Advertisement

Socio-Materiality as Lens to Study IT Driven Change

  • A. Carugati
  • C. Morelli
  • A. Giangreco
Chapter

Abstract

This paper reports the findings of a research into change during the constitution of an IT Group. Our main findings show that when an IT company acquires two similar companies, IT becomes a central part of the change program, differing from other change cases where IT is considered a peripheral component. We use the scaffold metaphor by Orlikowski [1] as a framework to interpret the case study. Our study is a primer in the use of socio-materiality as framework for interpreting IT-driven change and shows that this framework can highlight the most common characteristics of change while remaining practical and synthetic.

Keywords

Material Characteristic Change Program Magic Bullet Information System Research Change Case 
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.
    Orlikowski W.J. (2006) Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability, European Journal of Information Systems. 15(5):522–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markus M.L., Benjamin R.I. (1997), “The Magic Bullet Theory in IT-Enabled Transformation”, Sloan Management Review, 38:55–68Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leonardi P.M., Barley S.R., (2008), Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing, Information and Organization, Vol. 18:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zuboff, S. and Bronsema, G. (1984), “The Expense Tracking System at Tiger Creek,” HBS Publishing, HBS Case No. 9-485-057, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978) Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Senge, P. et. al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nonaka I, Toyoma R. (2005), The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3):419–436.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming. Organization Science, 13(5):567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czarniawska B., Joerges, (1995). Venti di cambiamento organizzativo: come le idee si traducono in oggetti e azioni, in Bacharach S.B., Gagliardi P. E Mundell B. (a cura di), Il pensiero organizzativo europeo, ed Guerini, Milano.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czarniawska, B. (1997) Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weick K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markus, M. L. (1983), “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM (26:6), pp. 430–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barley S.R., (1986), Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986 Mar 31 (1):78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rockart J.F. (1988), “The line takes the leadership”, Sloan Management Review, 29:57–64.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orlikowski W., Hofman D. (1997) “An Improvisational Model For Change Management: the case of groupware technologies”, Sloan Management Review 38:11–21.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlikowski, W.J. & Baroudi, J.J. (1991) “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions”, Information Systems Research (2).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orlikowski & Iacono (2001): Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing about the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2):121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knorr Cetina K. (1999) Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levina, N. and E. Vaast (2005) “The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Information Systems’ Implementation and Use,” MIS Quarterly (29:2), Special Issue on Knowledge Management, June, pp 1–29.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ciborra, C. (2000). The Labyrinths of Information. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Århus School of BusinessUniversity of ÅrhusÅrhusDenmark
  2. 2.Università Amedeo Avogadro e Università Carlo CattaneoCattaneoItaly
  3. 3.IESEG School of ManagementCatholic University of LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations