HD28
.M414
*&&
Center for Information Systems Research
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
Sloan School of Management
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF
INFORMATION SYSTEMS USE:
A NETWORK-ANAYLTIC APPROACH
David
C.
Robertson
November 1988
CISRWPNo. 185
Sloan WP No. 2099-88
'1988 D. C. Robertson
Center for Information Systems Research
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Social Determinants of Information Systems Use:
A Network-Analytic Approach*
David
C.
Robertson
Center for Information Systems Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sloan School of
Management
50 Memorial Drive E53-334
MA
Cambridge,
02139
Abstract
The social group of which an individual
information systems
interpreted
usage.
A
and
(IS).
The social group
used. The social
field study
a part will affect
is
of
group
this idea
will affect
will also
how
how that individual uses
an information system
is
demands on
IS
place pressures and
was conducted.
The concept of structural
equivalence, operationalized by blockmodeling, was used to measure the effect of
the social group on individual information systems usage.
study
show
that structural equivalence
is
related to
different for different information systems.
implications for
many important
user involvement
in
the
IS
areas of
IS
IS
The
results
of the
field
usage, but this relationship
is
These results are believed to have
research such as the strategic use of
IS,
design process, and research on the impacts of IS.
* The author would like to thank John Henderson, Andy Boynton, Soonchul Lee, Gordon Walker,
John Sviokla, and several anonymous reviewers for their assistance and ideas on this research.
I.
Introduction
The use of an information system
usability
and usefulness
background of the
many
user,
will
be determined by
many
factors, such as
social
group of which the user
is
Too often,
a part.
of these factors have been ignored, and the resulting research suffers.
by understanding
systems
(IS)
designing
these factors can
all
we understand how and when
are used. The factors affecting
IS,
applying
IS
and
of the system, the tasks facing the user, the training
and the
for competitive
IS
the
Only
information
use are important to consider
when
advantage, or predicting the impacts of
IS.
Impacts research especially has suffered from ignoring these factors.
The goal of
paper
this
is
to explore
one
specific
determinant of an individual's
decision to use a system: the social group surrounding the individual.
that the social group can exert strong influences on the
uses a system.
The
individual uses an
social
IS.
group
way
will idiosyncratically affect
it
is
is
argued
which an individual
how and when
Thus, similar organizations (and even similar groups
same organization) could use the same information system
Thus
in
It
in
the
the
very differently.
understandable that much research on the impact of information
systems on organizations has had mixed and even contradictory results (25, 27).
Poor research methods, different operationalizations of the same variables,
different levels of analysis, and inadequate theory are
variance
is
also
in results
(24,36,38).
It is
argued that the
all
lack of
partly responsible for the
convergence
in
the results
due to the fundamental assumptions behind some impacts research: that
can cause any impact to occur.
with the features of an
IS,
Rather,
affect
it
is
IS
believed that the social system, along
how and where
that
IS will
be used. This idea
is
tested using the concept of structural equivalence, and the results of a field study
are reported.
First, a
short review of the
IS
-
1
impacts literature
-
is
presented.
II.
A Review of
Selected Impacts Research
In this section,
the research on three different types of
quality of working
reviewed:
life
impacts will be
IS
(QWL), centralization/decentralization, and
height of the hierarchy. The purpose of
this section
is
not to survey the research on
the impacts of information systems on the individuals and organizations that use
them; there have been many good reviews
in this
representative types of impacts are selected to
common
in
the quality of working
on job content and job
in
the
life
Some
satisfaction.
show the mixed
increase influence,
many
research has found that
in
QWL
early research postulated that information systems
that
IS
can enlarge jobs,
Some
making and
studies
show
would
IS
on the
authority. While
increase the ability of
to monitor subordinates, thus centralizing authority (31, 42),
area of research to be reviewed
is
(15, 32, 33).
research on the impacts of
height of the organizational hierarchy. The height of the hierarchy
levels of reporting relationships. This area of research
and Whisler
can cause a
on the impacts of
subsequent research has found no such simple relationship
final
IS
IS
QWL (3, 7).
similar pattern of results occurred in research
management
show
(16, 21, 28).
relative centralization or decentralization of decision
many
that are
category focuses on the impacts of
case studies
and generally improve
both an increase and decrease
The
results
QWL of clerical jobs by increasing job stress, lowering job content, or
deskilling jobs (22, 31, 39, 41). Yet
A
Rather, three
(3, 17, 25).
impacts research.
in
The research
decrease
area
(26),
who
argued that
IS
would
in this
in
management.
on the
numberof
1958 by Leavitt
automating
While some
area has found that information systems do tend to
flatten the hierarchy (14, 29, 42), other studies
actually increased the
started
the
flatten organizations by
functions traditionally performed by middle
subsequent research
was
is
IS
number of
levels of
found that information systems
management (8,
-2-
9, 32).
This lack of consistent results
research
is
due
to
many
Comparing
results.
in
these three as well as other areas of impacts
Poor methods and measures cause much noise
factors.
different types of information technology also introduces error.
Inadequately conceptualized concepts and theory can cause
Yet the lack of results
is
due
in
in
impacts research
part to the assumption implicit
cause an impact to occur. Kling
thing
we
learn
is
in
due
to
more than these problems;
some impacts
in
(25), after
is
results to vary as well.
it
that computers
research:
reviewing the literature,
states,
"the
first
that computers by themselves 'do' nothing to anybody (pg. 100)."
Impacts are mixed because organizational contexts are mixed, and
it
is
the
interaction of the organizations and the information system that ultimately
determines the impact of that system. Attewell and Rule
we
suspect that the transformations
computing are
so multifarious as to
effect relations
life
through
encompass the most disparate cause-
what appear to be the "same" causes
even identical organizations (pg.
Thus, mixed impacts can
organizational
different contexts.... [0]ne might expect quite
in
different effects to ensue from
similar or
in
(4) state:
in a
1
190).
sense be viewed as a replicated finding
of system can have different impacts
in
in
different organizations.
:
the same type
Individuals in
different social groups will have different influences on their usage, and will thus
use information systems differently.
III.
Social
If
Determinants of Information Systems Usage
the usage of an
individual using the
occurs.
how
IS is
IS,
determined
then
we must
There are two ways the
social
in
part by the social
define and measure
group can have an
the individual interprets the system and
demands from the group on
group surrounding the
(2)
how
effect:
(1)
by affecting
by the social pressures and
the individual using the system.
-3-
this social effect
Initially,
the social
group
the manner
will affect
in
individual interprets the system
system)
with
it
(6).
The
group,
social
which an
(i.e.
how
when
IS
is
he or she decides
faced with a
and form ideas about which
used by affecting the way the
tasks
it
new
when and how to
technology,
will
use the
experiment
should or shouldn't be used to solve.
Different people will have different (sometimes radically different) views of the
technology and
its
Over time, these interpretations of the technology
capabilities.
be tested and refined, and may converge within the
will
social
interpretation process occurs, the tasks performed by the group
It is
believed that the usage of a
new
IS
within
is
not a
new
interact to
social
finding.
The other
pressures
determine the
groups influence the perceptions of the individuals
Social psychologists
social
in
have known for years that the
if
an individual's
rivals in
tasks, or
the firm are using a
required
new
group on the
in this
IS
usage by supervisors.
system, then the system
may
fear, envy, or curiosity.
the social group of which the
used
new
from requests to use a particular system
arise
order to test the proposition that the usage of an
social
not a
determinant of computing usage comes from individual role
and demands. These can
be used out of
is
many ways.
from others working on interdependent
In
the
in
Turkle (37) argued that computers are highly abstract objects
that can be interpreted
Also,
is
system can change an individual's perception of unchanging physical objects
conclusion either.
the
nor the opinions of those
That computers can be perceived differently by different people
(2).
as well.
the social group.
IS in
The general idea that
social
IS
group using the system. Rather these two factors
proper role of the
may change
As this
(and the ultimate impact of that system)
not determined solely by the features of the
social
group.
IS
user
individual.
is
a part,
we must
The concept of
paper to dimensionalize the
social
-4
IS is in
first
part determined by
quantify the influence of
structural equivalence will
system so that
its
be
influence can be
measured
Structural equivalence
concept
that, the
be linked to
will
and
IS
meaning
its
be discussed next. Following
will
usage.
Structural Equivalence
Structural equivalence
patterns
If
technical
(1,
11, 34, 43)
is
measure of
a
two people work with the same
and administrative
help,
go
others,
similarity in interaction
to the
same others
for
and report to the same person, then the two are
Two
structurally equivalent (with respect to those relationships).
structurally equivalent individuals can be said to occupy the
same
or
more
structural
position.
Structural equivalence analysis aggregates
interaction patterns.
is
thus a
any
in
B.
The
of the interaction
whom"
social structure
between any
As such, structural equivalence captures
than that captured by formal
data to
structural positions
individual
in
overall
distill
A and
position
B
A and
revealed reflects the informal structure of the
organization-- the actual pattern of interactions
responsibilities,
to
The interaction between any two
good estimate
position
"who
between organizational members.
a social
A formal
title.
network
title
characteristic different
imperfectly defines the
knowledge, and behaviors of the individuals holding that
title.
A
structural position (with respect to task interactions) will separate those individuals
who have
similar interaction patterns,
characteristics.
For example,
if
persons
Consultant," while person C has the
database issues go to persons
B
which may better
and
title
C,
A and
reflect actual individual
B both have the
"Manager," but
then B and C
will
all
HI:
first
"Database
requests for help on
be structurally equivalent.
Thus, structural positions will be expected to be different from
the
title
titles.
This leads to
hypothesis:
Structural equivalence will capture an effect different from that captured by
title.
Structural equivalence has
been linked to many important concepts
two of which
literature (19, 30),
will
be reviewed here.
Following that, a third
Walker
possible interpretation of structural equivalence will be discussed.
examined the network of interactions across
the
in
(40)
five types of task relations in
an
organization and found that structurally equivalent individuals perceived product
goals
in similar
ways. Structural position was linked to cognition and was found to
be "a stronger and more stable predictor of differences
in
cognition than either the
type of function an individual had orthe type of product worked on (pg. 103)."
A second concept
Boorman and White
social role.
pressures
that structural equivalence can be linked to
(11)
argued that structural equivalence
and demands placed on them.
from the Coleman
doctor's time to adoption
was
a valid
measure of
interaction with those
in
Burt (13) supported this idea
gammanym
study.
argued
that, while a doctor
other structural positions using a
his structural position start using
his
Burt found that a
may have frequent
new drug,
it is
only
when
the drug that emotions such as fear,
envy, and worries about loss of status begin to have an effect.
Thus structurally
equivalent individuals behave similarly because the social influences and
on them are
in
best predicted by the time to adoption of other
structurally equivalent doctors. Burt
in
that of role.
Individuals with similar interaction patterns will have similar social
reanalysis of the data
others
is
is
demands
similar.
Structural equivalence (with respect to task interactions) could also be
of as reflecting individual competence.
individuals receive
It
thought
can be argued that structurally equivalent
and send the same task-related interactions because they have
the same competencies: they perform the same types of tasks or possess the same
types of task-related knowledge.
-6
and
Structural Equivalence
Use
IS
Structural equivalence (with respect to task relationships) can be expected to be
associated with the usage of
stated above.
First, just
similarly, structurally
similarly.
new information
systems for each of the three reasons
as structurally equivalent
people perceive product goals
equivalent people would be expected to interpret an
IS
Structurally equivalent people (with respect to task relationships) receive
the same types of task-related information.
Since the application of information
systems to tasks (and the definition of tasks
in
terms of information systems) can
vary around an organization, different structural positions could receive different
interpretations of
H2:
new
information systems. Thus:
Individuals In different structural positions will interpret
systems
in different
pressures and
is
ways.
predict usage of a
new
that structurally equivalent people would receive the
same
A second reason why
information system
structural equivalence
demands on
individual begin to use a
system out of fear of
equivalent people
and use information
behavior.
new
If
would
people structurally equivalent to an
system, then that individual
loss of status, curiosity,
may work with
or envy.
or report to the
may begin
Furthermore, structurally
same people, thus
increasing the
likelihood thatthe individuals are requested or required to use a given
H3:
to use the
IS.
Individuals in different structural positions will have different social pressures
and demands, and thus
It is
will use
information systems
in
different ways.
important to distinguish between hypotheses H2 and H3, both conceptually
and empirically.
Conceptually, the difference
internally or externally motivated.
is
related to
whether usage
is
Hypothesis H2 argues that structurally
equivalent individuals internalize similar interpretations and thus use information
systems similarly.
Hypothesis H3 argues that usage results from factors external to
-7-
the user: requests or requirements for use, or use triggered by fear of
loss of status,
curiosity, or envy.
Empirically, hypotheses
If
structural equivalence
demands and
related to
the
amount
primary
in
IS
way
size of that relationship.
usage through
If,
its
relationship to social
amount
of training received
however,
structural equivalence
relationship to the interpretation of the
its
in
that interpretations are communicated. There
formal training
will
individual. Training will thus explain
usage explained by training
more strongly
A
the
Training
is
little
related to social
third reason
why
much
of the variance
removed, the
demands and
may have
in IS
usage
When
the
residual variance will be
pressures.
structural position could predict
competence and task assignment.
task relationships)
is
is
be informally conducted by those
associated with structural equivalence's relationship to interpretation.
variance
then
IS,
of training received should affect this relationship.
the organization, thus the training received
around the
also considering training.
related to usage only through
pressures, then the inclusion of the
would not change the
is
is
H2 and H3 can be separated by
IS
usage relates to
Structurally equivalent people (with respect to
similar competencies.
People with similar
competencies would tend to perform similar tasks and would thus use information
technology
tasks,
but
is
in similar
good
ways.
A
given information system can be used to solve
at solving relatively fewer.
For example, while a spreadsheet can
be used as a word processor, few would decide that
fashion.
Thus two different
individuals,
many
when
it
should be used
in
that
faced with two similar tasks and
given the same limited set of information systems with which to solve those tasks,
will
tend to choose the same technology.
depend on the
task at hand-
available, others
relationship to
some
may have few
competence
tasks
The range of choices available
will
may have many good information systems
or none. Thus
if
structural equivalence
predicts task assignment, then
8
it
through
its
could be expected that
it
will predict
some
types of usage as well
This leads to the final
two hypotheses
to
be tested:
H4:
Different structurally equivalent groups will have different task assignments.
H5:
People with similar task assignments
will
use
IS in
similar ways.
Methodology
IV.
The hypotheses were tested
people were surveyed
in
in
one
office of a
management
consulting firm. 93
70 usable replies were received for a
January of 1986.
response rate of 75.3%
Measuring Information Systems
Measuring the usage of the available information systems was done by
identifying (through interviews with five
members
of the organization
positions in the organization) the important systems.
the organizations were
all
The
IS
in
first
various
most widely used by
personal computer-based software programs.
The
five
programs, followed by an acronym, the uses of each, and the date the organization
started using each
program are presented
in
Table
Table
1.
1
The Information systems
Technology
System Designer's
Acronym
5DW
Uses Identified
Computer-Assisted Software
Engineering (CASE) tool
PMW
Forecasting project-related resource
Workbench
Project
Manager's
Workbench
Initiation Date
Summer 1985
Summer 1984
requirements and expenses;
project tracking
Mac
Paint
MAC
Presentation graphics; data flow
Early 1984
diagrams
Lotus 123
123
Project
management (same
as
PMW);
Early 1983
project-related financial analysis
Word
Processing
WP
Word
processing (no graphics)
-9
Before 1981
For each type of technology, the respondents were asked to rate their frequency
of usage on a
six
corresponding to no usage or experience and
point scale with
5
corresponding to a great deal (more than 16 hours per week). Training was rated
from
all
(no training) to 4 (one to two weeks of training). The correlation matrix for
the usage variables
is
shown
in
Table
2.
Table 2
SDW Use
SDW
SDW
MAC
MAC
Tng.
Use
Tng.
Use
PMW PMW
Tng.
Use
123
123
WP
Tng.
Use
Tng.
and the
until
performed on either or both of the two groups.
analysis
the size of
groups
all
is
seven members or
The second algorithm, CALCOPT,
moving members from one group
fit
can be obtained.
refines the
CONCOR
to another until
developed by Boorman, and enhanced by Walker
fit
The interactions used
in
structured interviews
interactions which
amount
in
were
applied
partition by successively
no improvement
in this
is
in
blockmodel
study was originally
The function used to
(see [40])
of the blockmodel partition
described
in (10).
the blockmodel were obtained through a series of
which respondents were asked to name the types of
completing their jobs.
crucial in
of communication across
final questionnaire,
is
less.
The version of CALCOPT used
evaluate the goodness of
CONCOR
all
In
types of interactions
addition, the total
was measured.
In
the
the most important interactions were measured by two
questions (one each concerning the sending and receiving of these types of
communication).
The major task-related interactions
appeared on the questionnaire)
(in
the order
in
which they
are:
•
Receive feedback on job performance
•
Receive help on problems related to a specific technology
(i.e.
database
systems, telecommunications, etc.)
•
Receive help on problems related to a specific industry (for example,
problems that are unique to the
oil
or the banking industry).
•
Receive information aboutthe coordination of projects.
•
Trade information information about the
how
projects are progressing (with
respect to deadlines, specifications or budget).
•
Trade information about the
•
Give feedback on job performance.
•
Provide help on problems related to a specific technology.
•
Provide help on problems related to a specific industry.
political situation at
11
the client
site.
In
•
Give information about the coordination of projects.
•
Total communication.
who
addition, the respondents were asked to identify those individuals
controlled resources
critical
the individuals
All
in
to the success of their project(s).
the office were
listed in
Holland and
the questionnaire.
Leinhardt (23) recommend this to reduce the measurement error inherent
questionnaire. The responses were coded as binary data, with a
presence of a
The
tie.
total
result of the
1
"
the
indicating the
communication question was coded so that
indicated that the individuals communicated once per
The
"
in
a
"1"
week or more.
blockmodel analysis of the survey data was a blockmodel with
fourteen structural positions. These positions were used as the categories for the
ANOVA tests of Hypotheses
H2 and H3.
Measuring Task
Task assignment was collected using measures defined and used by the
consulting firm. The firm categorizes the projects
it
undertakes so that individuals
with different competencies can be assigned to the projects that require their
Thus the different project types
types are listed
in
Appendix
A.
will reflect different types of tasks.
Individuals
were asked
skills.
The project
to rate the percentage of
time they spent on each project type.
V. Results
The
and Discussion
results of the Hypothesis tests are
H1 was tested using
results
shown
in
Table
shown
in
Tables 3 through
6.
Hypothesis
a crosstabulation of titles versus structural positions.
3
show that respondent titles have
little
The
relation to structural
positions.
The
ways
tests of
in
which
hypotheses H2 and H3 are shown
structural position could
in
Table
be related to
12
4.
IS
There are two possible
usage; either through
Table 3
Table 4
Anova
Tests of Hypotheses H2 and H3
(Categories are Structural Positions)
Information
reduced by including training
significantly
system,
WP, the
receive similar
IS
demands and
usage, through
its
become
statistically
pressures to use these three systems
way
that structural equivalence could be related to
relationship to task assignment,
structural positions as categories (Table
The
for the oldest
the same structural position
in
showed
variables included
5).
support for the
tests,
with the
Hypothesis H5 was tested using stepwise
the final model are
in
little
ANOVA
Hypothesis H4 was tested using multiple
hypotheses.
In fact,
inclusion of training causes the relationship to
test of the other possible
regression.
the analysis.
Thus we can conclude that individuals
significant.
The
in
shown
in
Table
6.
Of the
usage measured, only two were predicted by task assignment.
five types of
The
System Designer's Workbench (SDW) was associated with assignment to Data
Modeling (DM)
projects. This
application of this relatively
tools.
The usage cf the
is
new
VI.
documents
system.
MAC was
Information Systems Planning
"boilerplate"
as expected, as those projects
Thus
were the only formal
this project has
few choices
for
IS
associated with assignment to Strategic
projects.
(SISP)
for this project
It
were stored
is
possible that most of the
in this
format.
Conclusion
The hypothesis that the
structural position of an individual
is
related to
how
or she uses information systems received limited support from the data.
relationship
is
believed to occur
in
two ways:
attention to the social influences and
indirectly,
through the
directly,
demands
social system's influence
he
This
through the individual's
of those around him or her,
and
on how the individual interprets the
information systems available.
The organization studied
is
small
and highly connected, and the individuals
within are very experienced with information technology. The results of a similar
study
in a
different firm
would be expected
-15
to be different.
If
the firm
is
larger or
Table 5
ANOVA Tests of Hypothesis H4
(Categories are Structural Positions)
Sum
Type of
Task
SISP
Main
Effects:
Residual:
CSDI
Main
Effects:
Residual:
MRDP
Main
Effects:
Residual:
DM
Main
Effects:
Residual:
DSS
Main
Effects:
Residual:
HRM
Main
Effects:
Residual:
FA
Main
Effects:
Residual:
AUDIT*
IE
Main
Effects:
Residual:
MFG
Main
Effects:
Residual:
GOVT
Main
Effects:
Residual:
BANK
Main
Effects:
Residual:
MOA
Main
Effects:
Residual:
AOS
Main
Effects:
Residual:
SYSSEL
Main
Effects:
Residual:
of
Table 6
Stepwise Regression Test of Hypothesis H5
(Variables
Dependent
R-Squared
F-value
DM
0.152
12 17**
SISP
0.071
632*
Vanable(s)
SOW
MAC
PMW
<None>
<None>
<None>
123
WP
*
Sigmficantatthep<0. 05
**
Significant at the
p<0
level.
01 level.
connected then the variation
groups could be higher.
would
model)
Significant
Variable
less
in final
in
usage between different structurally equivalent
Firms with less technologically experienced
also be expected to have higher variation
in
local
usage patterns. High
experience with information systems would lead an individual to be
on those around him or her
The findings of
for interpretation of a
this study
employees
less
dependent
new system.
have implications for many of the debates
in
MIS. For
example, the competitive advantage caused by a strategic information system
will
be determined
in
part by the unique product features of the system
implication of this study
quite different
the system.
between
is
that the perception
different users,
(SIS)
One
(5).
and use of these features may be
and between the
users
and the providers of
Thus different users may perceive the competitive advantage of an
information system quite differently.
The methods
A new
SIS
in this
may
study
create
may
also
be used to improve our understanding of
new patterns
of interaction within and
between
organizations. Blockmodeling (and other network analytic methods) can help
meaning from the complexity
understanding of
how
SIS are
of the interaction data,
and can thus help
distill
in
changing the relationships between organizations.
17-
SIS.
the
Another implication of the work
is
concerned with the design process and the
importance of user involvement. Many have argued that involvement
process of the future users of the system
of the benefits of involvement
target user group.
system
is
If,
may be
however,
is
critical
even
if
the design
One
to the success of that system.
a fuller interpretation of the system by the
social forces play a large role in
used, then the usage of the system by
different,
in
some other
when and how
user group
may be
a
quite
the second group faces similar tasks. Thus the benefits of user
involvement may be much larger for the user group involved than they are for
future users.
in
the
book
A
vivid
example of this phenomenon
Industrial
Future research
Democracy at Sea
in this
in
a different setting
in
described
(35)*.
area could focus on the features of
associated with similar impacts
is
different organizations,
IS
that are likely to be
and features whose
impacts could vary. Future research should also expand and further test the taskrelated hypotheses.
It
assignments would result
H5).
could be that a different conceptualization of task
in
positive results for the task-related hypotheses (H4
Finally, future research could try to
organizations cause high or low variations
and
understand what characteristics of
in
interpretation
between different
groups.
Trice
variable
and Treacy
(36)
note that usage of an information system
through which information systems impacts occur.
usage of information systems
is
If
is
it
the intervening
is
true that the
determined by the interplay of the features of the
information system and the characteristics of the organization, then the focus of
impacts research must shift to include both
in
any
analysis.
In fact,
what must be
book focuses on a merchant marine ship which had been redesigned to encourage greater
democracy and better quality of work life. The results of the redesign were found to be very
successful for the crew and officers who participated in the design process. The book chronicles the
behavior of the second group to use the ship. This second group in effect redefined the features of
the ship to implement a more traditional social structure. Few of the gains of the previous group
were evident.
* This
18
,
considered
two
(20).
not either the
is
The unit of
IS
or the organization, but the relationship between the
analysis should
no longer be the information system nor the
organization, but the information system with respect to a particular organization.
No longer would an
context X."
IS
be described as "easy to use," but rather "easy to use
The determinants of the decision to use an information system
in
will
include the features of the system, the characteristics of the individual, and the
social context in
which the individual isembedded.
The purpose of this research
organizations.
have lead to
a
is
to challenge
some assumptions on
the role of
IS in
The technologically deterministic assumptions of impacts research
great deal of mixed and contradictory
and attempted to show the
deterministic position.
It is
validity of
hoped that
a
results. This
study has adopted
an alternative view, an organizationally
debate on
this issue will result in a clearer
understanding of the role of information systems
in
organizations.
understanding can add much to the debates on many other
19
issues in MIS.
A
clearer
Appendix A
Task Assignments
Strategic information systems planning (SISP).
Computer systems design and implementation
(CSDI).
Managerial review of data processing (MRDP).
Decision support system design and implementation (DSS).
Information systems selection (SYSSEL).
Advanced
office systems design (AOS).
Manufacturing (MFG).
Data modeling (DM).
Human
resource planning (HRM).
Industrial engineering
(IE).
Managerial and organizational analyses (MOA).
Finance and accounting
(FA).
Organizational audits (OA).
Banking (BANK).
Other.
-20-
1
Arable,
P.,
Bibliography
Boorman, S., and Levitt, P Constructing Blockmodels:
and Why. Journal of Mathematical Psychology,
17,
1
How
(February 1978), 21-63
Asch, S.E. Studies of Independence and Conformity A Minority of
2
Against an Unanimous Majority,. Psychological Monographs, 70,9 (1956).
One
3.
Attewell, P. Microelectronics and Employment. Paper presented at the
Conference on Microelectronics in Transition, University of California, Santa Cruz,
1983 (as reported in Attewell and Rule, 1984).
4.
P. and Rule, J. Computing and Organizations: What We Know
Don't Know. Communications of the ACM, 27, 12 (December 1984),
Attewell,
and What
We
1184-1192.
5.
Strategy:
Bakos, J.Y. and Treacy, M.E. Information Technology and Corporate
A Research Perspective. MIS Quarterly 10,2 (June 1986), 107-1 19.
6.
Barley, S. The Professional, The Semi-Professional, and the Machines: The
Social Ramifications of Computer Based Imaging in Radiology. PhD Dissertation,
Management, Massachusetts
Sloan School of
Institute of
Technology, 1984.
Bjorn-Andersen, N., Eason, K., and Robey, D. Managing Computer Impact:
International Study of Management and Organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
7.
An
1986.
8.
Blau, P.M.
Basic Books, 1971.
9.
and Schoenherr,
R.
The Structure of Organizations.
New
York:
CM., McKinley, W., and Tracy, P.K. Technology and
Manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1 (March
Blau, P.M., Falber,
Organization
in
1976), 20-40.
10.
Boorman, S.A. and Levitt, P.R. Blockmodelling Complex Statutes:
Mapping Techniques Based on Combinational Optimization for Analyzing Economic
Legislation
and
its
Stress Point
Over Time. Economics
Letters, 13,
1
(1983), 1-9.
11.
Boorman, S. and White, H., "Social Structure from Multiple Networks
Role Strurtures/'Amer/can./ourna/of'Soao/ogy, 81,6 (May 1976), 1384-1446.
II.
12.
Breiger, R.L., Boorman, S.A., and Arable, P. An Algorithm for Clustering
Relational Data, With Applications To Social Network Analysis and Comparison with
Multidimensional Scaling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12, 3 (August 1975),
328-383.
13.
Burt, Ronald.
Structural Equivalence.
1335.
Business
14.
1984, 118-142.
Week.
Cohesion versus
Social Contagion and Innovation:
American Journal of Sociology, 92, 6 (May 1987), 1287-
Office
Automation Restructures Business
-21
-
October
8,
Computerization as a Predominate Technology: Its influence
Academy of Management Journal.
Carter, N.
15.
on the Structure of Newspaper Organizations.
27, 2 (June 1984), 247-270.
Crawford, A. B. Jr. Corporate Electronic Mail - A Communication-Intensive
Application of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 6,3 (September 1982), 1-13.
16.
K. and Malone, T.W.
Information Technology and Work
MIT
Center
for
Information
Organization.
Systems Research Working Paper No. 165,
Crowston,
17.
December, 1987.
In Case
Glenn, E.N. and Feldberg, R.L Proletarianizing Clerical Work.
Monthly
Review,
1979.
on
the
Labor
Process,
A.
Zimbalist(ed.).
NewYork:
Studies
18.
DiMaggio,
19.
Paul.
A
Structural Analysis of Organizational Fields:
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8 (1986), 335-370.
Blockmodel Approach. Research
Downs, G.W. and Mohr, LB. Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation.
20.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21,4 (December 1976), 700-714.
21.
Effects
Foster, L W. and Flynn, D. M. Management Information Technology: Its
on Organizational Form and Function. MIS Quarterly 8, 4 (December 1984),
229-235.
Gregory, J. and Nussbaum, K. Race Against Time: Automation in the
22.
Office,
Technology, and People, 1,2-3 (September 1982), 197-236.
Office.
23.
Holland,
Measurement
W. and Leinhardt,
P.
Error in Sociometry.
The Structural Implications of
S.
Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3, 1 (July
1973), 385-411.
Keen, P. G. W. MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative
Tradition. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information
24.
Systems.
E. R.
McLean
(ed.).
December 8-10, 1980, 174-186.
Kling, R. Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in
25.
Empirical Research. Computing Surveys, 12, 1 (March 1980), 61-110.
26.
Leavitt, H.
Business Review, 36,
and Whisler, T. L Management
6 (November-December 1958), 41-48.
J.
in
the 1980's.
Recent
Harvard
Markus, M.L. and Robey, D.F. Information Technology and Organizational
27.
Change: Conceptions of Causality in Theory and Research. Management Science,
34, 5 (May 1988), 583-598.
Matteis, P. The New Back Office Focuses on Customer Service.
28.
Business Review, 57, 2 (March/April, 1979), 146-159.
Mumford, E. and Banks, O.
29.
Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1967.
30.
Nelson, Reed
Organizational Structure:
Elliott.
The Computer and the
The Use of Blockmodeling
A Methodological
(1986). 75-85.
-22-
Proposal.
Clerk.
Harvard
London:
in the Study of
Organization Studies, 7, 1
Noble, D Social Change m Machine Design: The Case of Automatically
31.
Controlled Machine Tools, and a Challenge for Labor. Politics and Society, 8, 3/4
(1978), 313-347
Pfeffer, J. and Leblebici, H. Information Technology
32.
Structure. Pacific Sociological Review, 20 (1977), 241-261
and Organizational
.
Robey, D F Computer Information Systems and Organization
33.
Communications of the ACM, 24, 1 (October 1 981 ), 679-687.
34.
Equivalence:
Sailer, L.D. Structural
and Application. Social Networks,
Schrank,
35.
Press, 1983.
Robert
(ed.).
1,
1
Meaning and
Definition,
Structure.
Computation
(August 1978), 73-90.
Industrial
Democracy
at Sea. Cambridge,
MA: The
MIT
36.
Trice,
AW.
and Treacy, ME.
Research, (forthcoming
37.
Turkle,
S.
in
Database)
Computer
Utilization as a
Dependent Variable
in
MIS
.
as Rorschach. Society, 17, 2 (January/February 1980),
15-24.
Turner, J. A. Improving the Quality of Information Systems Research.
38.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems, E. R.
McLean (ed), December
8-10, 1980, 91-97.
Turner, J. A. Computer Mediated Work:
39.
The Interplay between
Technology and Structured Jobs. Communications of the ACM, 24, 12 (December
1984), 1210-1217.
40.
Walker, G. Network Position and Cognition in a Computer Software Firm.
1 (March 1985), 103-130.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,
41.
Wallace, M. and Kalleberg, A. Industrial Transformation and the Decline
of Craft: The Decomposition of Skill in the Printing Industry, 1931-1978. American
Sociological Review, 47, 3 (June 1982), 307-324.
42.
Whisler, T.L. The Impact of Computers on Organizations.
Praeger, 1970.
43.
Networks
New
York:
White, H., Boorman, S. and Breiger, R. Social Structure from Multiple
Blockmodels of Roles and Positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81,
I.
4 (January 1976), 730-780.
-23
Date Due
i.ii.
:
MIT
3
LIBRARIES DUPl
TOflO
I
0DSb7272
~>