Vol. 2 Ten ity.” 12,9 ision “152. Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations Wanda J. Orlikowski Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50 Memorial Drive (E53-329) Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Daniel Robey Department of Decision Sciences and Information Systems Florida International University University Park Miami, Florida 33199 Recent work in social theory departs from prior traditions in proposing that social phenomena can be understood as comprising both subjective and ob- jective elements. We apply this premise of duality to understanding the rela- tionship between information technology and organizations. We construct a theoretical framework in which the development and deployment of infor- mation technology in organizations is a social phenomenon, and in which the organizational consequences of technology are products of both material and social dimensions. The framework is based on Giddens’ theory of structura- tion, and it allows us to progress beyond several of the false dichotomies (subjective vs objective, socially constructed vs material, macro vs micro, and Qualitative vs quantitative) that persist in investigations of the interaction between organizations and information technology. The framework can be used to guide studies in two main areas of information systems research— systems development and the organizational consequences of using informa- tion technology. {stem srems—Orpataoncany—Ongaonl strate Sec torreon 1. Introduction ‘he organizational context surrounding the development and use of information technology continues to attract the attention of numerous researchers and prac- titioners. The isolation of “implementation” and “organizational impacts” as major factors in the intellectual structure of the information systems discipline attests to the importance of these research areas (Culnan 1986, 1987). Nonetheless, these areas have been criticized for their failure to accumulate consistent research findings and for their neglect in using or building coherent théoretical frameworks (Attewell and Rule 1984, Markus and Robey 1988). Researchers often approach the subject from the viewpoint of an applied problem, such as user acceptance of information systems or the avoidance of resistance by users, and their ensuing research frequently pays little attention to underlying theory about organizations. Asa result, researchers have 100.2047 9 0203014580125 Copyright © 1991, The Insta of Management Sciences 2:2 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 143Orlikowski + Robey not produced cumulative knowledge of value to either practitioners or other re- searchers. tials Notall of these criticisms, however, should be absorbed solely by researchers in the syste field of information systems. The reference discipline for much of this work, organiza- ee tion theory, is beset by extensive debates over fundamental ontological and epistemo- logical issues (Burrell and Morgan 1979). Recent texts (e.g., Grandori 1987, Hartman ae 1988, Morgan 1986, Perrow 1986, Pfeffer 1982, Scott 1987, Van de Ven and Joyce Ls 1981) reveal a diversity of perspectives in active use that differ radically in their , ae assumptions about the causes of structure, the importance of human intentions and ow action, the role of environmental factors, and so on. Attempts to integrate these erate diverse theories, or even to sort out their differences and similarities have not proven tore wholly satisfactory. This state of affairs thus poses difficulties for any student of ea complex organizations, not just those interested in information systems. eae Our focus in this paper is the theoretical basis of research into the interaction of eal organizations and information technology. ' Criticizing research in this arena, Mar- Ces kus and Robey (1988) identified the following shortcomings: inattention to the ques- = tion of causal agency, over-reliance on variance models in theory, and failure to : ae distinguish among individuals, groups, and organizations as levels of analysis. They { fe recommended adopting emergent rather than deterministic models of causal agency, ae using the logic of process theory rather than an exclusive dependence on variance a formulations, and linking multiple levels of analysis. Despite these recommenda- are tions, Markus and Robey fell short of developing a specific theory or framework for ste guiding more productive research. We undertake that task in this paper. these We first establish the philosophical roots of our perspective which is based on the ( Re theory of structuration developed by Anthony Giddens, and which furnishes our oe basic assumptions about the relationship between structure and action in social sys- ton tems. We then construct a theoretical framework by building on and extending the ie central tenets of structuration theory. Our focus in this framework is on information an technology, and how information technology is created, used, and becomes institu- eis tionalized within organizations. In particular, we posit information technology to be | objec both the product of human action as well as a medium for human action. We con- struc clude the paper with an agenda for research, illustrating how the framework can the b inform two key areas of information systems research: the organizational process of ea information systems development and the organizational consequences of informa- ea tion technology. aes 2. The Nature of Social Reality and the Theory of Structuration rea 2.1. Social Reality as Subjective and Objective Tong Most social scientists can be broadly classified into two opposing traditions de- 1980 : pending on whether their ontological assumptions posit social reality as subjective or 1987 | as objective (Burrell and Morgan 1979). This opposition is represented by two tradi- Hee tions in the social sciences: the one based on Weber which posits social systems as the molt result of meaningful human behavior, hence portraying social reality as subjective; tee infor * Our usage of information technology is to be interpreted broadly, and we mean it to apply to the use of techr any computer (thats, hardware and software) deployed within organizations to mediate work tasks. Our This only qualification is that the computers are sufficiently general-purpose so as to be capable of modification emai ‘through systems design and programming. vism 144 Information Systems Research 2: 2 | Juneney, the the eor the ive; se of tion Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations the other based on Durkheim which focuses on the institutional aspects of social systems which are seen to be independent of and constraining human action, hence portraying social reality as objective (Bhaskar 1979). The subjectivist camp includes those who stress the importance of the subjective human experience in the interpretation, creation, and modification of the social world. Theories based on subjectivist assumptions target human actors as their focus of attention. Subjectivist theories attempt to understand phenomena by explaining how knowledgeable individuals create and recreate their social worlds through delib- erate action and enactment (see, for example, Weick 1979), Assuming social reality to be objective is a contrasting position that emphasizes the definition of the various elements comprising the objective world, and analyzing the relationiships and regu- larities between these elements. Theories based on such assumptions focus their attention on the institutional properties of social systems. Such objectivist theories attempt to understand phenomena by explaining how institutional properties influ- ence human action and shape social relationships over time. ‘The controversy in the social sciences has centered on which of these two ontologi- cal assumptions, subjective or objective, is the more appropriate for analyzing and understanding social phenomena. This confrontation appears to rest upon the prem- ise that the two positions are mutually exclusive, that theories based on one of these meta-theoretical positions cannot inform theories based on the other. This intellec- tual schism divides researchers in the sociological, organizational, and information systems disciplines and contributes to the lack of unifying, substantive paradigms in these disciplines (Hirschheim and Klein 1989). Recent work in social theory (Bernstein 1978, 1983, Giddens 1976, 1979, 1984) and philosophy of science (Bhaskar 1978, 1983) has challenged the enduring opposi- tion of subjective and objective assumptions, and proposes an integrating meta- theory, one that recognizes both subjective and objective dimensions in social reali In this paper we draw from the work of Anthony Giddens, a British social theor who asserted that the premise of mutual exclusiveness between subjectivism and objectivism is untenable, He has developed a theoretical perspective—the theory of structuration—to accommodate the two traditions and hence offers a resolution to the heated debate around which of the two characterizations of social reality has primacy (Giddens 1979, 1982, 1984). In Giddens’ view of social reality, both are equally important, and hence both should inform social theorizing and empirical investigation. Giddens’ theory of structuration has been adopted by a number of organizational researchers in their analyses of organizational processes (Barley 1986, Manning 1982, 1989, McPhee 1985, Pettigrew 1985, Poole 1985, Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood 1980, Riley 1983, Roberts and Scapens 1985, Smith 1983, Spybey 1984, Willmott 1987). Despite its growing use in social and organizational theory, structuration has not influenced many researchers exploring the relationships among information tech- nology, human action, and social structure. This is unfortunate because nowhere is the failure to explore ontological assumptions more apparent than in conceptions of information technology by information systems researchers. As a result, information technology has been freely adapted to many theoretical positions held by researchers. ‘This lack of reflection on the nature of information technology assumes it is unprob- lematic, and renders research vulnerable to the simplifying assumptions of subjecti- vism and objectivism noted earlier. June 1991 145,Orlikowski + Robey 2.2. Subjective and Objective Treatments of Information Technology In information systems research, the subjectivist approach to information technol- ogy is typified by those assuming a “social action” perspective on information tech- nology. For example, Hirschheim (1986) considers the consequences of office auto- mation to be mediated by the social interpretations offered by users. Prediction of consequences in this view is of limited value; more relevant is obtaining an under- standing of the humanistic-interpretive process wherein those engaged with the tech- nology enact various consequences. More mechanistic notions of cause and effect are deemed not useful in the prediction of technological consequences because social situations are not seen as governed by known, or knowable, causal relationships (Hirschheim 1985, p. 250). ‘While few would argue that office systems can be interpreted in various ways by their users, and that reactions to the same configurations of hardware and software might differ accordingly, the stance assumed by the subjectivists appears to exclude the possibility that systems have any objective characteristics. To this extent, the subjectivist approach seems incomplete. Research on institutionalization (Iacono and Kling 1988) indicates that technology does escape the control of human subjects, becoming formalized, institutionalized, and reified. Further, streams of research on ergonomics (Turner and Karasek 1984, Shneiderman 1980) and medical technology Barley 1990) indicate clearly that the computer-mediated workplace is not entirely a social construction, and that material characteristics may seriously affect use and alter social relationships. The objectivist approach to technology in information systems research is more ‘common, but not necessarily more accurate. For example, most research on organiza- tional impacts of computing assigns technology the role of independent variable (e.g., Carter 1984) or experimental treatment (e.g., Siegel et al. 1986). By presuming that technology is an object capable of having an impact on social systems, such research treats both technology and organization structures as objects. The metaphor of im- act (one object colliding with another) implies objectivist assumptions, and where computers are treated as discrete objects capable of causing impacts, researchers will tend to find such impacts (Kling 1987). The objectivist approach thus overstates the importance of technology's material characteristics and ignores the social interpreta- tions and actions that may modify the impact of particular software systems or hard- ware configurations. Rather than perpetuate the intellectual divide between the subjectivists and objec- tivists who study information technology, we argue for an integration of these posi- tions. We believe that the phenomenon of information technology needs to be exam- ined seriously as part of a more general theory of social structure and action. Giddens’ theory of structuration provides the basis for such an integrative theory. 2.3, Integrating Subjective and Objective Assumptions: Giddens’ Theory of Structuration In Giddens’ theory of structuration the opposition inherent in the assumption of mutual exclusiveness falls way to an assumption that social reality is constituted by both subjective human actors and by institutional properties. Thus, it is improper to conceive of a social system merely as the product of either deliberate human action or of institutional forces. Giddens proposes what he calls the duality of structure, which refers to the notion that the structure or institutional properties of social systems are ———— actic syste ties. Peor thro: struc oute the r syste mate enac ingly of sc stror relat tures ates struc nity speec betw for t prod temp Sociz other Tt erties rathe they actio by turn featu objec tute 146 Information Systems Research 2 : 2a of, iby to nor tich are = Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations created by human action, and then serve to shape future human action, So human action can be seen on the one hand to constitute the institutional properties of social systems, yet on the other hand it can be seen to be constituted by institutional proper- ties. As Roberts and Scapens (1985, p. 446) note: “Through being drawn on by People, structures shape and pattern (j.¢., structure) interaction. However, only through interaction are structures themselves reproduced. This is the ‘duality of structure’; itis in this way that structures can be seen to be both the medium and the outcome of interaction.” Explanations of social phenomena must thus refer to both the role of human action and the effects of existing institutional properties. In Giddens’ theory, structure is understood to be an abstract property of social systems. Structure is not something concrete, situated in time and space, and it lacks material characteristics. Structure cannot exist apart from the human actors who enact and interpret its dimensions. Structure has only virtual existence. Interest- ingly, people readily allow their actions to be constrained by these shared abstractions of social structure. As studies in social psychology amply testify, behavior can be strongly (and sometimes tragically) induced even by vague simulations of authority relationships and other organizational settings.’ The ability of organizational struc- tures to elicit compliance and conformity in the absence of material constraints attests to the power of those socially constructed abstractions. Giddens (1976, pp. 118-119) offers a useful analogy to clarify the nature of social structures, He notes that structure is like language, an abstract property of a commu- nity of speakers, that is sustained through use by human actors in speech. While speech acts are situated temporally and contextually and always involve dialogue between humans, language exists outside of space and time. Language is a condition for the achievement of dialogue, and language is sustained through the ongoing production of speech acts (Giddens 1976, p. 127). So too, social actions are situated temporally and contextually, and they always involve interaction between humans. Social structure conditions these social practices by providing the contextual rules and resources that allow human actors to make sense of their own acts and those of other people. It is thus more appropriate to speak of social systems as exhibiting structural prop- erties that are produced and reproduced through the interaction of human actors, rather than as having structures. But individuals do not enact structures in a vacuum; they call on the structural properties that were enacted in the past by prior human action (their own or that of others). In this way, the structural properties established by prior human action come to define and shape individuals’ interaction, which in turn recreates the structural properties anew, Conceiving of structure in this way acknowledges both its subjective and objective features. Structure does not merely emerge out of subjective human action; it is also objective because it provides the conditions for human action to occur. Structure thereby provides the means for its own sustenance, and structure and action consti- tute each other recursively. To put it simply, structuration theory recognizes that 2 Just asin computers, virtual storage does not physically exist; however it does exist “in action,” through the execution of a given set of software procedures. >The obedience studies of Milgram (1974) and the prison guard studies of Zimbardo (Zimbardo and Epbeson 1969) offer experimental support for this observation. In the field setting, Leiberman’s (1965) research on organizational roles is supportive. June 1991 147vee De] Gow] [om = rainct (sewer roma ons man site ‘setae Figure 1. The Interaction of Human Action and Institutional Properties as Mediated by the Three “Modalities of Structuration (Adapted from Giddens 1984). man actively shapes the world he lives in at the same time as it shapes him” (Giddens 1982, p. 21). This dialectical interplay between the subjective and objective dimensions of the social world eliminates the need to choose a side in the intellectual debate dividing the subjectivists and the objectivists. Structuration theory also allows elimination of the artificial partitioning of re- search attention between macro and micro levels of analysis, because the process of structuration operates at multiple levels of analysis: individual, group, and social system (organization and society). By demonstrating how individual action and in- teraction constitute shared definitions of social structure, Giddens transcends the “unit of analysis” problem identified by Pfeffer (1982), Rousseau (1985), and others. Rather than requiring analysis at either the individual or organizational level (see James et al. 1988, Glick 1988), structuration provides concepts for effectively bridg- ing levels of analysis, thus constructing a more complete social theory (Hartman 1988, Markus and Robey 1988). 2.4. Modalities of Structuration Giddens goes beyond the observation that the realms of social action and social structure coexist. He specifies that all human interaction is inextricably composed of structures of meaning, power, and moral frameworks, and that any interaction can be analyzed in terms of them. He specifies three “modalities” that link the realm of action and the realm of social structure: interpretive schemes, resources, and norms. ‘These are illustrated in Figure 1. Interpretive schemes are standardized, shared stocks of knowledge that humans draw on to interpret behavior and events, hence achieving meaningful interaction. Resources are the means through which intentions are real- ized, goals are accomplished, and power is exercised. Norms are the rules governing sanctioned or appropriate conduct, and they define the legitimacy of interaction within a setting’s moral order. These three modalities determine how the institutional properties of social systems mediate deliberate human action and how human action constitutes social structure. The linkage between the realms of social structure and human action is referred to as the “process of structuration” (Giddens 1979). Gid- dens (1984) describes how these modalities operate within each of the institutional and action realms of organizations, hence achieving an interaction of subjective and objective elements. The arrows in Figure | indicate the recursive nature of structuration, with the 148 Information Systems Research 2:2 aoed of an be im of orms, tocks ‘real- ction ional ction > and Gid- eand h the 2:2 Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations active J (interpretive schemes), R (resources), and N (norms) being balanced by the mediating J’ (interpretive schemes), R’ (resources), and N' (norms), respectively. The figure represents Giddens’ idea that the constitution of social structure through hu- man action and the mediation of human action by social structure occur simulta- neously. However, for purposes of explanation, we discuss each of the six arrows separately below. Interpretive Schemes. From the subjective point of view, human interaction in- volves the communication of meaning, and this is achieved via interpretive schemes (@D, which are stocks of knowledge that humans draw on in the production and reproduction of interaction. Interpretive schemes “, . . form the core of mutual knowledge whereby an accountable universe of meaning is sustained through and in Processes of interaction” (Giddens 1979, p. 83). The interpretive schemes, however, do more than merely enable shared meanings and hence mediate communication. Interpretive schemes also serve as conduits for the imposition of structural con- straints (7). From an institutional point of view, interpretive schemes comprise struc- tures of signification which represent the social rules that enable, inform, and inhibit the communication process. Thus in any interaction, shared knowledge is not merely background but an integral part of the communicative encounter, in part organizing it, and in part being shaped by the interaction itself. Resources. From the subjective perspective, power enters into human interaction by providing organizational capabilities for humans to accomplish outcomes. Power is here understood as transformative capacity, that is, the power of human action to transform the social and material world (Roberts and Scapens 1985, p. 449). Its use in organizations is mediated via the organizational resources (R) that participants mobi- lize within interaction (Giddens 1979, pp. 92-93). While these resources comprise the media through which power is exercised, from an institutional view resources are structural elements that constitute organizational structures of domination. All social systems are marked by an asymmetry of resources, and the existing structure of domination is reaffirmed through the use of resources (R’). It is only when the exist- ing asymmetry of resources is explicitly challenged or countered, that the existing structure of domination may be modified. Norms. From a subjective perspective, norms are organizational rules or conven- tions governing legitimate or appropriate conduct. Codes for legitimate conduct are created out of the continuous use of sanctions by individuals as they interact. “Nor- mative components of interaction always center upon relations between the rights, and obligations expected of those participating in a range of interaction contexts” (Giddens 1984, p. 30). Norms (V) thus play an active role in the shaping of institu- tional notions of legitimate behavior. Simultaneously, human action is guided by cultural notions of legitimacy, as reflected in these norms (’). From an institutional view, therefore, norms articulate and sustain established structures of legitimation. They reinforce the normative order through tradition, rituals, and practices of so- cialization. Typically the role of structural properties in shaping human action and interaction is transparent to human actors. Actors often believe they act freely within organiza- tions, and hence structural properties remain unacknowledged as the conditions of their action. Whether individuals are conscious of the influence of these properties or June 1991 149Orlikowski + Robey not, their action is not possible without the interpretive schemes, resources, and norms they use to realize their intentions. Likewise, the reinforcement or transforma tion of structural properties by humans is often unacknowledged and unintentional. Structural changes are often attributed to designers’ intentions when in fact a large number of unplanned interactions may be responsible for alterations in structure.‘ In Figure 1, the J, R, and N arrows do not assume conscious intention any more than the I, R, and N’ arrows assume awareness of institutional influence. Even when actors are conscious of constraints and aware of potential changes, Heydebrand (1986, p. 5) has pointed out that transformative social practices are not common in organizations: “The notion that social actors are—or become—knowl- edgeable does not completely address the fact that many actors, even though know! edgeable, fail to change the structural conditions that determine or oppress them, and as.a result, simply go on to reproduce these very conditions.” Merely being capable of changing structural properties does not imply that those capabilities will be exercised, and while human actors always have some capacity for independent action, there are no guarantees that such resources will be drawn on. ‘As much prior literature in information systems has shown, information technol- ogy provides a particularly interesting and possibly unprecedented opportunity for the redistribution of knowledge, resources, and conventions in organizations, and hence for a shift in the relative capacities individuals have for strategic human action. Given this potential, technology would seem to be an important ingredient within structuration theory. As presented by Giddens (1976, 1979, 1984), the theory of structuration does not explicitly incorporate technology. However, structuration has been used by organization theorists to address the longstanding question of technol- ogy’s relationship to organization structure. We review these treatments below. 2.5. The Role of Technology in the Theory of Structuration Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood (1980) regard technology as one of several con- textual constraints that warrant some form of organizational reaction. Thus, organi- zational size, production technology, and resources are considered as organizational characteristics impinging on structural choices in much the same way as the environ- ‘ment of the organization affects structure. They propose that“. . . a major change in situational exigencies such as size, technology, and environment will constrain orga- nizational members to adapt their structural arrangements” (1980, p. 13). Unfortu- nately, this observation offers little more than does standard contingency theory, and ignores two possibilities, namely, that context may play an active role in structura- tion, and that technology, in particular, can facilitate as well as constrain social action. Barley (1986) applies structuration theory to the question of technology's effect on organization structure. He describes how diagnostic technology (a CT scanner) served as an occasion for changes in organizational structure through shifts in the interactions of radiologists and technicians working in hospitals. Barley argues that “, . , since technologies exist as objects in the realm of action, one cannot hope to understand a technology’s implications for structuring without investigating how the ‘ Pfefler (1982) criticizes the rational actor perspective adopted by organizational researchers for its naive assumptions about intention. Structuration theory honors human intention but also respects unin- ‘tended outcomes far more than the rational actor perspective does. 150 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 | | i June not owl ron- gein orga ortu- and tura- ston. ner) Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations technology is incorporated into the everyday life of an organization's members” (1986, p. 81). He thus treats technology as a social object, with fixed material features, but indeterminate social implications. Technology is not regarded as causing or even constraining structure. Rather, technology is an “occasion” for structuring because its presence provokes human interactions that may subsequently effect revised social structures.* While we are in fundamental agreement with Barley on this point, we believe that it is also important to understand how technology is physically shaped by the every- day actions of the users and social settings within which it is developed and used. In the case of CT scanning technology, direct users clearly have little control over its form and functioning (although its invention and design is the product of some social context). Perhaps the traditional focus of organization theory on production technol- ogies has masked the possibilities for conceiving of technology in more dynamic terms. In the case of information technology, systems developers and users may exercise considerable influence over the nature of information technology. Users often continually shape and reshape applications, so that technology ceases to be a fixed, tangible constraint. From our observations it appears that technology in general, and information technology in particular, has not been adequately accommodated within the struc- turation theory. We posit however, that technology—particularly where it is used to mediate organizational processes—will be centrally implicated in the processes of structuration (Orlikowski forthcoming). In the following section, we will examine the implications of such an assertion, and present a theoretical framework which extends the ideas of structuration to include the interaction of technology. 3. Structuration and Information Technology To overcome the limitations in prior work on technology in the structuration Process, we propose a perspective that positions information technology centrally within the process of structuration. In drawing on structuration theory to understand the relationship between organizations and information technology, we acknowledge the underlying duality of information technology. This duality is expressed in its constituted nature—information technology is the social product of subjective hu- man action within specific structural and cultural contexts—and its constitutive role — information technology is simultaneously an objective set of rules and resources involved in mediating (facilitating and constraining) human action and hence con- tributing to the creation, recreation, and transformation of these contexts. Informa- tion technology is both an antecedent and a consequence of organizational action. In presenting our framework below, we are considering information technology as it is deployed within organizations to accomplish some task. The focus in our discus- sion is thus on the organizationally sanctioned development and use of technology. This is primarily an expositional choice—we believe it is easier to grasp the concepts through the use of standard examples. However, we do not mean to exclude from consideration the development or use of technology which is unsanctioned, or which # Although not explicitly adopting a structurational perspective, Barley's (1990) further analysis of his data nicely demonstrates the interplay of human action and social structure suggested by structuration theory. Barley shows how roles and social networks are influenced by changes in technology and how these, in turn, influence an organization's structure. 22 June 1991 151Orlikowski + Robey c ‘ i a E p i v : 4 a ° u n h r ° , h . W 1 8 . P n ti a s is | u a i 1 FiGurE 2. Structurational Model of Information Technology (Adapted from Orlikowski forthcoming). “ i 2 runs counter to established conventions. In fact, these events are central to the pro- x cesses of structuration for they represent occasions for organizational change, where ti the actions facilitated by the different technology may, over time, institute a new way © of doing things and a new sensibility about what technology is appropriate. A number a of such examples are presented in §4. 2 We begin the more formal articulation of the theoretical framework with a pro- e posal for integrating information technology explicitly into the structurational per- a spective. We then discuss how information technology is implicated in each of the { 0 three modalities of structuration proposed by Giddens. Finally, we incorporate into . this perspective the contexts within which information technology is developed a and used. 2 3.1. A Structurational Model of Information Technology Figure 2 depicts a more general structurational mode! of technology developed by Orlikowski (forthcoming) and applied to the particular case of information technol- ogy. This model recognizes four key influences that operate continuously and simul- taneously in the interaction between technology and organizations: (i) information technology is the outcome of human action, being developed and used by humans i 152 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 hdby nol- nul- tion Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations (arrow a in Figure 2); (i) information technology is also the means of other human action, serving to facilitate the accomplishment of computer-mediated work or com- munication (arrow b in Figure 2); (iii) information technology is built and used within particular social contexts (arrow c in Figure 2); and (iv) interaction with information technology influences the social contexts within which it is built and used (arrow d in Figure 2). We now explore each of these four relationships in greater detail. First, information technology is the product of human action (arrow a in Figure 2), an outcome of agency that can be understood in two ways, that information technol- ogy is created and maintained by humans, and that information technology has to be used by humans to have any effect. The first idea reflects an understanding of infor- mation technology as a human artifact, that it is built within certain social and historical circumstances. Information technology is designed and constructed, di- rectly or indirectly, by humans (systems developers, users, hackers, etc.), and hence only comes into existence through creative human action. As a consequence of such human involvement in the creation of technology, the technology will tend to reflect the assumptions and objectives of its designers and engineers (Perrow 1983, Wino- grad and Flores 1986). Further, the utilization of information technology is only reserved through the ongoing maintenance and adaptation of technology by hu- mans (¢g., servicing the hardware, correcting or modifying the software). Informa- tion technology is also a product of human action because it has to be used to accomplish some productive task. Even though information technology may be con- structed and maintained by certain human actors (programmers or technical special- ists) it remains largely ineffectual in facilitating substantive organizational action, unless it is taken advantage of —directly or indirectly—by users. Itis only through the activation or appropriation of information technology (Poole and DeSanctis 1989)—physically or socially—by humans in performance of their tasks, that it comes to play a meaningful role in organizational processes. Second, information technology is the medium of human action (arrow b in Figure 2) because information technology, when deployed and used in organizations by workers and managers, mediates their activities. By this we mean both that informa- tion technology enables or facilitates activities (as in access to a database enabling customer service personne! to respond quickly and intelligently to customer queries), and that it constrains activities (as when customer service personnel lose the contex- tual customer information that used to be included in the margins of paper-based customer files, and that is no longer available in the electronic records (Kraut, Koch and Dumais 1988)). While this relationship resembles that posited by research into the “impacts of technology,” the structurational version is significantly different in ‘two ways. One is that in the structurational model, information technology does not determine social practices. For information technology to be utilized, it has to be appropriated by humans, and in this exercise of human agency there is always the possibility that humans may choose not to use the technology or use it in ways that undermine its “normal” operation. Thus technology can only condition, and never determine social practices. The other difference reflects the dual aspects of mediation referred to above, that technology both facilitates and constrains. In facilitating the execution of a task in a certain way, information technology inevitably must inhibit its execution in some other way. For example, work on the restrictiveness of decision support systems (Silver 1990) illustrates this effect. The dual influence of technology, Sune 1991 153Orlikowski + Robey however, has typically not been recognized in studies that attempt to determine whether technology has “positive” or whether it has “negative” effects (Attewell and Rule 1984, Hartmann et al, 1986), The structurational model allows us to realize that information technology necessarily has both restricting and enabling implications. The third central influence in the structurational model of technology is referred to as conditions of information technology interaction (arrow c in Figure 2). When inter- acting with information technology (whether designing, modifying, appropriating, or even resisting it), human actors are influenced by the institutional properties of their situation. People do not work in a vacuum; they are constantly influenced by the values, interests, expertise, power, culture, and so on, that surround them. To act meaningfully in organizations, individuals draw on existing stocks of knowledge, resources, and norms to perform their work, often doing so only implicitly. Feld man’s (1989) work on policy analysts, for example, documents and explores how individuals engaged in similar work draw on shared meanings, experiences, and collective knowledge. Likewise, when individuals interact with information technol- ogy, they utilize the existing stocks of knowledge, resources, and norms that consti- tute their organization’s structures of signification, domination, and legitimation. The final influence involves the consequences of information technology interac- tion (arrow d in Figure 2), When human actors utilize information technology, they act upon the institutional structure of an organization either by sustaining it (more typically) or by changing it (less frequently). As was seen above, the construction and use of information technology is conditioned by organizational stocks of knowledge, resources, and norms which constitute an organization's systems of signification, domination, and legitimation. Invoking structures of signification, domination, and legitimation creates opportunities to either reinforce those structures (through users conforming, often unwittingly, to information technology's embedded rules and as- sumptions), or to undermine and even transform the institutional structures (through users appropriating information technology in ways that deviate from its sanctioned usage). These four relationships between information technology and organizational di- mensions that constitute the structurational model of technology operate simulta- neously, not sequentially. The model integrates the micro and macro levels of social analysis by demonstrating the relationship between human agency and institutional properties. Examining selected relationships (e.g., studying how information technol- ogy influences users, without understanding how users appropriate the information technology, or the conditions within which the mediation occurs) can only result in a partial understanding of how information technology interacts with organizations. 3.2. Information Technology and the Modalities of Structuration Giddens’ modalities of structuration, discussed earlier, explain the links between the subjective and objective dimensions of social reality. Information technology impinges on each of the arrows in Figure | and thereby constitutes a central part in the structuration process. For each modality the aspects of human agency and social structure that it relates to are identified. Information Technology and Interpretive Schemes. Information technology, by providing a means of representing reality through its set of concepts and symbols, provides a set of interpretive schemes (/ in Figure 1) through which users come to structure and understand their world. Information technology is a medium for the 154 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 a k « i t r 1 1 1 ' ]nine that ns. dto ter y, OF heir 4 Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations construction of social reality. Information technology also institutionalizes those interpretive schemes—those stocks of knowledge—by formalizing and encoding them, making them standardized, shared and taken for granted. Information technol- ‘ogy contributes to the signification order by objectifying and reifying human actors’ knowledge and assumptions, reinforcing them over time (/'). For example, software can be seen as an interpretive scheme for translating human action into routines. The proceduralized organizational practices that constitute knowledge of the domain being supported, such as accounting, investment banking or airline reservation, are encoded in the technology. Modifications to software, whether initiated by managers or software “engineers”, recreate structures of mean- ing that alter users’ world views, priorities, and protocols for interacting (Roberts and Scapens 1985, p. 448). As such, software technology conditions certain social prac- tices, and through its use the meanings embodied in the technology are themselves reinforced or changed over time (Roberts and Scapens 1985, p. 448). Information Technology and Resources. Information is a resource that can be drawn upon in the execution of work and the making of decisions. Information technology, by formalizing information processing in organizations, is the resource that enables human actors to accomplish their information processing activities. Thus, the design and deployment of information technology, with its implications for information resources and enforcing rules, constitutes a system of domination (R). That is, the pattern of resource allocations reinforces an institutional order of author- ity that creates a differential distribution of power throughout the organization. Asan increasingly important resource in organizations, information technology may spawn power struggles because it represents a significant arena for organizational conflict, challenge, and change (Orlikowski 1988). To illustrate, consider the role of a decision maker who has access to a decision- support tool and a wealth of data about competitors. Such a decision maker will have greater power than other decision-makers in the organization,° because he/she has more knowledge and influence due to his/her access to the decision making tools and associated information. Information has long been recognized as an important source of power (Pfeffer 1981), and information technology in facilitating differential access to information institutionalizes a structure of domination. Information tech- nology, through the particular data model and procedures embedded in the software, also creates a structure of domination by imposing certain ways of seeing and think- ing that influence the action of individuals (Boland 1979). Information technology reinforces systems of domination by institutionalizing the premises for making decisions in organizations. Thus, resources are allocated on the basis of established patterns (R’). The decision-support system in the example above would most likely reinforce the political positions of top managers or others holding power. Indeed, research on implementation of computer technology typically shows that existing structures of domination are reinforced (Bjorn-Andersen, Eason and Robey 1986, Kraemer and Danziger 1984). Information Technology and Norms. Information technology enables the formali- zation of sanctions and the creation of an institutionalized moral order. By assisting in the codification of norms (N), information technology helps to control behavior. Assuming that knowledge is valued in this organization, and more particularly that knowledge about ‘competitors is useful in decision making. Sune 1991 155Orlikowski + Robey ‘Whether through computerized monitoring of routine work (Grant 1988) or through the design of financial accounting controls (Roberts and Scapens 1985), technology tends to ensure that human actors act in conventional ways. While organizations often have conflicting goals and ideologies, the technology will tend to reflect those goals and ideologies of the coalition that built and deployed it. Such information technology will embody the shared meanings, values and goals of that coalition by internalizing and reinforcing the dominant ideology and culture of the organization. In this way information technology can be seen to convey a set of norms (’) that indicate the accepted actions, interests and practices in the workplace. The norms embodied in information technology constitute a moral order, a system of legitima- tion that directs action and thinking along prescribed paths, and encourages appro- priate responses, shared meanings, and common interaction protocols, In applying technology to organizational tasks, the rules, assumptions, and values embedded in the technology act as a moral imperative, comprising elements in an organization's system of legitimation. By implementing technology to support or automate a task, the organization indicates that the technology is an appropriate ‘means for executing the task and that using the technology is the approved mode of action in the workplace. The routines embodied within the information technology farther incorporate certain norms about the appropriate criteria and priorities to be applied to tasks, and the certain manner in which the tasks are to be executed. The very deployment of technology in an organization, therefore, represents a normative sanction. The modalities of structuration do not operate in a vacuum, but are embedded within historical and organizational contexts. These contexts influence how technol- ogy is developed, deployed, used, and institutionalize, and need to be understood within the structuration framework. 3.3. Information Technology and Contexts of Use To this point, our discussion has demonstrated a central role for information technology in the process of structuration. But it is essential to consider the social context and social processes surrounding the use of technology and this can be ac- complished within the structuration framework. On the one hand, these social pro- cesses are performed by actors (managers, systems developers and users) who develop or use rules and deploy resources to achieve their goals. As an example, organiza- tional actors decide to develop information systems, set up project teams, allocate Tesources (time, budget and personnel), conduct analysis, design and implementa- tion, and use and modify systems. Each of these deliberate actions is possible only because of the institutional properties of the organization at the actors’ disposal, namely shared perceptions of information requirements, steering committees, hierar- chical system of control, and norms for developers’ relations with users. On the other hand, social processes surrounding information technology also oper- ate at the institutional level. As an example, the interaction of users and systems developers can be seen to rely on a shared system of signification that provides the common vocabulary through which the activities of both groups are coordinated and assessed.” Further, the authorization of the project team and the allocation of re- ‘In fact, breakdowns in this arena—where systems developers and users do not share a common set of concepts and assumptions —are a primary contributor to systems implementation failures. 156 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 6 insInformation Technology and Structuring of Organizations sources to it draw on and reproduce the system of domination, through which man- agers have the authority to requisition projects, appoint team members, and deploy resources. Likewise, systems developers have the authority (on the basis of their expertise and experience) to dictate the features of the information system and the execution of development work. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for human actors to modify the existing structure of domination. For example, if users get very involved in a project, they could usurp the systems developers’ authority, and start to play a central role in tailoring the system to meet their interests. Consider also how structures of legitimation support the normative regulation of interaction. For example, subordinates through their compliance to managerial direc- tives behave as systems developers and users, hence reinforcing the deployment of information technology as a solution to organizational problems. Their compliance also confirms the division of labor between systems developers and users, and effec- tively legitimizes the existing normative order. If, however, users challenge the sanc- tioned roles of technical experts in systems development, they may undermine the credibility of the existing orthodoxy and establish new norms for interaction between users and developers, such as the establishment of user-led systems development. Users may also create new norms for interaction among themselves when they choose to use a technology in ways that were not intended, as for example, when users employ electronic mail in an uninhibited manner (Sproull and Kiesler 1986) or as an unofficial gripe forum (Culnan and Markus 1987). In the operation of structuration, there is thus a tension between the knowledge- able action of human actors and the conservative, structural force of institutionalized practices. This dialectic is played out each day in every human interaction, and hence every context of interaction is punctuated by a certain indeterminacy. This indeter- minacy, a characteristic of process theories of social phenomena (Mohr 1982), im- plies that human action in organizations is never totally predictable (because it is never totally determined), and it is never totally random (because it is never totally unconstrained). For the case of information technology, this indeterminacy means that information technology will not always be used in ways envisioned by designers or intended by implementors. Information technology does not simply determine behavior, but is actively invoked and appropriated by human actors. Social practices surrounding the development and use of information technology will therefore result in both intended and unintended consequences, and depend on anticipated and unanticipated conditions. In brief, we believe that our interpretation of structuration theory offers a meta-th- eoretic framework for understanding the social factors pertaining to the develop- ment, use, and implications of information technology in organizations. Specifically, our structuration framework guides attention towards five issues: (i) the development of technology, and how the organizational contexts in which this development occurs shape the knowledge, capabilities, and norms embedded in the technology; (ii) the process through which a developed technology is deployed, objectified, and institutionalized within organizations; (iii) the intended and unintended consequences of implementing a given technol- ogy; June 1991 157Orlikowski + Robey (iv) the conditions within which human action reinforces or changes the form and functioning of an institutionalized technology; (¥) the conditions within which technology-mediated human interactions will sus- tain or undermine the organizational status quo (that is, when will the development or use of information systems reproduce the structures of meaning, power, and legiti- mation embedded in a technology and its contexts of use, and when will they trans- form these structures through dissenting or innovative human action). ‘These issues can be addressed through a program of research on the systems devel- ‘opment process and on the consequences of information system use. While these areas of research interest have in the past been treated separately, the structuration framework presented in this paper allows them to be considered jointly. In the follow- ing section we will examine these two research foci, and interpret them in terms of our structuration framework, illustrating the value of an integrating perspective for information systems research efforts. 4, A Research Agenda The theoretical framework developed here can be used to inform empirical investi- gations of information technology in organizations. Specifically, the framework helps to organize and orient work in two familiar and central themes within information ‘systems research: the process of systems development and the social consequences of information technology. We consider each of these areas of research separately before ‘suggesting how they might be treated jointly in research, For each item on our re- search agenda, exemplary studies are provided that indicate the character of such work, even though the investigators may not have explicitly drawn from structura- tion theory. This is not problematic because structuration is both valuable for inter- preting completed research and a useful guide to new research. 4.1. Research on the Systems Development Process ‘he realms of social structure and action may be considered separately for research purposes. For each realm, research may focus on any of all of three modalities. For purposes of the present discussion, we give examples of potential work in each realm, without careful distinction among the different modalities. Table 1 summarizes six areas of potential investigation on the systems development process, using the format of Figure 1 presented earlier. 4.1.1, The Realm of Social Structure in the Systems Development Process. The process of systems development is realized through the roles human actors assume in creating information technology. In examining the activities of systems develop- ‘ment, the structuration framework alerts us to the institutional context that sustains these roles. Systems developers do not act in a vacuum, but are influenced by factors, such as their current state of knowledge, the resources available to them, the objec- tives of their managers, and the organizational form and culture (see top half of Table 1), Research into systems development can focus on how systems developers and participating users draw on their organization’s institutionalized structures of signifi- cation, domination, and legitimation to do their work. This examination would investigate the institutional aspects of systems development, by analyzing the inter- pretive schemes, resources, and norms of the systems development organization, and attempting to understand how these facilitate or constrain the activities of systems developers and users. 158 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 RE E BR Bo Base Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations TABLE 1 Framework for Investigating the Interaction of Human Actors and Social Structure during Information Systems Development Realm of Systems Developers are Systems Developers work Systems Developers draw ‘Social informed by systems ‘within the constraints oon the values and Structure ‘development of time, budget, conventions of their methodologies and hardware, software, organization, knowledge about and authority to build occupation, and their organization to information systems ‘taining to build build information information systems systems Modalities Interpretive Schemes Resources Norms Realm of System Developers ‘System Developers build System Developers create Human create meaning by information systems sanctions by designing Action programming through the and programming assumptions and organizational power legitimate options and knowledge into the or capabilities they conventions into the information systems wield in their information systeras ‘organizational roles For example, systems development methodology can be seen both to enable the design and construction of an information system (through providing knowledge, Fesources, and norms about tasks, models, procedures, and criteria), and to inhibit such development (through imposing a certain world view and set of assumptions on the problem). In drawing on an organization's interpretive schemes, resources, and norms to construct information systems, developers are bestowing legitimacy, valid- ity, and relevance to those schemes, resources and norms, thus reaffirming the organi- zation’s institutional systems of signification, domination, and legitimation. Orlikowski’s (1988) research illustrates the way in which structured methodologies constrain system outcomes via standardized interpretive schemes, allocation of re- sources, and implicit social norms. The study employed ethnographic techniques within a large, multinational software consulting firm that had invested heavily in Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) technology, aimed at automating and supporting the production work of its systems developers. The research study focused in part on the way that CASE technology structured the conduct of systems development work. Orlikowski reported that CASE users treated their tools as taken-for-granted, exter- nal objects, This objectified reality was constantly reinforced as the developers used the tools daily to mediate their development work. Over time, as developers used the tools more extensively, the tools became entrenched as the legitimate way of per- forming work in the firm. Once institutionalized, the tools were transmitted to new developers, thus bequeathing CASE wisdom to the next generation. Use of the tools facilitated development work, improving productivity in selected stages of the devel- opment life cycle, increasing interchangeability of developers, allowing sharing of project information among team members, increasing consistency in output, and assisting coordination of work among the team members. However, they also con- strained development work, limiting the extent and nature of developer autonomy, restricting the developers’ design vocabulary to concepts “known” to the tools, and enforcing use of the tools’ standards, common macros, and generic modules. Tune 1991 159Orlikowski + Robey Orlikowski concluded that CASE tools contributed to: (i) the firm’s structure of signification, because the knowledge embedded in the tools directed the manner in which client problems were interpreted and systems development work was con- ducted; (ii) the firm’s structure of domination, because they constituted a valued source of power, manipulation of which brought credibility, status, and authority; and (iii) the firm's structure of legitimation, because they sanctioned a particular mode of developing systems and propagated a set of norms about professional con- sulting practice. 4.1.2. The Realm of Action in the Systems Development Process. Two possibilities exist in considering research within the realm of action. First, action taken during systems development leads to the production of information technology configured asan information system. Thus, information systems are the product of social action. Research that focuses on the process used by development workers to create designs could draw from the structuration framework to focus specifically on the interpretive schemes, resources, and norms used by developers to constitute new information systems (see bottom half of Table 1). For example, systems developers may constitute new systems by drawing upon new tools, languages, and methodologies as they are developed (¢.g,, fourth generation languages). Little research on systems develop- ment methodologies focuses consciously on the modalities used in the constitution of new technologies. As a consequence, we know fairly little about the way in which action produces information systems, and the topic remains essentially unexplored (Turner 1987). The second possibility for investigation within the action realm of systems develop- ment includes the actions taken by various actors to restructure the roles involved in systems development work. Assuming some prior structure for accomplishing sys- tems development (e.g., the standard organizational roles of analyst and user, the established division of labor on projects, and the standard life cycle approach), roles and relationships can be changed to redefine the organizational structure for con- structing information systems. These revised structures may then guide the detailed activities of parties engaged in design work. In contrast to the lack of research conducted on the structuring of information technology, there have been several studies detailing the actions taken to reconstitute the roles related to development work. For example, Franz and Robey (1984) docu- mented the political process whereby users gained control over the development of a large system in an insurance company. While the researchers tended to focus on issues of power and resources and the hierarchy’s sanctioning of “user-led design,” they also reported an instance of displacement of an interpretive scheme. In the case, the data processing department produced a 100-page manual outlining a methodol- ogy for all systems development at the company. This attempt to disseminate tradi- tional meanings about design activities was disregarded by the user, who offered his ‘own account of design procedures: This contest over meaning served as symbolic backdrop for the more noticeable maneuvering for resources to support user-led design. 4.2. Research on the Social Consequences of Information Technology Like systems development, the social implications of information technology have occupied considerable research attention over the past 30 years. Table 2 summarizes six additional areas of investigation for the area of social implications of information systems, again using the format of Figure 1. 160con- ued rity; cular lities uring ured tion. ive tion itute j are lop- yn of hich ored lop- din the oles. on tion tute Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations TABLE2 Framework for Investigating the Interaction of Human Actors and Social Structure during Information Systems Use Realm of Using information Using information Using information Social systems, users draw on systems, users work systems, users work Structure embedded knowledge, within the rules and within the authorized assumptions, and rules, capabilites built into options, values, and and through such use ‘them, and through such sanctions built into reaffirm the use reinforce the them, and through such organization's structure organization's structure use sustain the of signification of domination “organization’s structure of legitimation Modalities Interpretive Schemes Resources Norms Realm of Users appropriate the ‘Users appropriate the rules Users appropriate the Human rules, knowledge, and and capabili legitimate conventions Action assumptions embedded embedded within of use within {in information systems information systems to. _—_information systems 10 to perform tasks, or achieve authorized execute sanctioned they may modify their outcomes, or they may _—_action, or they may patterns of use to create modify their patterns modify their patterns of new structures of of use to create new use to create new ‘meaning that structures of domination _ structures of potentially alter that potentially alter legitimation that institutionalized institutionalized potentially alter practices practices institutionalized practices 4.2.1. Realm of Social Structure and Social Consequences of Information Technol- ogy. In studying the implications of information technology we are more concerned with how information technology is implemented, assimilated, and adopted by users, and what the consequences of such usage are. That is, we are interested in informa- tion technology as a medium of human action, The structuration framework again allows us to recognize a number of different interactions. The structural perspective focuses on how human action is shaped by use of information technology. As noted above, when a technology is deployed in the workplace it tends to assume an objecti- fied rigidity that appears deterministic, that is, technology is perceived as an institu- tional property. Through the interpretive schemes, resources, and norms embedded ina technology, the users’ behavior in utilizing the technology will be mediated (see top half of Table 2). In serving as a medium of human action, information technol- ogy (by embodying certain institutionalized properties) shapes that action. And it shapes action by facilitating certain outcomes and constraining others. For exaiple, Grant (1988) conducted a study of the implications of computerized performance monitoring systems on clerical workers in 51 Canadian firms in a vari- ety of service industries. She was able to differentiate four dimensions of monitoring systems: extent of monitoring, measurement frequency, recipients of performance data, and objects of measurement. These characteristics affected the perceived im- portance of service workers’ production and their interactions with clients, support- ing the general thesis that information technology can affect work life. Significantly, monitors were not seen to replace human supervisors, but their presence altered supervisory responsibilities toward controlling more qualitative aspects of work. Fur- June 1991 161Orlikowski + Robey ther, Grant's data refuted the common wisdom that monitors necessarily reduced the perceived importance of workers’ interaction with clients. In explaining these results, it is apparent that interpretive schemes play an impor- tant part in mediating the effects of the technology on the workers and the workplace. Grant indicated that employees seemed to judge the appropriateness of the computer for measuring their performance. They did not accept computers as automated ver- sions of manual controls. The “credibility” of monitors assumed primary impor- tance in producing consequences, according to Grant, and credibility was inevitably a matter of interpretation. Grant recommended an ongoing dialogue involving man- agers and workers to ensure that computerized measures are regarded as appropriate. Power and norms are also important modalities accounting for technology's conse- quences in organizations. In particular, Kling’s (1980) review indicated the extent to which social analyses of computing have been informed by political theory and other “segmented-institutionalist” approaches. Clearly, any research agenda on social im- plications of information systems should consider the roles that resources play in explaining changes in work settings. As users work within the rules and capabilities provided to them via their information technology, they reinforce the structures of signification and domination and sustain the organization as a legitimate social order. The interpretive schemes operating in conjunction with resource distributions and norms reinforce such institutionalized patterns of use. 4.2.2, Realm of Action and Social Consequences of Information Technology. Fo- ccusing on the structural properties of information systems alone fails to acknowledge the degree to which information technology plays a role in organizational change or transformation. While some claim that radically different organizational forms are possible with information technology (Applegate et al. 1988, Zuboff 1988), such claims remain items on our research agenda, to be substantiated empirically rather than accepted as faits accompli. To inform research within the realm of action, one again may turn to the modalities of interpretive schemes, resources, and norms that comprise the general model of structuration. Structural organizational change is pos- sible through human action, where such action leads to revisions of shared meanings and norms, shifts in roles, resources, and power, and modifications in forms of con- trol and authority (see bottom half of Table 2). ‘The dilemma in attempting organizational change is that such action may directly conflict with established patterns. As in §4.1.2, deviations from established patterns require disruptions that may be unacceptable to those that regulate symbols, re- sources, and authority. Consequently, organizational changes may occur gradually, through incremental patterns of use or nonuse of designed system features. For exam- ple, users may decide to modify the way in which they integrate the technology in their work, ignoring some “required” features and manually overriding others. Over time, these modifications may themselves become institutionalized and sanctioned as proper patterns of use. In other cases, change may be the product of deliberate strategy or open dialogue conducted by steering committees and other policy groups. Research illustrating the action realm is scarce, but Kling and Iacono (1984) con- ducted a case study wherein the pattern of organizational control changed in response to a new material requirements planning (MRP) system. By broadening the direc- tions of flows of information in the company, the MRP system altered the traditional vertical pattern of control and introduced what Kling and Iacono term an “institu- 162 Information Systems Research 2 : 2dthe Apor- puter | Ver \por- ably y in Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations tional” form of social control. Middle managers were more tightly controlled, but not by higher levels of management. Rather, control was occasioned by information flows, specifically the requirements that data for the MRP system be accurate and timely. Kling and Iacono reported that education about the importance and use of the MRP system was part of a strategy of control consciously imparted by top manage- ment. This clearly represents the use of interpretive schemes in changing organiza- tional structure. Further, the tighter coupling of organizational actions through inter- dependent rules and practices instilled new norms for data handling into all affected departments. Since data were available to all users of the computer-generated reports, it became possible for lateral departments to exert pressure on a “deviant” depart- ment (ie., purchasing) to enforce compliance with data requirements. In this way, institutionalized control became a reality, replacing the older hierarchical controls. 4.3. Research on the Relationship between Systems Development and Social Consequences The research agenda and examples given thus far deal with isolated components of the structuration framework. More integrated attempts might focus simultaneously on systems development and the implications of information system use. Because technology is a social product, designed and constructed through human action, considering the “impacts” of technology without considering its development is in- complete. For political analysts in particular, the consequences of computing use are directly attributable to the lines of purposive action followed by dominant parties (Kling 1980). Technology itself cannot do anything. Therefore, it would be more informative to tie the development and use of technology together into a single, albeit more ambitious research program. Few researchers have attempted this task, but two studies may be mentioned. First, Markus (1983, 1984) made explicit the link between development and use in her Golden Triangle case. Adopting a political, interactionist perspective, she attributed the consequences of information technology deployment (in this case, the centraliza- tion of corporate control) to the actions of participants during the development process. Development was characterized by conflicts over system features, with the central debate aired over the degree of centralization of the database technology. In the end, objections of divisional personnel were overridden by corporate staff in the selection of a centralized corporate database design. The fact that the corporate struc- ture soon mirrored the technical configuration should be no surprise. In Markus’ analysis, corporate intentions to centralize were merely expedited by the technical agenda. In Orlikowski’s (1988) research, the development and institutionalization of CASE tools was documented in addition to the patterns of CASE use that we have already discussed. The consulting firm studied was found to have invested in CASE tools to attain specific economic and organizational objectives. Systems development work was historically ill-defined and hard to control. The development of CASE tools had been preceded by the standardization of development methods around a single, com- prehensive methodology, which spelled out the assumptions and details of systems development tasks commonly executed in consulting engagements. Thus, the tool developers possessed a highly detailed “cookbook” on the nature of systems develop- Sune 1991 163Orlikowski + Robey ‘ment work as practiced in the firm. This cookbook provided the rules around which the computer procedures of the CASE tools were constructed. ‘Two aspects of the context within which systems development practice had devel- oped within the firm are informative in understanding the intentions bebind stan- dardizing development methods. First, consultants worked under considerable pres- sure, Their schedules were extremely tight and left little time for thinking about alternative systems development approaches and little inclination to deviate from the standardized path, Second, deployment of CASE tools allowed the firm to reduce its dependence on skilled technical specialists and to retain less technically-skilled devel- opers. The CASE tools embodied significant amounts of technical knowledge about operating systems, database management systems, programming, and testing. Many developers in the firm thus had little insight into the technical details of the CASE tools, as they did not have the requisite technical expertise or experience to under- stand them. ‘As pointed out before, the CASE tools institutionalized the development process in the firm studied, thus enabling as well as constraining future development work. By jointly considering the development and use of the information technology studied, Orlikowski was able to connect the reasons and conditions of CASE tool develop- ment to the consequences the tools had in their organizational setting, 5. Conclusions In this paper we have proposed a dual conception of information technology which highlights important dimensions of the relationship between information technology and organizational life. We have suggested that information technology has both social and material properties: being physically and socially constructed by subjective human action, while also objectified and reified through institutionalization. We drew on the premises of structuration theory to discuss the nature of information technology and its interaction with organizations. We found that structuration theory appears well-suited for the understanding of information technology in organi- zations, and in particular, that it can provide a significant foundation for substantive information technology theory. Structuration theory fits the class of theory recom- ‘mended by Markus and Robey (1988) for research into the interaction of informa- tion technology and organizations. Itis an emergent, process theory which accommo- dates multiple levels of analyses, is contextually and temporally situated, and avoids the blinders of ahistorical accounts of social phenomena. ‘Adopting structuration theory to the study of organizations and technology allows us to overcome several limitations of prior one-sided perspectives: (i) The determin- ism and reification of technology plaguing objectivist theories is tempered by a recog- nition that organizations exist only through ongoing human action. (ii) The extreme voluntarism advocated by subjectivist theories is restrained by a recognition that organizational properties become institutionalized and assume objective identities beyond easy reach of acting individuals. (iii) The lack of attention paid to contextual and historical factors by much of the objectivist and subjectivist research is redressed by focusing on the context of interaction, and by integrating the action of humans with the ongoing stream of social practices that produce and reproduce social systems over time. The structuration perspective, by synthesizing objective and subjective elements of social phenomena, also has methodological implications. It allows a blurring of the 164 ‘Information Systems Research 2 : 2hich evel bout ithe cits svel- pout ASE der- sin . By lop- hich ion ae Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations sharp divisions between the so-called qualitative and quantitative methodologies of research in the social sciences.* Giddens (1984, p. 330) suggests that much of the conflict between quantitative and qualitative positions in social science research is “. . . a methodological residue of the dualism of structure and action.” By this he means that just as structure and action are typically viewed as separate and incompati- ble dimensions of social phenomena, so too researchers have assumed that qualita- tive and quantitative research methodologies are distinct and incompatible. How- ever, in resolving the spurious conceptual dualism of prior research traditions by adopting the duality perspective of structuration theory, we have legitimate grounds to reduce this methodological conflict between qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Studying the process of structuration within an organization requires attending to both human action (which lends itself to study by ethnographic and qualitative fieldwork) and institutional properties (which may be studied via more quantitative methodologies such as survey research or quasi-experimentation). Re- searchers should also be cognizant of the role of historical and contextual factors in ‘the process of structuration, and accommodate these in their research designs. The implication is that we should encompass a variety of research methodologies within an emergent research strategy, such as provided by a contextualized and longitudinal program of investigation. This call for research at multiple levels of analysis using a combination of quantita- tive and qualitative methods carries the risk of greater diversity and perhaps confu- sion within the academic community of information systems. However, the call is accompanied by a more basic recommendation for an integrative theoretical per- spective, that of structuration. The role of theory in information systems is to enable research, not confuse it. Because structuration serves as meta-theory, it does not pre-empt existing theories of social processes involving conflict, learning, growth, and so on. Neither does it replace existing theories of organization with their empha- sis on structure, controls, and institutional properties. Rather, structuration theory provides a higher level of synthesis that permits us to see the connection between ongoing human activities, social processes, contexts of use, and enduring social struc- tures. The structuration framework is not without its limitations (see the discussions in Cohen 1989 and Held and Thompson 1989). While the theory overcomes many of the problematic distinctions at the core of social research, it poses its own set of difficulties (Poole and Van de Ven 1989). A major methodological concern is the difficulty in empirically applying the ideas we have developed here. In particular, the theory provides a meta-theory—a way of thinking about the world—rather than a middle range theory about specific phenomena that can be explored or tested directly and empirically. As Archer (1982, p. 459) notes: “The theory of ‘structuration’ re- mains fundamentally non-propositional.” Giddens’ concepts have also been subject to some criticism. Callinicos (1985) and Neimark and Tinker (1986) argue that, despite the fact that Giddens recognizes that action and structure are reciprocally related, they are still treated as analytically distinct. In contrast, these critics argue, " A discussion ofthe tensions and differences between these methodological streams is beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers are referred to Chua (1986), Evered and Louis (1981), Morgan (1983), ‘Morgan and Smircich (1980), and Weick (1984). For recent discussions in the information systems litera- ‘ture, consult Kaplan and Duchon (1989), Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991), and Robey et al. (1989). June 1991 165Orlikowski + Robey the social context so deeply influences individuals’ perceptions, knowledge, experi- ences, understandings, choices, priorities, and actions that human agency cannot be seen and understood as separate and distinct from social structure. Archer (1982) questions whether itis possible—once structure and agency are conceptually coupled as they are in Giddens’ duality of structure—to separate them analytically for the purpose of theorizing and empirical investigation. Archer (1982, p. 477) notes that as a consequence of coupling agency and structure, it is difficult to simultaneously conceive of human action as chronically reproducing existing social forms on the one hand, and as having transformative capacity on the other hand. It is thus not possible, she believes, to theorize about both variations in voluntarism (how social systems are produced by human action) and determinism (how social structures shape human action). These criticisms notwithstanding, we believe there is much to be learned from applying the insights of the structuration process to the phenomenon of information technology in organizations. In this paper we have suggested that a structurational perspective of information technology can provide a valuable theoretical basis for research into the interaction of information technology and organizations. We have emphasized the dual nature of information technology, which focuses attention on how information technology shapes human action through its provision of structural opportunities and constraints, while also recognizing that information technology is itself the product of human action and prior institutional properties. Although infor- mation technology has been neglected in structuration theory, it occupies a central place in information systems research, and we have discussed how the concepts of structuration can guide the efforts of research on both the development and conse- quences of information technology in organizations.* Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Lynne Markus, Mike ‘Newman, and Rajiv Sabherwal for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. * Martha Feldman, Associate Editor. This paper was received on March 6, 1990 and has been with the authors 3 months for | revision. References Applegate, Lynda M., James I. Cash, Jr., and D. Quinn Mills, “Information Technology and Tomorrow's Manager,” Harvard Business Review, (November-December 1988), 128-136, Archer, Margaret S., “Morphogenesis versus Structuration: On Combining Structure and Action,” The British Journal of Sociology, 33, 4 (December 1982), 455-483. Atteweil, Paul and James Rule, “Computing and Organizations: What We Know and What We Don’t Know,” Communications of the ACM, 27, 12 (December 1984), 1184-1191. Barley, Stephen, “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observation of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1986), 78— 108. “The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks,” Administrative ‘Science Quarterly, 35 (1990), 61-103. ‘Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, Anchor Books, New York, 1967. Bernstein, Richard J., The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1978. + Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. “Structuration as Critical Theory,” Praxis, (1986), 235-249. 166 Information Systems Research 2 : 2peri- ot be 982) r the at as sly sone sare tion onal 3 for nave 1 on xy is for- tral s of fike t of y the ows n't eeerad: ne PA, Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations Bhaskar, Roy, A Realist Theory of Science, Harvester Press, Brighton, UK, 1978. Bhaskar, Roy, “On the Possibility of Social Scientific Knowledge and the Limits of Naturalism,” in Mepham, J. and Ruben, D. H. (Eds.), Issues in Marxist Philosophy: Epistemology, Science, Ideology, ‘Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1979, 107-140. “Beef, Structure and Place: Notes from a Critical Naturalist Perspective,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 13 (1983), 81-95. Bjorn-Andersen N., K. Eason, and D. Robey, Managing Computer Impact, Ablex Publishers, Norwood, NJ, 1986. Boland, Richard J., “Control, Causality and Information Systems Requirement tions and Society, 4, 4 (1979), 259-272. Burrell, G. and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, Heinemann, London, UK, 1979, Callinicos, Alex, “Anthony Giddens: A Contemporary Critique,” Theory and Society, 14,2 (March 1985), 133-166, ‘Carter, N. M., “Computerization asa Predominate Technology: ts Influence on the Structure of Newspa- pet Organizations," Academy of Management Journal, 7 (1984), 247-270. ‘Chua, Wai Fong, “Radical Developments in Accounting Thought,” The Accounting Review, 61, 4(1986), 601-632. ‘Cohen, Ira J., Structuration Theory: Anthony Giddens and the Constitution of Social Life, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1989. Culnan, Mary J., “The Intellectual Development of Management Information Systems, 1972-1982: A Co-Citation Analysis,” Management Science, (February 1986), 156-172. ———, “Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Management Information Systems, 1980-1985: A ‘Co-Citation Analysis,” MIS Quarterly, September 1987), 341-353. and M. Lynne Markus, “Information Technologies,” in Jablin, F. M. Putnam, L. L. Roberts, K. H. and Porter, L. W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1987, 420-443. Dow, Gregory K., “Configurational and Coactivational Views of Organizational Structure,” Academy of ‘Management Review, 13, | (1988), 53-68. Evered, R. and M. R. Louis, “Alternative Perspectives inthe Organizational Sciences: Inquiry from the Inside and Inquiry from the Outside,” Academy of Management Review. 6, 3 (1981), 385-395. Feldman, Martha, Order without Design, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 1989. Franz, C. R. and D, Robey, “An Investigation of User-Led System Design: Rational and Political Perspec- tives.” Communications of the ACM, 27 (1984), 1202-1209. Giddens, Anthony, New Rules of Sociological Method, Basic Books, New York, 1976. , Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1979. ., Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1982. ., The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984 Glick, William H., “Response: Organizations are not Central Tendencies: Shadowboxing in the Dark, Round 2,” Academy of Management Review, 13, | (1988), 133-137. Grandori, A., Perspectives on Organization Theory, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1987. Grant, Rebecca A., “Computerized Performance Monitoring and Control Systems: Impact on Canadian Service Sector Workers,” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, 1988. Hartman, E., Conceptual Foundations of Organization Theory, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1988. ‘Hartmann, H. I, R. E. Kraut, and L. A. Tilly, (Eds.), Computer Chips and Paper Clips: Effects of Techno- logical Change, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1986. Held, David and John B, Thompson, Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989. ‘Heydebrand, Wolf V., “On Giddens’ ‘Future of Sociology’,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, New York, April 1986. Hirschheim, R. A., Office Automation: A Social and Organizational Perspective, John Wiley and Sons, ‘New York, 1985. » “The Effect of a priori Views on the Social Implications of Computing: The Case of Office Automation,” Computing Surveys, 18, 2 (June 1986), 165-195, lccounting, Organiza- Tune 1991 167| Orlikowski + Robey Hirschheim, Rudy and Heinz K. Klein, “Four Paradigms of information Systems Development,” Commu- nications ofthe ACM, 32, 10 (1989), 1199-1216. Tacono, Suzanne and Rob Kling, “Computer Systems as Institutions: Social Dimensions of Computing in Organizations,” Proceedings ofthe Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Minneapo- lis, MN, December 1988, James, L., W. F. Joyce, and J. W. Slocum, Jr, ‘Management Review, 3 (1988), 129-132. Kaplan, Bonnie and Dennis Duchon, “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study,” MIS Quarterly, 2, 4 (1988), 571-588. Kling, Rob, “Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research,” Computing Surveys, 12, | (March 1980), 61-110. “Defining the Boundaries of Computing across Complex Organizations,” in Boland, R. and Hirschheim, R. (Eds), Crea! Isues in Information Systems, Wiley, New York, 1987, 307-362. and Suzanne lacono, "Computing as an Occasion for Social Control," Journal of Socal Issues, 40, 3 (1984), 77-96. Kraemer, Kenneth L, and James N. Danziger, “Computers and Control in the Work Environment,” Public Administration Review, (January/February 1984), 32-42. Kraut, R, S. Kock, and S, Dumais, “Computerization, Productivity, and Quality of Employment,” Com ‘munications of the ACM, 32,2 (1988), 220-238. Leiberman, S., “The Efect of Changes of Role on the Attitudes of Role Occupants,” in Proshansky. H. and Seidenberg, B. (Eds), Basie Studies in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1965, 485-494. Manning, Peter K., “Organizational Work: Stucturation of Environments,” British Journal of Sociology, 33, 1 (March 1982), 118-134. ——, Symbolic Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1989 “Markus, M. Lynne, “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications ofthe ACM, 26 (1983), 430-444. , Systems in Organizations: Bugs and Features, Pitman, Marshfield, MA, 1984, ind Dan Robey, “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in ‘Theory and Research,” Management Science. 34,5 (1988), 583-598. McPhee, Robert D., “Formal Structure and Organizational Communication,” in McPhee, P. D. and ‘Tompkins, P. K. (Eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985, 149-178, Milgram, S., Obedience to Authority, Harper and Row, New York, 1974. Mohr, L. B., Explaining Organizational Behavior, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1982. Morgan, Gareth (Ed.), Beyond Method, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1983. Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1986. —— and Linda Smircich, “The Case for Qualitative Research," Academy of Management Review, , “4 (1980), 491-500. Neimark, Marilyn and Tony Tinker, “On Rediscovering Marx: Dissolving Agency and Structure in Dia- lectical Unity,” Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on the Organization and Control of the Labour Process, Aston University, Birmingham UK, April 1986. Onlikowski, Wanda J, “Information Technology and Post-Industrial Organizations: An Examination of the Computer- Mediation of Production Work,” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Stern School of Business, ‘New York University, 1988. “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations,” Orga- nization Science. (Forthcoming). ———and Jack J. Baroudi, “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Ap- proaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research, 2, | (1991). Perrow, Charles, “The Organizational Context of Human Factors Engineering,” Administrative Science ‘Quarterly, 28,4 (December 1983), 521-541. . Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, (3rd ed), Random House, New York, 1986, Pettigrew, Andrew M., “Contextualist Research: A Natural Way to Link Theory and Practice," in Doing ‘Research That Is Usefl for Theory and Practice, E. E. Lawier If etal. (Eds), Jossey-Bass, San Frane ‘isco, CA, 1985, 222-248, Preffer,Jefrey, Power in Organizations, Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA, 1981. ——— Organizations and Organization Theory, Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA, 1982. (cademny of “Comment: Organizations do not Cognize,” 168 Information Systems Research 2 : 2 —<_ SSgin y of ch,” 8. 3), ia the of P c Information Technology and Structuring of Organizations Poole, Marshall Scot, “Communication and Organizational Climate: Review, Critique, and a New Per- spective,” in McPhee, P. D. and Tompkins, P.K. (Eds}), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985, 79-108. nd Gerardine DeSanctis, “Use of Group Decision Support Systems as an Appropriation Pro- cess," Proceedings of the Hawail International Conference on Information Systems, Hawaii January 1989, 149-157. and Andrew H. Van de Ven, “Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization The- ories,” Academy of Management Review, 14, 4 (1989), 562-578. Ranson, SB. Hinings, and R. Greenwood, “The Structuring of Organizational Structures,” Administra- tive Setence Quarterly, 25 (March 1980), 1-17. Riley, Patricia, “A Structurationist Account of Political Culture,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1983), 347-414, Roberts, John and Robert Scapens, “Accounting Systems and Systems of Accountability: Understanding ‘Accounting Practices in their Organizational Context,” Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 10,4 (1985), 443-456 Robey, Daniel, Dana L. Farrow, and Charles R. Franz, “Group Process And Conflict in Systems Devetop- ment,” Management Science, 35, 10 (1989), 1172-191 Rousseau, D. M., “Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-level and Cross-level Perspectives,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, AI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1985, 1-37. Scott, W. Richard, “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (1987), 493-511. Shneiderman, Ben, Software Psychology: Human Factors in Computer and Information Spstems, Winthrop Publishers Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1980. Siege, J, V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler, and T. W. McGuire, “Group Processes in Computer-Medated Com- ‘munication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37 (1986), 157-187. Silver, Mark, “Decision Support Systems: Directed and Nondirected Change,” Information Systems Re- search, 1,1 (March 1990), 47=10. ‘Smith, Charles W.,“A Case Study of Structuration: The Pure-Bred Beef Business,” Journal forthe Theory of Social Behaviour, 13 (1983), 3-18 ‘Sproull, Lee and Sara Kiesler, “Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Commu nication,” Management Science, 32, 11 (November 1986), 1492-1512. Spybey, Tony, “Traditional and Professional Frames of Meaning in Management,” Sociology. 18, 4(No- vember 1984), 550-562. ‘Turner, Jon A., “Understanding the Elements of Systems Design,” in Boland, R, and Hirschheim, R. (Eds., Critical Issues in Information Systems, John Wiley, New York, 1987, 97-111 and R. A. Karasek, Jr, “Software Exgonomics: Effects of Computer Application Design Param- ‘eters on Operator Task Performance and Health,” Ergonomics, 27,6 (1984), 663-690. ‘Van de Ven, Andrew H. and William F. Joyce, Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior, Wiley, New York, 1981. Weick, Karl, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979. , "Theoretical Assumptions and Research Methodology Selection,” in McFarlan, F. Warren, (Ed), The Information Systems Research Challenge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1984, 111-132. ‘Willmott, Hugh, “Studying Managerial Work: A Critique and a Proposal” Journal of Management Stud- ies, 24, 3 (May 1987), 249-270. ‘Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition, Ablex Publishing, Nor- wood, NJ, 1986. Zimbardo, P. G. and E. B. Ebbeson, Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969. Zuboff, Shoshana, Inthe Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New York, 1988