The duality oftechnology.

Rethinking theconsept oftechnology in organizations

by

Wanda Orlikowski

Published in 1991

Orlikowski refers to previous research studies in the fields of technology and organisationshave focused on the following views:

Orlikowski suggest that both models areincomplete, and proposes a reconceptualization oftechnology that takes both perspectives intoaccount

She proposes a structuration model of technology, built on the basis of this new conceptualizationby exploring the relationship between technologyand organizations. The presented view oftechnology in this paper is based on Giddens”Theory of Structuration” (1976, 1979, 1984)

Scope- What is defined as comprising technology

Role- How is the interactionbetween technology and organizations defined

Hardware scope (equipment, machinesand instruments that humans use in productive activities) – technologyvariable only useful to organizations that employ machinesin productive activities

Social technologies scope (generictasks, techniques, knowledge) technology variable useful whenhuman take part in productiveactivities

Technology as an objective, external force that have deterministics influence onorganizational properties such as structure

Human action aspect of technology

Technology as an external forcehaving impacts, but these impactsare moderated by human actors and organizational context

A model used in studies oftechnologies and informationtechnology, given the premise thatthe technology, as well as theorganizational and individualvariables can be measured and predicted.

Ignores the action of humans in developing, appropiating and changingtechnology

Treat technology as an independent influence on human behaviour or organizational properties

3 directions / themes are discribed:1. How particular technology (as depended

variable) is physically constructedthrough the social interactions and political choices of human actors. Typically Socio-technical studiesIT designed for different intentionslike automate (controll, deskill) or informate(empower, upskill) - afterwork of Zuboff)

This foci suggests that technology in not an external object

3 directions / themes are discribed:1. How particular technology (as depended

variable) is physically constructedthrough the social interactions and political choices of human actors. Typically Socio-technical studiesIT designed for different intentionslike automate (controll, deskill) or informate(empower, upskill) (after workof Zuboff)

This foci suggests that technology in not an external object

2. A second stream examines howshared interpretations around a certain technology arise and affect the development of and interaction with the technology. Empirical studies adopting thissocial constructionist view oftechnology by sociologist oftechnology Lacking material and structrual

aspects of interaction with technology

3. A third research stream is represented by Marxist accounts oftechnology. Describing the manner the technology is developing and deployed to further the politicaland economic interests of powerfulactors Lacking dealing adequatly with humans

agency in the workplace. Only managment and technology

designers have the authority and meansto shape the technology

A third perspective on the relationship betweentechnology and structure: by Barly (1986, 1990) who portrates technology as an interventioninto the relationship between human agents and organizational structure, which potentiallychange the structure.

•Technology is seen as a social object, whosemeaning is defined by the context it is used in, he is not taking into account the need for physical modification of technology during useof it

Orlikowski’s Scope - restrict theconsept scope to material artifacts(various configurations of hardware and software Material artifacts as the outcome ofcoordianted human action and hence as inherently social

Orlikowski’s Role - mutual interactions between human agents and technology. The interactionsare socially constructed and structural.

Orlikowski suggests to understand the technology from the point ofview of structuration.

Structuration is posited as a social process that involves thereciprocal interaction of human actors and structural features oforganizations.

- Recognizes that human actions are enableand constrained by structures, yet thatthese structures are the results ofprevious actions.

- Giddens framework (theory ofstructuration)present structure as a generic concept that is onlymanifested in the structuralproperties of social systems (Giddens 1979: 65-65)

- A central premise is that actors areknowledgeable and reflexive

- Giddens:”all social actors, all human beings are highly ”learned” in respectof knowlegde which they possess and apply, in the production and reproduction of day-to day socialencounters”

- Giddens differensiate betweendiscursive (what is said by actors) and pratical knowledge (what is simplydone by actors, tactily)

- Reflexive refers to the capacity ofhumans to routinly observe and understand what they are doing whilethey are doing it.

- Actors’ knowledge and reflexivity is alwayslimited to some extent by the situated nature of actions, the difficulty of articulatingtacit knowledge, unconscious sources ofmotivation, and unintended consequences ofactions (Giddens, 1979:144)

- Duality of structure- The balancing of agency(human action) and structure (rules and resources (authoritative and allocative)

Social structure make social action possible, and at the same time that social action creates those very structures.

- Giddens introduces three fundamental elements of social interaction(1976):

- Meaning(human interaction involves theconstitution and communication of meaning) constitute organizational structure ofsignification

- Power (the power of human action to transformthe social and material world ->transformative capacity), constituteorganizational structure of domination. Allways potensial for agents to act to changea particular structure of domination(referred to as dialectic of control by Giddens)

- Norms(organizational conventions or rulesgovering legitimate or ”appropiate” conduct), constitute organizational structures oflegitimation

First premise: Technology is created and changedby human action, however technology is also used by humans to accomplish some action, which is what Orlikowski calls the duality of technology

Second premise: technology is interpretivelyflexible, however interaction of technology and organization is a function of the differentactors and socio-historical contexts implicatedin its development and use

Orlikowski identifies prior views of technologyas either objective force or as sociallyconstructed product- as a false dichotomy

Technology is the product of human action, whileit also assumes structual properties.

Furthermore, technology is: physically constructed by actors working in a given

social context

socially constructed by actors through thedifferent meaning they attach to it, variousfeatures they emphasize and use

BUT:the duality of technology may be suppressed in organizational discourse in favor of a dualismwhich emphasize only one view of technology

The process of development and use are oftencarried out in different organizations regardlessof time and space. Many actions that constitutethe technology (ex. vendor site) are oftenseparated in time and space from the actions thatare constituted by the technology (ex. Costumersites)

Time-space discontinuity is related to notion oftemporal scope

Dualitic view of technology as a fixed object or as a product of human action is influenced by thedifferent temporal stage that researches have focused on

Researchers that are focusing on design and development -> less likely to treattechnology as a objective or externalforce(as strategic choice studies)

Researchers that are focusing on use and utilization of a technology in a officeor factory -> less likely to look at howusers of technology are influencing by it, and how technology affectsinstitutional properties in theorganization.

Orlikowski suggests that we recognize human interaction with technology as having twoiterative modes*: The design mode

schemes(rules reflecting knowledge of the workbeing

automated)

Facilites(resources to accomplish that work)

Norms (rules that define the organizationallysanctioned way of executing work)

The use mode

Assigning shared meaning to technology

Influencing the human agents appropriation of theinterpretive schemes, facilities, and norms designed into the technology

The term interpretive flexibility refer to thedegree to which users of a technology are engagedin its constitution (physically or / and socially)during the developement or use.

Interpretive flexibility is an attribute of therelationship between humans and technology and hence it is influenced by charactristics of: thematerial artifacts (e.g spesific hardware and software comprising the technology), human agents(e.g experience, motivation)and contexts(social relations, task assignment, resourceallocations)

Human agents as technology designers, users, decision makers

Technology – material artifacts mediating taskexecution in the workplace

Institutional properties of organizations, including organizationl dimentions such as enviromental pressure (e.g goverment regulation), competetive forces, vendor strategies, professional norms, state of knowledge abouttechnology with more

Type of influence Nature of influence

A Technology as a product of human action

Technology is an outcome of such human actions as design and developement, appropiate and modification

B Technology as a medium of human action

Technology facilities and constrains human action through provision of interpretive schemes, facilities and norms

C Institutional conditions of interactions with technology

Institutional properties influence humans in their interaction with technology

D Institutional consequences of interaction with technology

Interactions with technology influence institutional properties of an organization, through reinforcing or transforming the structure of signification, domination and legitimation

Orlikowski’s field reseach study, in 1987 at Beta Corperation,a large multinational software consulting firm

Majority of Beta’s employees arefunctional consultants, developingcustomized application systems for clients. + a small proportion aretechnical consultants (into reseach and development)

Invested large in information technologyin the production work of its consultants

A transform from labor intensive – paper-based set of activites into a rationalized , capital intensive production process – (tool -> CASE)

Research methodology: observationstudy of participants + historicalreview of Beta

Fieldstudy duration: 8 months

Location: in Beta and in thoseclients sites where Beta developerswhere building application systems

New technology developed by thetechnical consultants aftercomissioned by managment

CASE tool were produced through human agency of Beta’s technical consultants

Actions by tecnical consultants were influencedby Beta institutional properties, notably theexisiting institutional knowledge and norms ofBeta’s system developmentmethodology(structure of signification and legitimation), and resources (time, money , authority) distributed to the technicalconsultants by senior managers (structure ofdomination)

Once developed the tools were distributed onproject teams.

As a medium of human action, the tool can be seen as both constrain and faciliate theactivities of consultants.

The tool is built so the work is executed in a standardised, structruated, and predictablemanner, which leave little discretion in thehands of individual consultants.

The CASE tool were designed and implemented by BETA management and technical consultants to increase efficiencyof production work through rationalization and standardization. Today the tool serving employees thatwere not involved in development of the tools. -> discourages reflectiveness. However, knowledge and reflexive human agents are capable of altering thecontrolling influence of the technology. -> given certainconditions the individual modifies their use of technology.

The tool was characteristict with low interpretive flexibility, on the whole. Some consultants are able however to recognize the constructed nature of the tool

Consultants reacted against the tool ->tool imposedunreasonable constrains on their behaviour.

Result was that the tool functionalitity was modified This example indicates that technology is NOT a fixed object

at any stage during its development.

This paper explores a number of issues thatchanges the way we think about and study theinteraction of technology and organizations.

Two key aspects of technology have beenhighlighted: duality of technology and itsinterpretive flexibility, both masked by the time and space disjuncture implicated in differentstages of a technology’s interaction withorganizations.

Technologies are products of their time and organizational context, and will reflect theknowledge, materials, interests and conditions at the given locus in history.