording devices•...
“Technology” connects whole      industries’ “Where” and “When”                       Time                       Space    ...
Case 1: Time = Value = Narratives                            EXSTENSIVE Stories of Time•   “Time” as a scarce resource    ...
Case 2: Consideration of Time• Buy, Build, and Share   – Internal time with non-hourly staff NOT counted in any     work o...
Organizational AssumptionsConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Organizational AssumptionsChanging...
Unspoken Pre-Decisional Routines• How do we improve the flow of information about  great ideas while valuing time?• Who do...
Corbin (1980): Paths of Decisions,      broken into assumptions• Problems? Or Opportunity formulation?• Who is allowed to ...
Pre-Decisional FocusThese Two Cases: Focusing on Pre-decisions• Who brings what into consideration?• How are alternatives ...
Muddy Mix on How We Decide                          Cyert & March                                                  Cohen, ...
Technology is a human construct, created by engineers, marketing teams, andconsumers who buy it and modify it • Bijker, 19...
How can we help leaders look at flow of organizational change narratives?• Trace ideas  – Who can have an idea?  – What pa...
Closure: Case 1Time “ends” upon delivery and short training• Minimal measurement and fine-tuning except for Data  Director...
More Identity and Role: Case 1Learning stories of how “I” work      •From peers, tutorials, learning networks          and...
Case 1: Metaphor-driven stories on      assumptions, limits, and rules“Technology” as an undefined thing,     • Definition...
Case 1: Missing or Thin Stories “My Job” -- No participants                                                               ...
Changing NarrativesConcepts  Affordances & Brands   Time/Place/Data Connections  Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narrat...
Narrative Drivers Can Limit Choices                                 Action and                                 Leadership ...
Technology-Specific Narrative Drivers                                       Action and                                    ...
Narrative shifts could shift technology    frames and decision routines                                   Action and      ...
Narrative shifts can shift alternatives• Build Understanding• Build Capacity for Change?                                  ...
Both Case 1 and Case 2:Narrative Leadership?
Maremel InstituteDr. Gigi L. Johnson    @maremel gigi@maremel.com http://maremel.comhttp://gigijohnson.net    626-603-2420
ReferencesArgyris & Schoenberg, 1996Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observatio...
ReferencesDosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2009). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. LEM Papers...
ReferencesMoore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm. New York, NY: Harper Business.Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Info...
ReferencesSurry, D. W. (1997, February 12-15). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annua...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Changing Minds, Changing Organizations, Changing Technologies

2,063

Published on

Academy of Management (AoM) 2012 Professional Development Workshop (PDW), hosted by the Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division (MOC) and organized by Gigi Johnson, EdD, Maremel Institute. This set of slides summarizes the discussions and data from a three-hour workshop for academics and practitioners who work toward changing organization stories around what is possible with technology.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,063
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
59
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Many current organizational leaders view technological change as a given, to be reacted to, without recognition of their own abilities to change an organization’s stories of routines, alternatives, and futures.
  • Only a culturally stated value since the 1960s
  • Only a culturally stated value since the 1960s
  • Only a culturally stated value since the 1960s
  • Problem recognition: identification, recognition; who identifies stimulus or gap; how is that identified to be a decision?Problem formulation: who identifies the nature of the problem, what are the goals of the solution, how is it defined?Alternatives: what are the sources of alternatives, how are they evaluated, and when are enough choices available?Information Search: who seeks information on the alternatives and from where? How much information is enough, and who decides?Consideration of Alternatives: How is the model of how decisions will be made chosen?Implications, measurement, and adjustment: How is the result of the decision judged? How is it justified? Who is accountable? How is it reviewed, when, and by whom?
  • Witte (1972 disagreed with the concept of decision stages; with , finding 233 organizational decision patterns as iterative, not linear. Mintzberg et al. (1976) observed overlapping and nonlinear phases and routines. Cyert and March (1963) called this type of phase the mating theory of search, the matchup of passive search; through sales representatives, the matching process can become “alternatives are looking for organizations” (p. 80). Decisions might be made based rules from imitation or tradition, pilot programs, or consultants as experts (Pfiffner, 1960, p. 130). That choice may also have involved the perceived importance of the sponsoring person or group instead of the choice itself (Mintzberg et al., 1976Nutt (1984) extended the work by Mintzberg et al. (1976) and found that even these normative patterns of subroutines and iterations were rare. Of 78 organizational decisions: 7% used what he called the appraisal process, evaluating for use a single idea (not alternatives7% of managers used the search process, seeking a solution to a problem without identifying the issues and needs around the problem first, hoping that an ideal solution would be found; 30% of managers pursued off the shelf solutions, usually requesting vendors to submit proposals and creating a competition between the solutions provided; and 40% used historical processes and solutions from other organizations’ experiences to apply to their situation. Half of the historical solutions came from just one prestigious example organization or unit having used the solution. Site visits or bids by contractors drove most of the decisions in the cases examined.Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) posed a garbage can method of organizational choice and decision-making,
  • Changing Minds, Changing Organizations, Changing Technologies

    1. 1. Changing Minds, Changing Organizations, Changing Technologies Gigi L. Johnson, EdD Maremel Institute MOC PDW AoM 2012
    2. 2. Who is telling what technology story? For what end? To “get user to adopt”? Or to change organizational beliefs, routines, and decisions? Our Adventure Today
    3. 3. Technology: A Fixed Answer? MeasuredMgmt. Selection Implementation “Penetration” Of Use
    4. 4. Technology: Changing Minds Frames & Intentional Pre-DecisionalAssumptions Selection(s) Narratives? Patterns (inc. Time)
    5. 5. Our Path TodayConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    6. 6. ConceptsConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    7. 7. Org. Structures Create/Created By Technology Frames Technology Frame • Legitimization Organization • Signification Structuration • Domination Technology Technology Frame FrameTechnology Frames: Orlikowski & Gash,1994Structuration: Giddens, 1979; Barley, 1986; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991
    8. 8. Embracing a Nexus of Organizational Decision-Making Theories • Bounded rationality (e.g., March, 1978; Technology Simon, 1956; Todd & Adoption (e.g., Benbasat, 2000) Burkman, 1987; Moore, • Decision-making 1991; Rogers, 1962/1983; rubrics Narrative Analysis Rogers & Shoemaker, (e.g., Beach & Mitchell, 1971; Surry, 1997) 1978, on the (e.g., Clandinin & Contingency Model) Connelly, 2000, Stories driving • Pre-decisional factors Czarniawska, 2004) (Payne, Braunstein, & technology routines • Seeking narrative Carroll, 1978) chunks • Routines and values • Patterns of Identity, Social Theories of Technology (Nelson & Winter, power, role relations, • Technology as tools, text, or 1982; Pentland & repetition. system (Nardi & ODay, 1999; Feldman, 2008) • Storytelling routines in Winner, 1977) • Information and stories. • Technology as recipe (Dosi & stories in power and Nelson, 2009) behavior • Affordances (Gibson, 1977) (Galbraith, 1971; Goldstein & • Technology Frames (Orlikowski & Busemeyer, 1992; Gash, 1994) Hadfield, 2005; • Technology as time and space Orlikowski, 1991) (e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., • Values in second-order 1999) learning (Argyris & • Technology as politics and power Schoenberg, 1996) (Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977)
    9. 9. First…
    10. 10. What istechnology?
    11. 11. "Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010 What istechnology?
    12. 12. "Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” --Alan Kay, per Kevin Kelly, 2010 What istechnology? http://ngrams.googlelabs.com
    13. 13. What, then, is Technology?
    14. 14. What, then, is Technology?• Tools that extend our abilities?• Tools that we use in our given context(s)?• System(s) including people, other tools, and unspoken rules? – Yes, guided and defined in part by “affordances” – Often not discussed.Technology as tools, text, or system (Nardi & ODay, 1999; Winner, 1977)Technology as recipe (Dosi & Nelson, 2009)
    15. 15. Changing Narratives, ChangingTechnologies, Changing MindsConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    16. 16. A Tale of Two CasesCase 1 Case 2• K-12 School District • Major University• 2010-2011 (Johnson, 2011) • 2012 (not yet published)• 40 participants, both as 1-4 • 22 participants, 1-4 hour semi- hour semi-scripted interviews scripted interviews (20) and focus group participants • Participants in nearly every• Participants from every school and major department; location and level mostly staff and senior faculty• Purposive sampling and • Purposive sampling and snowball sampling (Grinnell & snowball sampling (Grinnell & Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, Unrau, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 1995) 1995)
    17. 17. Affordances: Possible and Perceived UsesAll "action possibilities" recognizable in anenvironment – Gibson, 1977, The Theory of AffordancesAll action possibilities of a technology orinterface as perceived by the user; based onlikelihood and perceptions of use – Norman, 1988, The Design of Everyday Things
    18. 18. Brands: Online Tools• Yah. I mean…I shouldn’t say, there is an online connection, I use Facebook. Um. Send a lot of email. Um. But I’m not a huge Facebook user. I dabble. You know, go on a couple times a week and look at what other people are doing.• Everyone uses Google, I think.• I’m, I’m not on Twitter…I am on Facebook.• Not as much, Ill use examples from Wikipedia, and stuff like that too, show students where they are supposed (to be going to).• I Google lots of things.• I probably wouldn’t Google that.
    19. 19. Minimal narrative to expand affordances and options• Brands become shortcuts in conversation and decisions, undiscussed as to affordances• “Closure” on options and future change happens quickly – Organization in Case 1 inadvertently locked into roles, structures, and habits around purchased Brands, and stopped considering and exploring cheaper, new alternatives• Perceived affordances can become limited to what is designed into the Brand and assumed to be the same between users
    20. 20. Case 1:Narrative Example: What is a cell phone? .• G. What else is a cell phone? 02: Social network.• 05: It’s a camera. ((lots of gently overlapping 01: A reader. Like a Kindle. Access to…restaurants, comments here, as people try to add something)) theater….hotels.• G: ((G’s cell phone alarm rings)) It’s a stupid 04: GPS. alarm clock. 03: GPS.• 01: Clock. Alarm. 01: Locator.• 02: It’s a way to consume and organize 04: Tracking your children. personal media. 01: Mapping.• 05: Phone book. 02: I just got this. This is a Droid. I just got this, like, I• G: Watch purchases are down 30% this year. don’t know, like a week ago, a week and a half ago.• 05: It’s also a phone book. And it’s just like… I don’t even call it a phone. It’s a• 03 and 01: Phone book. handheld computer.• 01: Photo album. G: I haven’t heard any of you talk about it as a• 05: Photo album. learning device for your students yet. ((muffled• 01: Music library reaction)) G: Well, NO, that’s ((mumble)) 02: Distraction! ((laughter and loud multiple voices)) 26
    21. 21. Case 1: Identified Themes and Frictions Driver Stories Value We dont have time; technology My time, not yours; existing class time Time costs money structures and routines Technology Brand name technology, limitedand Perceived Technology costs money measurement and re-evaluation Resources paths Identity; Technology Heroes and Pilots; Limited problem-based-learning or Power; student achievement narratives collaboration narratives; focus onTeaching and centered on testing and presentation and measurement of Success measurement textbook and test drivers 22
    22. 22. Time/Place/Data ConnectionsConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    23. 23. Technology Extends Senses  Connects Time and Place• Telephone• Pen• Clock• Telescope• Recording devices• Cell phone• Digital storage Technology as extensions of embodiment (McLuhan, 1967); Technology as time and space (e.g., Bowker, 1995; Horning et al., 1999)
    24. 24. “Technology” connects whole industries’ “Where” and “When” Time Space Connections• Time of Capture • Time of• Place of Capture Consumption and• Rules of Purchase Capture/Editing/ • Place of Context Consumption and Purchase • Metaphors/rules of 13 consumption
    25. 25. Case 1: Time = Value = Narratives EXSTENSIVE Stories of Time• “Time” as a scarce resource – limits being externally applied – efforts to push back uses and obligations of time – Few stories about saving time or new technologies saving time – Few stories about using time WELL together to adopt new technologies – Only one story of understanding time needed to teach differently or digest different content with new technologies. – Lots of stories of decisions made without any consideration of other people’s time or valuing time as a decision resource across the system, including in wiki implementation, email systems for enhanced communication, SMART Board content needed for visuals, etc. – Value in play and time to play as learning• “Past” stories about extensive stories of how things used to be as reasoning for present• “Future” stories about hopes and aspirations , which mostly were limited in scope
    26. 26. Case 2: Consideration of Time• Buy, Build, and Share – Internal time with non-hourly staff NOT counted in any work of any kind• Time for Information – “No time” to look outside program, department – No value for that connection – no time delegated or valued• Open Source: Internal Time not measured or valued – SUNY Academic Commons – also big internal benefits of shared time, but not valued or measured for boundary spanners (Rothwell & Zegveld, 1985; Swanson, 1994; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981)
    27. 27. Organizational AssumptionsConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    28. 28. Unspoken Pre-Decisional Routines• How do we improve the flow of information about great ideas while valuing time?• Who do we assume makes decisions?• How does the prior decision affect the next?• How do we measure decisions and results to adjust them for further improvement? Or stop them?• Who gets rewarded?• How do we set up healthy decision processes that learn from past events?
    29. 29. Corbin (1980): Paths of Decisions, broken into assumptions• Problems? Or Opportunity formulation?• Who is allowed to identify opportunities? Who feels they can? Eval./measurement?• What are the sources of new ideas? Spread and measurement of pilots?
    30. 30. Pre-Decisional FocusThese Two Cases: Focusing on Pre-decisions• Who brings what into consideration?• How are alternatives filtered and encouraged?• When is a decision closed? Who decides?
    31. 31. Muddy Mix on How We Decide Cyert & March Cohen, March,Witte (1972) (1963) Mating & Olsen (1972)Iterative, not Theory of garbage can Linear Search – passive method matchup Mintzberg, et al. Nutt (1984) rare (1976) normative overlapping and patterns non-linear
    32. 32. Technology is a human construct, created by engineers, marketing teams, andconsumers who buy it and modify it • Bijker, 1995; Winner, 1977Sociotechnical ensembles where relevant social groups look at problems andsolutions, and in that friction in-between, come up with interpretive flexibility andcraft new meanings • Bijker, 1995The reality of the technology and the needs for it differ by group • Hård, 1993Power struggles can start a technology change and closure in technology relates tothose power struggles • Hård, 1993 Technology: Politics & Power
    33. 33. How can we help leaders look at flow of organizational change narratives?• Trace ideas – Who can have an idea? – What paths do innovations flow? (Hellström, C., & Hellström, T., 2002) – Where do new ideas come from?• Map change – Where has change come from in the past?• Closure – Who makes the decision that change is done? – When is it done?
    34. 34. Closure: Case 1Time “ends” upon delivery and short training• Minimal measurement and fine-tuning except for Data Director• No visible thought process on developing users’ long- term skills (or students’ long-term skills) in embracing technology into work/lives• No apparent re-evaluation processes• Adoptions seen as one-time events instead of as a continuum of resources and systems• Minimal apparent transparent evaluation of pilots or propagation of good uses
    35. 35. More Identity and Role: Case 1Learning stories of how “I” work •From peers, tutorials, learning networks and engage •“Professional development” assumed to be a ½-1 day training on user interfaces of a specific technologyStories of past district leadership about Ghosts and Heroes Who “we” are in stories, illustrated with district andschool descriptions and how we know what they are •Heroes (pseudonyms): Franklin (middle school teacher); Marcy (elementary principal); Jerry (secondary principal) People as Symbol Stories •People as Functions (by name, not role) •People as Symbols: New CTO; District Office; Principals •Ghosts: 2006 CTO, past Superintendent; 2 past principals
    36. 36. Case 1: Metaphor-driven stories on assumptions, limits, and rules“Technology” as an undefined thing, • Definitions of Tech: Brands as shorthand for unspoken conceptstool, etc. (e.g., we need technology,we cannot afford technology, we are • Certain techno-ecological systems are better without discussion behind in technology) (e.g., Dell, Apple, Smart, Mobi/Interwrite)Email as uncontrolled use of time and attention Conformity stories, in conjunctionwith School Loop and Pacing Guides; tacitly accepting conformity as an organizational norm • Technology costs and does not save money. • Technology is hardware and software purchases, not systemTechnology as limited by the system implementations across social processes. (money, budget, measurement, • Money is driven by grants, their assumptions, and their related information) social systems; spending by grant parameters instead of seeking own opportunities for development except by one participant (who is leaving at the year-end).
    37. 37. Case 1: Missing or Thin Stories “My Job” -- No participants Seeking teaching resources claimed that their job is Taking Time -- Understanding Economic considerations (for use with enhanced responsible for educational connecting to resources (have & have nots; teachers technologies) or curriculumtechnology in the classroom; takes time and/or time of also were have-nots as well planning stories other than each of the 22 pointed to others in decision-making as half of the students) pacing guides someone else Collaboration or inclusion Collaboration except in Invisible technologies with school technology Innovation informal teachers teaching (printers, overheads, support personnel or school teachers speakers, phone) librarian Leaving others behind/non- Information seeking and inclusion: Ethnicity of Student Creation or sharing as a collaborative community and families; Inclusions Stories (2 storiesaction; minimal knowledge Library/librarian or Reward or Success Stories about student use out of 22management for teaching or technology aide as resource; interviews) decision-making second class citizen, non- inclusion or consideration
    38. 38. Changing NarrativesConcepts Affordances & Brands Time/Place/Data Connections Organizational AssumptionsChanging Narratives
    39. 39. Narrative Drivers Can Limit Choices Action and Leadership Internal Perspectives • Personal action External Perspectives • Information • Information routines • STEP, especially • Time • New narrative fuel budget/policy • Identity and roles Routines•reduce perceived Nature of • Competition • Unclear and uncertainties and frames choice; technology simplify contradictory social and social context limit alternatives through • Values perspectives information, search, role and Information reinforcement assignments in choices, Belief reinforcement Technology recognition of gaps, lack of Choice: narratives Missing Considerations feedback of Alternatives
    40. 40. Technology-Specific Narrative Drivers Action and Shifts power Leadership relations Internal Perspectives • Personal action External Perspectives • Information • Information Transparency – routines • STEP, especially social elements • TimeTime, Place, • New narrative fuel budget/policy invisible to many – • Identity and rolesand People: • Competition social elements • Nature of Realigns • Unclear and become technology frames contradictory social unintendedConnections and social context perspectives consequences and • Values technological drift Technology Choice: Considerations of Alternatives
    41. 41. Narrative shifts could shift technology frames and decision routines Action and See holes of missing Leadership narratives Internal Perspectives • Personal action External Perspectives • Information • Information routines • STEP, especially • Time • New narrative fuel budget/policy • Identity and roles • Competition • Nature of • Unclear and technology frames contradictory social and social context perspectives • Values Provide fuel for new narratives Technology Choice:Make routines visible Considerations of Alternatives reinforcement Information Belief reinforcement Missing narratives
    42. 42. Narrative shifts can shift alternatives• Build Understanding• Build Capacity for Change? Action and Leadership Internal Perspectives • Personal action External Perspectives • Information • Information routines • STEP, especially • Time • New narrative fuel budget/policy • Identity and roles • Competition • Nature of • Unclear and technology frames contradictory social and social context perspectives • Values Technology Choice: Considerations Needs changing drivers to change of Alternatives perspectives: • Narrative leadership • Friction on perspectives from external forces
    43. 43. Both Case 1 and Case 2:Narrative Leadership?
    44. 44. Maremel InstituteDr. Gigi L. Johnson @maremel gigi@maremel.com http://maremel.comhttp://gigijohnson.net 626-603-2420
    45. 45. ReferencesArgyris & Schoenberg, 1996Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. doi:10.2307/2392767Beach L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439-449. doi:10.2307/257535Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Bowker, G. C. (1995). Second nature once removed: Time, space and representations. Time & Society, 4(1), 47-66. doi:10.1177/0961463X950004001003Burkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 429-455). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumClandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. doi:10.2307/2392088Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. doi:10.2307/249688Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in social science research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    46. 46. ReferencesDosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2009). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. LEM Papers Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), SantAnna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2009/07Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organizational design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25059090Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Goldstein, W. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1992). The effect of "irrelevant" variables on decision making: Criterion shifts in preferential choice? Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(3), 425-454. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90028-6Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2007). Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Hadfield, M. (2005). Knowledge production, its management and action research. Educational Action Research, 13(2), 301-311. doi:10.1080/09650790300200281Hård, M. (1993). Beyond harmony and consensus: A social conflict approach to technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(4), 408- 432. doi: 10.1177/016224399301800402Hellström, C., & Hellström, T. (2002, June). Highways, alleys and by–lanes: Charting the pathways for ideas and innovation in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(2), 107-114. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00242Hörning, K. H., Ahrens, D., & Gerhard, A. (1999). Do technologies have time?: New practices of time and the transformation of communication technologies. Time & Society, 8(2), 293-308. doi:10.1177/0961463X99008002005Johnson, G. (2011). Reframing Technology Narratives and Routines to Energize Organizational Change.[published dissertation]. ProQuest.March, J.G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608. doi:10.2307/3003600Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976, June). The structure of “unstructured” decision process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246-275.
    47. 47. ReferencesMoore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm. New York, NY: Harper Business.Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technologies with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Nutt, P. C. (1984). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 414-450. doi:10.2307/2393033Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control?: The contradictory implications of information technology. Accounting Management and Information, 1(1), 9-42. doi:10.1016/0959-8022(91)90011-3Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169. doi:10.1287/isre.2.2.143Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207. doi:10.1145/196734.196745Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235-250. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001Pettigrew, A. M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6(2), 187. doi:10.1177/003803857200600202Pfiffner, J. M. (1960). Administrative rationality. Public Administration Review, 20(3), 125-132. doi:10.2307/973965 Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1985). Reindustrialization and technology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems: Innovation among organizations. Management Science, 40(9), 1069-1092. doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.9.1069
    48. 48. ReferencesSurry, D. W. (1997, February 12-15). Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/Payne, J. W., Braunstein, M. L., & Carroll J. S. (1978). Exploring pre-decisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(1), 17-34. doi:10.1016/0030- 5073(78)90003-XRogers, E. M. (1962/1983). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York, NY: Free PressSimon, H. A. (1956, March). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138. doi:10.1037/h0042769Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (2000). The impact of information technology on decision making: A cognitive perspective. In R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future . . . through the past (pp. 1-14). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305. doi:10.2307/255842Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics out of control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Witte, E. (1972). Field research on complex decision-making processes—the phase theorem. International Studies of Management & Organization, 2(2), 156-182. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×