The document discusses different perspectives on the relationship between technology and organizational structure. It describes Woodward's categorization of technologies as unit, mass, or process production and her finding that effectiveness results from an appropriate technology-structure fit. It also covers Perrow's two dimensions of task variability and problem analyzability and their four technology types. Finally, it discusses Thompson's categories of long-linked, mediating, and intensive technologies and how routineness is a common factor across perspectives. The document concludes that the influence of technology on structure is supported by job-level research and most applicable to small organizations.

1. © 2010 Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.
PowerPoint Presentation by Rajeesh Viswanathan
Jansons school of Business
Organization Theory
Structure, Design, and Applications
Third Revised Edition
Stephen P. Robbins and Mary Mathew
C H A P T E R
7
PART II: THE DETERMINANTS: WHAT CAUSES STRUCTURE?
An Overview

2. After reading this chapter, you should be able to:After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
 Define technology.Define technology.
 Describe the contributions of Woodward, Perrow, andDescribe the contributions of Woodward, Perrow, and
Thompson.Thompson.
 Explain the moderating influence of industry and size on theExplain the moderating influence of industry and size on the
technology-structure relationship.technology-structure relationship.
 Summarize how the concept of routineness runs through mostSummarize how the concept of routineness runs through most
studies on technology.studies on technology.
 Identify the influence of level of analysis on the technology-Identify the influence of level of analysis on the technology-
structure relationship.structure relationship.
 Describe the effect of technology on complexity, formalization,Describe the effect of technology on complexity, formalization,
and centralization.and centralization.

3. DEFINITIONDEFINITION
 OT RESEARCHERS DEFINEOT RESEARCHERS DEFINE
TECHNOLOGY AS THETECHNOLOGY AS THE
INFORMATION, EQUIPMENT,INFORMATION, EQUIPMENT,
TECHNIQUES AND PROCESSESTECHNIQUES AND PROCESSES
REQUIRED TO TRANSFORMREQUIRED TO TRANSFORM
INPUTS INTO OUTPUTS IN ANINPUTS INTO OUTPUTS IN AN
ORGANIZATIONORGANIZATION

4. THE INITIAL THRUST: WOODWARD’S RESEARCH
WOODWARD categoriesed firms into three types ofWOODWARD categoriesed firms into three types of
technologies:technologies:
UNITUNIT
MASSMASS
PROCESS PRODUCTIONPROCESS PRODUCTION
She treated these categories as a scale with increasing degrees ofShe treated these categories as a scale with increasing degrees of
technological complexity, with unit being the least complex andtechnological complexity, with unit being the least complex and
process the most complexprocess the most complex

5. A careful analysis of her findings led Woodward to conclude
that for each category on the technology scale (unit, mass,
process) and for each structural component there was an
optimal range around the median point that encompassed the
positions of the more effective firms.
Effectiveness was a function of an appropriate technology-Effectiveness was a function of an appropriate technology-
structure fit.structure fit.

6. KNOWLEDGE-BASEDKNOWLEDGE-BASED
TECHNOLOGY: PERROW’STECHNOLOGY: PERROW’S
CONTRIBUTIONCONTRIBUTION
 BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND
 TWO DIMENSIONSTWO DIMENSIONS
TASK VARIABILITYTASK VARIABILITY
PROBLEM ANALYZABILITYPROBLEM ANALYZABILITY
 ROUTINE TECHNOLOGIESROUTINE TECHNOLOGIES
 ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIESENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES
 CRAFT TECHNOLOGIESCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES
 NONROUTINE TECHNOLOGIESNONROUTINE TECHNOLOGIES
 CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
 EVALUATIONSEVALUATIONS

7. Perrow defined technology as “the action that an individualPerrow defined technology as “the action that an individual
performs upon an object, with or without the aid of tools orperforms upon an object, with or without the aid of tools or
mechanical devices, in order to make some change in thatmechanical devices, in order to make some change in that
objectobject
Two underlying dimensions of knowledge technologyTwo underlying dimensions of knowledge technology
a)a) The first dimension considers the number of exceptionsThe first dimension considers the number of exceptions
encountered in one’s work. Labeledencountered in one’s work. Labeled task variability,task variability, thesethese
exceptions will be few in number if the job is high inexceptions will be few in number if the job is high in
routinenessroutineness
b)b) The second dimension assesses the type of searchThe second dimension assesses the type of search
procedures followed to find successful methods forprocedures followed to find successful methods for
responding adequately to task exceptions.responding adequately to task exceptions.

8.  These two dimensions—task variability and problem analyzThese two dimensions—task variability and problem analyz
ability—can be used to construct a two-by-two matrix.ability—can be used to construct a two-by-two matrix.
 The four cells in this matrix represent four types of technology:The four cells in this matrix represent four types of technology:
routine, engineering, craft, and non-routineroutine, engineering, craft, and non-routine
Routine technologies (cell 1) have few exceptions and easy-to -analyze
problems. The mass-production processes used to make steel or automobiles
or to refine petroleum belong in this category.
Engineering technologies (cell 2) have a large number of exceptions, but they
can be handled in a rational and systematic manner.
Craft technologies (cell 3) deal with relatively difficult problems but with a
limited set of exceptions.
Finally, non-routine technologies (cell 4) are characterized by many exceptions
and difficult-to-analyze problems.

9. Measuring TechnologyMeasuring Technology
Task variabilityTask variability
 How many of these tasks are the same from day to day?How many of these tasks are the same from day to day?
 To what extent would you say your work is routine?To what extent would you say your work is routine?
 People in this unit do about the same job in the same way most of the time.People in this unit do about the same job in the same way most of the time.
 Basically, unit members perform repetitive activities in doing their jobs.Basically, unit members perform repetitive activities in doing their jobs.
 How repetitious are your duties?How repetitious are your duties?
Problem Analyzability:Problem Analyzability:
 To what extent is there a clearly known way to do the major types of work youTo what extent is there a clearly known way to do the major types of work you
normally encounter?normally encounter?
 To what extent is there a clearly defi ned body of knowledge of subject matterTo what extent is there a clearly defi ned body of knowledge of subject matter
which can guide you in doing your work?which can guide you in doing your work?
 To what extent is there an understandable sequence of steps that can beTo what extent is there an understandable sequence of steps that can be
followed in doing your work?followed in doing your work?
 To do your work, to what extent can you actually rely on establishedTo do your work, to what extent can you actually rely on established
procedures and practices?procedures and practices?
 To what extent is there an understandable sequence of steps that can beTo what extent is there an understandable sequence of steps that can be
followed in carrying out your work?followed in carrying out your work?

10. ConclusionConclusion
Perrow then identified the key aspects of structure that could bePerrow then identified the key aspects of structure that could be
modified to the technology:modified to the technology:
(1) the amount of(1) the amount of discretiondiscretion that can be exercised for completing tasks,that can be exercised for completing tasks,
(2) the(2) the powerpower of groups to control the unit’s goals and basic strategies,of groups to control the unit’s goals and basic strategies,
(3) the extent of(3) the extent of interdependenceinterdependence between these groups, andbetween these groups, and
(4) the extent to which these groups engage in(4) the extent to which these groups engage in coordinationcoordination of their workof their work
using either feedback or the planning of others.using either feedback or the planning of others.

11. TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY:TECHNOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY:
THOMPSON’S CONTRIBUTIONTHOMPSON’S CONTRIBUTION
 LONG-LINKED TECHNOLOGY –
Long-linked Technology. If tasks or operations are sequentially
interdependent, Thompson called them long-linked. This technology
is characterized by a fixed sequence of repetitive steps
 MEDIATING TECHNOLOGY - mediating technologymediating technology as one thatas one that
links clients on both the input and output side of the organization.links clients on both the input and output side of the organization.
Banks, telephone utilities, most large retail stores, computer-datingBanks, telephone utilities, most large retail stores, computer-dating
services, employment and welfare agencies, and post offices areservices, employment and welfare agencies, and post offices are
examplesexamples

12. Thompson’s third category—Thompson’s third category—intensive technology—intensive technology—
represents a customized response to a diverse set ofrepresents a customized response to a diverse set of
contingencies. The exact response depends on the nature ofcontingencies. The exact response depends on the nature of
the problem and the variety of problems, which cannot bethe problem and the variety of problems, which cannot be
predicted accurately. This includes technologies dominant inpredicted accurately. This includes technologies dominant in
hospitals, universities, research labs, full-servicehospitals, universities, research labs, full-service
management-consulting firms, or military combat teamsmanagement-consulting firms, or military combat teams
Thompson’s insights into structural terminology.Thompson’s insights into structural terminology.

13. TYING IT TOGETHER
 INFLUENCE OF INDUSTRY AND SIZE –INFLUENCE OF INDUSTRY AND SIZE –
Technology and structure are both multidimensional concepts. As a result, it
is possible that technology may be related to structure although not in any
simple, straightforward manner. There are, in fact, some logical arguments
to support the idea that the industry within which the organization operatesorganization operates
and the organization’s size confound a clear causal relationship betweenand the organization’s size confound a clear causal relationship between
technology and structure.technology and structure.
Industry.Industry.
Organizations within any given industry may have to adopt the conventionalOrganizations within any given industry may have to adopt the conventional
core technology to be competitive. Just as industry often influences thecore technology to be competitive. Just as industry often influences the
efficient operating size of an organization, its degree of competition, orefficient operating size of an organization, its degree of competition, or
extent of government regulation, it can also limit the viable set ofextent of government regulation, it can also limit the viable set of
technology optionstechnology options

14. Size: the larger the size of the organization, the smaller the rolethe larger the size of the organization, the smaller the role
technology is likely to play Conversely, the smaller thetechnology is likely to play Conversely, the smaller the
organization, the more likely it is that the whole organization will beorganization, the more likely it is that the whole organization will be
impinged upon by the production work flow or operating core. Theyimpinged upon by the production work flow or operating core. They
then noted that the firmsthen noted that the firms
The common Denominator: Routineness
Perrow, too, presented two extremes-routine and non-routine technologies.Perrow, too, presented two extremes-routine and non-routine technologies.
His “in-between” technologies—engineering and craft—also differ onHis “in-between” technologies—engineering and craft—also differ on
routineness, the former more standardized than the latter.routineness, the former more standardized than the latter.
Finally, Thompson’s categories include two technologies that are relativelyFinally, Thompson’s categories include two technologies that are relatively
routine (long-linked and mediating) and one that is non-routine (intensive).routine (long-linked and mediating) and one that is non-routine (intensive).

15. TECHNOLOGY AND STRUCTURETECHNOLOGY AND STRUCTURE
Technology and ComplexityTechnology and Complexity
The greater the routineness, the fewer the number ofThe greater the routineness, the fewer the number of
occupational groups and the less training possessed byoccupational groups and the less training possessed by
professionalsprofessionals
Technology and FormalizationTechnology and Formalization
Routine technologies permit management to implement rulesRoutine technologies permit management to implement rules
and other formalized regulations because how to do the job isand other formalized regulations because how to do the job is
well understood , and the job is repetitive enough to justify thewell understood , and the job is repetitive enough to justify the
cost to develop such formalized systemscost to develop such formalized systems

16. Technology and CentralizationTechnology and Centralization
Both formal regulations and centralized decision making areBoth formal regulations and centralized decision making are
control mechanisms, and management can substitute themcontrol mechanisms, and management can substitute them
for one another. Routine technologies should be associatedfor one another. Routine technologies should be associated
with centralized control if there is a minimum of rules andwith centralized control if there is a minimum of rules and
regulations. However, if formalization is high, routineregulations. However, if formalization is high, routine
technology can be ac companied by decentralizationtechnology can be ac companied by decentralization

17. ConclusionConclusion
We concluded that the technological imperative, if itWe concluded that the technological imperative, if it
exists, is supported best by job-level research, isexists, is supported best by job-level research, is
most likely to apply only to small organizations andmost likely to apply only to small organizations and
to those structural arrangements at or near theto those structural arrangements at or near the
oper­ating core, and that “routineness” is theoper­ating core, and that “routineness” is the
common denominator underlying most of thecommon denominator underlying most of the
research on technologyresearch on technology