![]() Academy of Management Journal, 196–214 (2002) Garud, R., Jain, S., et al.: Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Garud, R., Karnøe, P.: Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. Gaskin, J., Thummadi, B.V., et al.: Digital Technology and the Variation in Design Routines: A Sequence Analysis of Four Design Processes1 (2011) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (1991) Administrative Science Quarterly 48(1), 94–118 (2003)įriedland, R., Alford, R.R., et al.: The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The Academy of Management Review (AMR) 35(2), 202–225 (2010)įeldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T.: Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(1), 114–149 (2010)įarjoun, M.: Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Institutional Patterns and Organizations, 3–21 (1988)ĭunn, M.B., Jones, C.: Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. American Sociological Review, 147–160 (1983)ĭiMaggio, P.J.: Interest and agency in institutional theory. Organization Science, 121–147 (1994)ĭiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W.: The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. de Gruyter (1996)ĭeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S.: Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. PLoS Computational Biology 4(7), e1000112 (2008)Ĭzarniawska-Joerges, B., Sevón, G.: Translating organizational change. International Journal of Communication 5, 682–720 (2011)Ĭrombach, A., Hogeweg, P.: Evolution of evolvability in gene regulatory networks. Information Systems Research (2012)Ĭontractor, N., Monge, P.R., et al.: Multidimensional networks and the dynamics of sociomateriality: Bringing technology inside the network. Organization Science 16(1), 3–18 (2005)īerente, N., Yoo, Y.: Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s Enterprise Information System. Social Science Information 16(6), 645–668 (1977)īoudreau, M.C., Robey, D.: Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science 18(4), 631–647 (2007)īourdieu, P.: The economics of linguistic exchanges. Information Systems Research, 53–68 (2004)īoland, R.J., Lyytinen, K., et al.: Wakes of innovation in project networks: the case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 78–108 (1986)īerger, P.L., Luckmann, T.: The Social Construction of Reality (1966)īoland, R., Lyytinen, K.: Information systems research as design: Identity, process, and narrative. Information and Organization 20(3), 133–155 (2010)īarley, S.R.: Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Organization Science 23(5), 1485–1504 (2012)īaxter, R.J., Berente, N.: The process of embedding new information technology artifacts into innovative design practices. Information and Organization 19(3), 153–161 (2009)īailey, D.E., Leonardi, P.M., et al.: The lure of the virtual. Arxiv preprint cond-mat/0209571 (2002)Īvital, M., Boland, R.J., et al.: Introduction to designing information and organizations with a positive lens. KeywordsĪldana, M.: Dynamics of Boolean networks with scale-free topology. Based upon this analogous reasoning we outline elements of a research agenda and conclude with a discussion of methodological directions to deal with digitally induced endogenous sociomaterial change. Just as attractors are implicated in changes to established gene regulatory networks within cells, so too are digital artifacts implicated in the efforts of institutional entrepreneurs to bring about change to organizational routines (behaviors). In this view institutional attractors become endogenous to sociomaterial systems and are keys to simultaneously promoting stability and inducing change. In particular, we approach digital artifacts as institutional attractors and examine the role of such attractors within gene regulatory networks. To address this gap, we draw on systems biology to understand how introduction of new digital artifacts can influence routines in organizations. Though, organizational institutionalism has been traditionally concerned with stability and change in routines and underlying structures, it has so far meagerly theorized the role of digital artifacts in balancing stability and change. Such change is not frictionless, since routines and associated structures are deeply embedded- or institutionalized. Digital artifacts have become fundamental elements of organizational change. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |