Advertisement

Don Ihde’s ‘Soft’ Technological Determinism and Capabilities for IS Organizational Learning. The Case of a Competence Center

  • P. Depaoli
Chapter

Abstract

There is a not yet resolved, ongoing debate concerning the character of technology. After synthesizing the main strands in this theoretical contention, the paper draws on Don Ihde’s ‘soft’ technological determinism to discuss appropriate strategies of organizational learning on the part of IS vendors. A case is presented concerning the design and evolution of the competence center of the financial division of a large Italian software house. The description and discussion show that an early, persistent, and extensive involvement of human resources in the project, the lean structure of the center, and its promotion of knowledge exchanges both within the division and with clients, suppliers, and regulatory bodies allowed for improved division capabilities. An interorganizational ‘learning ladder’ was thus established so that technologies and contexts could be more flexibly and effectively addressed and managed.

Keywords

Information System Organizational Learning User Organization Facilitate Condition Technological Determinism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No 3, pp. 425–478.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mao, E., Palvia, P. (2006). Testing an Extended Model of IT Acceptance in the Chinese Cultural Context. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems – Spring-Summer (Vol. 37, Nos. 2 & 3).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ihde, D. (2002) Bodies in Technology. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howcroft, D. Mitev, N., Wilson, M. (2004). What we May Learn from the Social Shaping of Technology Approach. In Mingers, J. and Willcocks, L. eds. Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science. Vol. 3. No. 3, pp. 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones, M., Orlikowski, W.J., Munir, K. (2004). Structuration Theory and Information Systems: A Critical Appraisal. In Mingers, J. and Willcocks, L. eds. Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latour, B. (2003). The Promises of Constructivism. In Ihde, D., Selinger E. (eds) Chasing Technoscience. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ihde, D.(2003) If Phenomenology Is an Albatross, Is Post-phenomenology Possible?. In Ihde, D., Selinger E. (eds) Chasing Technoscience. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verbeek, P.P. (2005) What Things Do. The Pennsylvania University Press, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Denton, J. (1998). Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ciborra, C., Andreu, R.(2002). Knowledge across Boundaries. In Choo, C.W., Bontis, N. (eds.) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università di UrbinoUrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations