Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 287–297 | Cite as

Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research

  • Devaki Rau
  • Thorvald Haerem


Organizations often under-utilize expensive information technology (IT) enabled work processes that automate routines or processes that were previously carried out manually. One reason for this phenomenon may lie in the types of decisions made by technological gatekeepers, who are key individuals charged with deploying new technologies in organizations. From an organizational learning perspective, technological gatekeepers are more likely to perform successfully when they make appropriate decisions about exploring or exploiting the routines associated with a new technology. The factors that influence gatekeepers’ decisions about exploration or exploitation, however, are still largely unexplored. In this study, we present a model based on the basic technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine this issue. We use concepts from the literatures on organizational learning, expertise, and cognitive styles to elaborate on the constructs in our model, and examine how these literatures can inform our understanding of technological gatekeepers’ decisions. The goal of this paper is to accelerate micro-level research on new technology deployment in organizations by identifying some key issues and propositions for future studies.


Routines Expertise Exploration Exploitation Cognitive styles 


  1. Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: the difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(3), 483–495.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, P. (1990). Shared learning. Management Science, 36(8), 938–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. (1969). Information flow in R&D laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Antonacoupoulou, E., & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38(3), 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Aykin, N. M., & Aykin, T. (1991). Individual differences in human-computer interaction. Computers and Engineering, 20(3), 373–379.Google Scholar
  14. Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baylor, A. L. (2001). A U-shaped model for the development of intuition by level of expertise. New Ideas in Psychology, 19, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 2, 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bhattacharjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in beliefs and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254.Google Scholar
  18. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camerer, C. F., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 195–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Carlsen, B., & Norheim, O. F. (2003). Introduction of the patient-list system in general practice—changes in Norwegian physicians’ perception of their gatekeeper role. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 21(4), 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chakraborty, I., Hu, P. J. H., & Cui, D. (2008). Examining the effects of cognitive style in individuals’ technology use decision making. Decision Support Systems, 45(2), 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 1 (pp. 17–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, M. D. (2007). Reading Dewey: reflections on the study of routine. Organization Studies, 28(5), 773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  28. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology—a comparison of 2 theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: implications for organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 75–123.Google Scholar
  30. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085–1113.Google Scholar
  31. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Epple, D., Argote, L., & Devadas, R. (1991). Organizational learning curves: a method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Organization Science, 2(1), 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Recent advances in expertise research: a commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haerem, T., & Rau, D. (2007). The influence of level of expertise and objective task complexity on perceived task complexity and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1320–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice. British Journal of Management, 5, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847–871.Google Scholar
  43. He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hong, S., Thong, J. Y. L., Moon, J., & Tam, K. (2008). Understanding the behavior of mobile data services consumers. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information-technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525–557.Google Scholar
  49. Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/ aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2008). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers, . doi: 10.1007/s10796-008-9073-8.Google Scholar
  52. Kim, T., & Rhee, M. (2009). Exploration and exploitation: Internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kirton, M. J. (1977). Manual of the Kirton adaption-innovation inventory. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  55. Klien, G. (1998). Sources of power. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  56. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  57. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward and integrated framework of cognitive style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 133(3), 464–481.Google Scholar
  58. Larkin, J., & McDermott, J. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lehner, F., & Maier, R. K. (2000). How can organizational memory theories contribute to organizational memory systems? Information Systems Frontiers, 2(3–4), 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  63. Lu, Y. (2007). The human in human information acquisition: understanding gatekeeping and proposing new directions in scholarship. Library & Information Science Research, 29(1), 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1985). A portfolio of risk measures. Theory and Decision, 19, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36(4), 422–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Machina, M. J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1, 121–154.Google Scholar
  67. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning (pp. 4–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: an integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7(4), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller, D. (1996). A preliminary typology of organizational learning: synthesizing the literature. Journal of Management, 22(3), 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and Tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nicolini, D., & Meznar, M. B. (1995). The social construction of organizational learning: conceptual and practical issues in the field. Human Relations, 48(7), 727–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nochur, K. S., & Allen, T. J. (1992). Do nominated boundary spanners become effective technological gatekeepers? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39(3), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 93–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Pennings, J. M. E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 46(10), 1337–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Putnam.Google Scholar
  78. Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. D. (1982). Dual task automatic and control processing: can it be done without cost? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schroeder, H. M. (1989). Managerial competence and style. In M. J. Kirton (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators (pp. 97–124). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Shanteau, J. (1992). Competence in experts: the role of task characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shumsky, R. A., & Pinker, E. J. (2003). Gatekeepers and referrals in services. Management Science, 49(7), 839–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to reconquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and exploitation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669.Google Scholar
  84. Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: evidence from a field study. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: a test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1573–1592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stohr, E. A., & Zhao, J. L. (2001). Workflow automation: overview and research issues. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sveen, F. O., Rich, E., & Jager, M. (2007). Overcoming organizational challenges to secure knowledge management. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(5), 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995a). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995b). Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Templeton, G. F., Schmidt, M. B., & Taylor, G. S. (2008). Managing the diffusion of organizational learning behavior. Information Systems Frontiers, . doi: 10.1007/s10796-008-9117-0.Google Scholar
  94. Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, A. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Venkatraman, N. (1991). IT-induced business reconfiguration. In M. S. Scott Morton (Ed.), The corporation of the 1990 s: Information technology and organizational transformation [Chap. 5]. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wang, H., & Li, J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, 34(5), 925–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Weick, K. E. (1991). The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business, Department of ManagementNorthern Illinois UniversityDe KalbUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Leadership and Organisational Management, Norwegian School of Management BIOsloNorway
  3. 3.Paul Merage School of Business, University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations