IBIMA Publishing Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JIBBP/jibbp.html Vol. 2 !2 "2 !2#$ %rticle I& '(('!

($ !2 pages &)I: ! .(!*!/2 !2.'(('!(

Technology and Organizational Evolution: An Institutionalisation Perspective

Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract *n conte!porary business organizations, technology pro ides the +oundation around $hich organizations e ol e and !ature. *t not only aids organizations in enabling strategic business ob,ecti es through auto!ation o+ operations, but $ith their in+or!ation processing and decision support capabilities, these technologies also aid in business planning and !anage!ent. Thus, the scope o+ these technologies e-tends +ro! strategic enablers to strategic ad isors. The literature suggests arious perspecti es on the role o+ technology in organization, i.e., techno(centric, hu!an( centric, and technology institutionalisation. This paper ai!s to loo% at technology li+ecycle process, through the lens o+ technology institutionalisation perspecti e. According to the institutional ie$ and theories, there are arious sub institutions operating in a broader en iron!ent o+ organization, such as organizational culture, social structure, and co!petiti e en iron!ent. The organization thri es on the !utual interactions o+ these sub institutions and establishes its legiti!acy. .hen technology beco!es institutionalised, it is ta%en +or granted by its users $ithin the organization. This !eans that they are co!+ortable $ith technology and can e!ploy its +eatures e++ecti ely in their routine acti ities $ithout re/uiring +unctional consultant or coach support. 0oreo er, an o er ie$ o+ literature on technology deinstitutionalisation and institutional change is presented in this paper $hich ai!s to study ho$ old technologies o+ the organization and legacy syste!s are changed and replaced $ith ne$ ones. Keywords& Technology institutionalisation1 *nstitutional theory1 *nstitutional change1 Technology deinstitutionalisation. 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 Introduction Technology1 in an organization e ol es through continuous interaction $ith other organizational sub(institutions li%e people, culture, technological in+rastructure, custo!ers, co!petitors, suppliers and etc. Technology i!ple!entation in conte!porary business organizations, thus, should not be ie$ed as si!ple installation and one o++ endorse!ent o+ technology1 instead the organization should engage in the process o+ technology assi!ilation3 institutionalisation to !aintain its legiti!acy, technical cohesion, and econo!ic +itness on an on(going basis. The literature suggests di++erent approaches to de+ine the role o+ technology through its li+ecycle, i.e., techno(centric, hu!an(centric, and inno ation(institutionalisation perspecti es. 'ach o+ these perspecti es, !ainly, e!phasizes one aspect o+ technology

Technology in this paper re+ers to hard$are, so+t$are, co!!unication net$or%s, and syste!s that ac/uire, process, store, and deli er in+or!ation to e-ternal and internal sta%eholders in order to +acilitate business processes. Here the ter! technology +ocuses on in+or!ation syste!s, ho$e er, also en elops in+or!ation technology

Copyright 2012 Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios. This is an open access article distributed under the Creati e Co!!ons Attribution "icense unported #.0, $hich per!its unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any !ediu!, pro ided that original $or% is properly cited. Contact author& Azadeh Pishdad '(!ail& pisay001)!y!ail.unisa.edu.au

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices 2

i!ple!entation !ore than others. 7or e-a!ple 8ogers 9200#: considers !ainly the technical characteristics o+ a technological inno ation and argues that people ,udge a technology and decide to adopt or re,ect it based on their perceptions o+ +i e attributes o+ it, i.e., relati e ad antage, co!patibility, co!ple-ity, trialability, and obser ability. 0atching bet$een user tas% needs and the a ailable +unctionality o+ the technology is !ainly the +ocus o+ tas% technology +it theory 9TT7:. Ho$e er, user;s attitudes to$ard a particular technology based on their percei ed use+ulness and ease o+ use co!prises the deter!inants o+ technology acceptance !odel 9TA0: 9<a is et al. 1=>=1 ?oodhue and Tho!pson 1==@1 .i-o! and Todd 200@:. Technology(organization( en iron!ent 9TA': +ra!e$or% e-plores ho$ technology li+ecycle process is in+luenced by the technological, organizational, and en iron!ental conte-t 9Tornatz%y and 7leisher 1==0:, and the theory o+ social shaping o+ technology 90ac%enzie and .a,c!an 20011 "a$ 200B1 "atour 200@: e-plores the e++ects o+ social, organizational, and cultural +actors on the content o+ technology and the processes in ol ed in introduction o+ technology to an organization. Ho$e er, +or better understanding o+ organization and their e olution, it is necessary to ta%e into account di++erent di!ensions such as social, technical, organizational, political, co!petiti e and institutional en iron!ent, internal syste! and structure, and the legal and cultural rules and obligations that the organization are con+or!ed to. 7urther!ore, the literature re ie$ leads us to belie e that !ostly concepts related to inno ation( institutionalisation perspecti e such as institutional theory, institutional pressures and institutional change are used in political and social studies. Ho$e er, there is an urgent need to study the e++ects o+ these concepts on technology i!ple!entation and its li+ecycle as $ell. This paper ai!s to loo% at technology li+ecycle process, through the lens o+ technology institutionalisation perspecti e.

.hen technology is institutionalised, its usage $ithin the organization beco!es a routine acti ity, in the $ay that organizational actors could not thin% about doing their day(to(day ,ob responsibilities $ithout using it. *n addition, this paper re ie$s the literature on technology deinstitutionalisation and institutional change to study ho$ old technologies o+ the organization 9legacy syste!: are changed and replaced $ith ne$ ones. This paper is structured as +ollo$s. The ne-t section e-plains di++erent approaches proposed by literature to de+ine the concept o+ technology in organizations, +ollo$ed by !ore granular analysis o+ inno ation( institutionalisation perspecti e and arious trends and strea!s to institutionalis! and institutional thin%ing. Then, an o er ie$ o+ institutional theory and three types o+ institutional iso!orphic pressures $hich are the essential part o+ institutional and neoinstitutional theory is presented. The ne-t section re ie$s the e++ects o+ institutional change3 e olution on technology li+ecycle as the last stage o+ it. 7inally, the last section pro ides conclusions, and directions +or +uture research. Di erent Perspectives on the !oncept o Technology in Organizations Techno(centric perspecti e and hu!an( centric perspecti e are t$o !ain schools in de+ining the role o+ technology in organizations. The +or!er school ie$s technology as discontinuous, re olutionary leaps beyond direct hu!an control and !ostly by autono!ous +orces $ithin $hich technology !ostly plays a deter!inistic role 9AC<onoghue et al. 20011 0unir and Phillips 20021 0ac<ougall 2011:. *n contrast, the latter school ie$s technology as a product o+ ongoing hu!an actions in de eloping, appropriating and changing technology 9Arli%o$s%i 20001 "a!b and Kling 200#1 "a$ 200B1 Duch!an 200E1 'lle et al. 2010:. Ho$e er, none o+ these philosophies are sel+( co!pleted and the success+ul structure should ta%e into account both perspecti es 9Arli%o$s%i 1==21 Arli%o$s%i 200E:. These

# 4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

t$o set o+ theories +ocus on the i!ple!entation o+ technology in organizations. These theories ha e, there+ore, been used e-tensi ely in research and practice. Ho$e er, technologies li%e in+or!ation syste!s are !uch !ore than si!ple installation and endorse!ent o+ technology. The role and scope o+ in+or!ation syste!s e ol es continuously, such that the organizations e ol e $ith their e olution. There+ore, there is a need to bridge up the gap bet$een techno(centric perspecti e, hu!an(centric perspecti e, and inno ation(institutionalisation perspecti e and theories. According to the institutional ie$ and theories, there are arious sub institutions operating in a broader en iron!ent o+ organization, such as organizational culture, social structure, and co!petiti e en iron!ent. The organization thri es on the !utual interactions o+ these sub institutions and establishes its legiti!acy 9<i0aggio and Po$ell 1=>#1 Po$el and <i0aggio 1==11 ?re$al and <har$ad%ar 20021 Fsidisin et al. 200@1 <el!estri 200E1 ?reen$ood 200>:. Technology" Perspective Institutionalisation

An organization as an institution e ol es through the !utual interactions o+ arious organizational sub(institutions. Technology $or%s as the binding +actor that shapes organizations and gi es the! their e-isting +or! and legiti!acy by integrating together these sub(institutions. The +or! and legiti!acy de+ine ho$ organizations e ol e their structures, culture, and syste!s. *nstitutions are social structures co!posed o+ cultural(cogniti e, nor!ati e, and regulati e ele!ents that, together $ith resources and associated acti ities, bring stability and !eaning to social li+e 9Dcott 2001:. The organizational legiti!acy, thus, achie ed through social acceptability, credibility, and cultural support, deri es the institution 9<el!estri 200E1 .eera%%ody et al. 200=:.

*nstitutional theory is gaining increasing attention in technology !anage!ent research as a no el theoretical perspecti e 9Po$el and <i0aggio 1==11 ?reen$ood 200>1 .eera%%ody et al. 200=1 Currie 2011:. Acti ities in ol ing in de elop!ent and use o+ technologies are sub,ect to social, cultural, organizational, technical, and other institutional pressures. These pressures could be +ro! e-ternal sources such as co!petition and custo!ers, and go ern!ent agencies as $ell as +ro! legiti!ated nor!s, rules, and logics e!bedded $ithin the organization. Arganizations !ay respond to these pressures by con+or!ing to technology !andates, or !odi+ying their business practices to +it the technology. As a result, organizations address the opportunity +or social appro al and3or legiti!acy. According to Po$el and <i0aggio 91==1:, organizations as institutions are ie$ed as independent ariables in+luenced not only by direct conse/uences o+ indi iduals; attributes and sta%eholders !oti es, but also by cogniti e and cultural e-planations $hich are continuously reproduced through the socialization process. *n su!!ary, institutionalisation process e!bodies both ob,ecti+ication 9i.e., the articulation o+ ideals, discourses and techni/ues:, and sub,ecti+ication 9i.e., indi iduals; enact!ent through role de elop!ent:, $hereby organizational routines shape and are shaped by its sub(institutions 9Po$el and <i0aggio 1==11 Hasselbladh and Kallini%os 20001 Dcott 20011 <a!brin et al. 200E1 Dcheirer 200@1 Currie 20111 Abrutyn and Turner 2011:. *n addition, *nstitutions are sub,ect to incre!ental and discontinuous change processes. Change is natural, al!ost ine itable and progressi e. *t ta%es decades +or the need +or change to be endorsed 9Ali er 1==21 ?reen$ood et al. 20021 Deal 200#1 Clegg and 6ailey 200>:. According to syste! theory, organizational sub( institutions are interdependent and changes in one $ill a++ect $hole syste! 9entropy:. Thus, changes in the technical in+rastructure o+ an organization $ill a++ect $hole organization and its operational en iron!ent $hich !ay result in deinstitutionalisation o+

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices B

current +or!s and practices and reinstitutionalisation o+ another technological in+rastructure. 0ore detailed description on institutional change process is pro ided in the rest o+ this article. Two Main Trends in Institutional Thinking Theories related to institutional thin%ing are !ainly di ided into t$o !ain trends, i.e., !acro and !icro le el 9Fuc%er 1=>E1 Cleg 1==0:. At the !acro(le el, e-ternal and en iron!ental characteristics are considered as the !ain conductors o+ institutionalised beha ior. Coerci e, nor!ati e, and !i!etic Ge-plained in the +ollo$ing sectionH are three iso!orphic !echanis!s through $hich organizations try to e-cel in their practice o+ social rules, ideals, and practices by aligning the!sel es $ith the en iron!ental conditions 90eyer and 8o$an 1=EE1 Po$el and <i0aggio 1==11 ?reen$ood 200>:. At the !icro(le el, institutionalised beha ior is reproduced as a result o+ institutionalisation. This beha ior is initially socially constructed and beco!e stabilized. Ho$e er, o er ti!e, the social bac%ground $hich led to the e!ergence o+ that beha ior $ill be +orgotten, as a result o+ discontinuous and incre!ental change process 9Dchutz 1=I21 6erger and "uc%!ann 1=IE1 6aptista 200=:. "ynne Fuc%er 91=EE: adopts the !icro(le el thin%ing to de+ine three stages o+ technology institutionalisation process, i.e., habitualisation 9the production o+ shared social !eanings:, ob,ecti ation 9the process through $hich +acts beco!e independent as a reality e-perienced in co!!on $ith others: , and sedi!entation 9the process by $hich ob,ecti+ied +acts beco!e part o+ routine beha ior:. "ater, she proposed the institutional( based trust theory constituting t$o %ey theoretical constructs, i.e., bac%ground e-pectation and constituti e e-pectation 9Dchutz 1=I21 ?ar+in%el 1=IE1 Fuc%er 1=>I:. According to bac%ground e-pectation perspecti e, hu!an perception o+ e ents and ob,ects is si!ilar and shared a!ong all indi idual $ithin one social setting. Dchutz

91=I2: argues people accept the $orld as ho$ it is presented to the!, $ith all its inherent typi+ications o+ beha ior. These typi+ications result +ro! sedi!entation o+ indi idual;s e-perience through $hich the reality is ta%en +or granted. People also interpret ne$ e ents and e-periences on the basis o+ their understanding and perception o+ these typi+ications. Thus, $hen a technology beco!es institutionalised, it is ta%en +or granted by actors $ithin the social syste! and typi+ications 9cultural belie+s and scripts: beco!e established as authoritati e guidelines +or organizational beha ior. ?ar+in%el 91=IE: conceptualize constituti e e-pectation as nor!s and procedural rules $hich are constructing cogniti e guidance syste! to assure $hether the organization and its indi iduals play their role correctly and in a desirable $ay and their beha ior is acceptable and reasonable. Thus, through establishing rules and go ernance +or the gradual e!bedding o+ technology $ithin the organizational social +abric and e-pected +or!al +unctioning, technology is institutionalised and +or!alized its use in the organization. Different Approaches to Institutionalism Arganizations react to institutional +orces in !any di++erent $ays according to their organizational structure, culture, stoc%holders, and +ield o+ business 9Dcott 2001:. There e-ist se eral approaches to institutionalis!, i.e. nor!ati e, rational choice, historical, e!pirical, and constructi ist. 6ased on the nor!ati e institutionalis!, Jlogic o+ appropriateness; is the best $ay to describe the beha ior o+ indi iduals $ithin an organization1 as nor!ati e standards, !oral te!plates, and cogniti e scripts are the !a,or social repositories o+ alues shaping the actions o+ those acting $ithin the! 9Hall and Taylor 1==I1 Peters 2000:. 8ational choice institutionalis! ie$s institutions as arrange!ents o+ rules, induce!ents and incenti es, $hich in+luence !e!bers o+ institutions to beha e appropriately in response to basic co!ponents o+ institutional

@ 4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

structure to !a-i!ize their utilities. Ho$e er, so!e pre+erences o+ the indi iduals in responding to rules, induce!ents and incenti es re!ain unchanged 9Hall and Taylor 1==I1 Peters 20001 Dhepsle 200@:. The third approach to institutionalis! is historical, $hich relies on the concept o+ Jpath dependency;. The idea behind this concept is that the inception o+ an institution $ill ha e continued e++ects o er its beha ior +or the re!ainder o+ its e-istence, $hich e-plains sustainability and persistence o+ strategies, structure and actions. '!pirical institutionalis! ans$ers the /uestions regarding organizational di++erences in strategy and policy choices and institutional stability according to their +or!al and in+or!al structures 9Hall and Taylor 1==I1 Peters 20001 Pierson and D%ocpol 2002:. 7inally, constructi ist institutionalis! is the ne$est approach to institutional analysis $hich describes the role o+ ideas and discourses in organizational politics. This pro ides a !ore dyna!ic approach to institutional change than the pre ious !entioned approaches 9Dch!idt 200>:. Institutional Iso#orphic Pressures *nstitutional iso!orphis! is a process in $hich organizations try to e-cel in their

practice o+ social rules, ideals, and practices by aligning the!sel es $ith the en iron!ental conditions. These institutional pressures push organizations to adopt shared notions and routines. Thus, the interpretation o+ intention to adopt technology and the pre ailing conte-t o+ the organization is a++ected by its perception o+ these pressures. Coerci e 9constraining:, nor!ati e 9learning:, and !i!etic 9cloning: are three iso!orphic !echanis!s $hich in+luence organizations in gaining operational e++iciency, si!ilarity $ith peers, and success 9<i0aggio and Po$ell 1=>#1 Po$el and <i0aggio 1==11 ?reen$ood 200>:. 8egulati e, cultural(cogniti e, and nor!ati e are three institutional ie$s representing theses iso!orphic pressures $hich are not !utually e-clusi e and !ay be interdependent. 7or e-a!ple, organizational actors !ay interpret, negotiate and socially construct the !eaning o+ rules and regulations on the basis o+ nor!ati e and cultural(cogniti e considerations 9'del!an et al. 1===:, $hich are also use+ul in e-plaining the di++usion o+ technology inno ation 9Dcott 20011 Currie 2011:. 7igure 1 de!onstrates these three institutional iso!orphic !echanis!s and the concepts related to each o+ the!.

$ig %& Institutional Iso#orphis# 'echanis#s( Pressures )Developed or This *esearch+

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices I

The coerci e iso!orphis! occurs by organizational desire to con+or! to la$s, rules, and sanctions established by institutional actors or sources. This si!ilarity results in gaining legiti!acy and e-ternal alidation that i!pro es the organizationCs access to resources 96,orc% 200B:. Kegati e sanctioning is the central co!ponent o+ coerci e institutional process, as it includes rules, regulations, and la$s that are used to constrain organizational actions. The coerci e pressure e-erted on organizations by other organizations upon $hich they are dependent 9<i0aggio and Po$ell 1=>#1 Dcott 2001:. Constituents such as suppliers and custo!ers !ainly hold resources organizations need, e.g., ne$ business contracts or +unding 9?re$al and <har$ad%ar 2002:. As a result, a po$er+ul organization can e-ert pressure on these partners by raising re/uire!ents such as con+or!ing to a security standard as a condition +or custo!er re/uire!ents 9Fsidisin et al. 200@:. The dependent organizations $ill call attention to the asy!!etry o+ po$er $hen they percei e coerci e pressure and, thus, better understand the conse/uences o+ adopting or not adopting the technology. *n general, the dependent partner tends to co!ply $ith the po$er+ul +ir!;s de!and and be inclined to adopt and routinize technology usage into daily operation process in order to !aintain relationships $ith po$er+ul partners, to !a%e transaction process !ore e++icient, to secure their !ar%et status and to continue accessing to scarce resources pro ided by the po$er+ul +ir! 9<i0aggio and Po$ell 1=>#1 Dcott 20011 4ei and Dia 2011:. The nor!ati e !echanis! !ostly concerns the !oral and prag!atic aspect o+ legiti!acy by assessing $hether the organization plays its role correctly and in a desirable $ay. *t can re+er to the positi e pursuit o+ alued ends, as $ell as negati e de iations +ro! goals and standards 9Dcott 2001:. The progressi e use o+ *T in an organization could be ie$ed as the result o+ nor!ati e in+luences, such as, AT0 ser ice is a standard ser ice o++ering by retail ban%s, and ban%s

$ho are not o++ering this ser ice are !ore in the ris% o+ da!aging their legiti!acy in the ie$ o+ their industry and other institutions. Kor!ati e pressures e ol e through +ir!( supplier and +ir!(custo!er inter( organizational channels as $ell as other trading partners, and pro+essional and industry institutions 9Po$ell and <i0aggio 1==11 "iang et al. 200E:. 7or instance, the +re/uency o+ technology usage a!ong an organization;s suppliers and custo!ers !ay $a%e up decision !a%ers; a$areness o+ the technology and ignite organization;s inclination to adopt it. 7urther!ore, co!pliance $ith nor!s $ith respect to en iron!ental concerns can lead to pro+itability, e.g., reducing organizational cost by con+or!ing to an en iron!ental nor! such as reduction in $astage o+ e++orts, ti!e, and resources 9<i0aggio and Po$ell 1=>#1 <el!estri 200E1 Dcott 20011 4ei and Dia 2011:. The !i!etic iso!orphis! is a cause o+ organizational tendency to re!ain si!ilar to its peers in order to get a positi e e aluation +ro! the organizational en iron!ent. This !echanis! results in reducing uncertainty, i!pro ing predictability, and bench!ar%ing organizations $ho are per+or!ing at or near opti!u! le el 9Dcott 20011 Teo et al. 200#:. Arganizations $ho are structurally e/ui alent and ha ing si!ilar econo!ic net$or% position, si!ilar goals, produce, and co!!odities are !ore li%ely to i!itate each other. 0oreo er, organizations !i!ic because they anticipate si!ilar bene+its. There+ore, $hen an organization starts adopting and i!ple!enting a technology, other co!petitors +ro! the sa!e industry beco!es a$are o+ it and considers adopting it 9Dcott 20011 Katsu!ata 2011:. Ho$e er, conceptually, it is not clear $hether +ir!s !i!ic other organizations to gain legiti!acy rather than technological or econo!ic ad antage 9Dta$ and 'pstein 2000:. Konco!pliance $ith each o+ these !echanis!s co!es $ith a ris% o+ costly penalties, or in the $orst case $ith the death o+ organization 96aptista 200=:.

E 4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

Institutional !hange Traditionally, research ha e been !ainly +ocused on the institutional e++ects o+ technologies by using three !echanis!s o+ institutional iso!orphis! and little attention has been gi en to study ho$ technologies could be a part o+ the process o+ deinstitutionalisation and reinstitutionalisation. <einstitutionalisation has only recently begun to attract attention as it is increasingly recognized to be e/ually central to institutional process 9?reen$ood et al. 20021 Clegg and 6ailey 200>:. .hen institutional iso!orphic pressures increase, the institutionalisation process e!erges. An the other hand, $hen they decrease, deinstitutionalisation process starts. <einstitutionalisation is, there+ore, a result o+ institutional change, erosion o+ e-isting institutions and creation o+ ne$ ones 9Deal 200#:. <einstitutionalisation also +acilitates unlearning in the organization to learn ne$ +acts, realities, and concepts. Through the deinstitutionalisation, institutions $ea%en and disappear because o+ ne$ belie+s and practices 9Dcott 2001:. The process o+ institutional change is usually e olutionary and path dependent $hich is shaped by e-isting institutions 9Diti(Kabiha and Dcapens 200@:. ?reen$ood et al. 92002: introduce a !odel +or institutional change $hich is described here. <ise/uilibriu! is the +irst stage o+ this !odel $hich occurs $hen e ents or ,olts destabilize established practices. These e ents could be in the +or! o+ social and technological disruptions, co!petiti e discontinuities, or regulatory changes. These changes result in deinstitutionalisation o+ +or!s and practices, disturbance o+ socially constructed nor!s, introducing ne$ ideas, e!ergence o+ ne$ players, do!ination o+ e-isting actors, and institutional entrepreneurship 9Dtage 2:. *n the third stage, i.e., preinstitutionalisation, organizations start to inno ate independently, and loo% +or technically better and iable solutions to percei ed proble!s. The ne-t stage LtheorizationL

in ol es both the speci+ication o+ the +ailings o+ e-isting nor!s and practices +or $hich a local inno ation is a solution or treat!ent, and the ,usti+ication o+ ne$ nor!s, practices, and technical inno ations in ter!s o+ !oral or prag!atic considerations. These concepts ha e been neglected conceptually and e!pirically in the e-tent literature. *+ ne$ ideas $ere !ore appropriate than e-isting ones, they $ould di++use throughout an organization or a!ong organizations in a gi en +ield1 thus, ne$ nor!s and practices ta%e on a greater degree o+ legiti!acy and, in turn, beco!e institutionalised. This is a ,ourney +ro! theoretical +or!ulation to social !o e!ent and institutional i!perati e $hich gi e technological inno ations !oral and prag!atic legiti!acy. .hen inno ations Lob,ecti+yL or gain social consensus concerning their prag!atic alue, they di++use into organization, and arious organizational actors can obser e the institution and its interactions, and thus the ne$ round o+ socialization starts. The ne-t stage, i.e., +ull reinstitutionalisation occurs as the result o+ cogniti e legiti!acy. This is $hen ideas are ta%en(+or(granted as a natural and appropriate arrange!ent and are accepted as the de+initi e $ay o+ organizational beha iour. A+ter technology beco!es sedi!ented and ta%en( +or(granted by actors in a social syste!, they !ay e en not recognize that their beha iour is partly controlled by the institution 96,orc% 200B1 Dcott 200>1 6aptista 200=:. Ali er 91==2: introduces three !ain sources o+ pressures that can lead to the erosion o+ legiti!acy or the ta%en +or grantedness $hich characterize institutions. These !a,or antecedents are +unctional, political, and social pressures Gtable 1H. Percei ed proble!s in per+or!ance le els, or changes in the percei ed utility associated $ith institutionalised practices are the !ain dri ers o+ +unctional pressure that in+luence deinstitutionalisation and institutional change. These +unctional pressures !ay be tied to intraorganizational and en iron!ental changes, e.g., technical aspects o+ acti ity or intensi+ied co!petition

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices >

+or resources 9"ounsbury 20021 <acin et al. 2002:. *+ the percei ed per+or!ance le el o+ institution is not acceptable by actors constituting it, erosion o+ e-isting institution $ill happen o er ti!e. Political pressures +or deinstitutionalisation arise +ro! shi+ts in the pattern o+ interests and underlying distributions o+ po$er that ha e supported and legiti!ated e-isting institutional arrange!ents. These shi+ts !ay happen as a result o+ per+or!ance crises, re( aluation o+ the instru!ental alue o+ the institution, en iron!ental changes, or shi+ts in the distribution o+ po$er that co!pel organizations to /uestion the legiti!acy o+ a gi en practice. 7or e-a!ple, ?reen$ood et al. 92002: study institutional change $ithin the accounting pro+ession in Canada, and the $ay pro+essional associations respond to !ar%et +orces and technological shi+ts +or a ne$ range o+ ser ices altered in the political conte-t o+ accounting +ir!s, and ho$ they legiti!ated the change. These +orces result in rede+ining and e-tending the scope o+ +inancial ser ices beyond traditional accounting ser ices and by incorporating !anage!ent consulting, +inancial ad isory and legal ser ices. *n this case, pro+essional associations legiti!ated the change o er a 20(year period by re+erencing the pre ailing alues and practices o+ the pro+ession, particularly around ser ice to clients. *n this study, deinstitutionalisation addressed as a process o+ discourse through $hich change is

debated and endorsed 9?oetz and Peters 1===1 6urns and Dcapens 20001 <a!brin et al. 200E:. 7inally, social pressures are !ainly associated $ith increased di++erentiation a!ong !e!bers o+ a group 9such as increasing $or%+orce di ersity:, structural changes to organizations that reduce the coherence o+ belie+s and practices, and changes in social e-pectations or la$s that !ight pre ent the continuation o+ a practice 9<acin et al. 20021 Clegg and 6ailey 200>:. These social pressures results in the erosion o+ the ta%en +or granted assu!ptions and shared agree!ents upon $hich institutions depend, thereby resulting in deinstitutionalisation. *n su!!ary, these +unctional, political, and social pressures $ill not auto!atically lead to a brea%do$n in institutional nor!s. They should be interpreted, gi en !eaning, and responded to by actors $ithin organizations 9Dcott 20011 <acin et al. 2002:. *n addition, in the research done by Diti(Kabiha and Dcapens 9200@:, it $as sho$n that deinstitutionalisation is not ,ust an organizational response to e-ternal 9institutional: pressures and de!ands1 rather it can occur through the $or%ing out o+ resistance to e!brace change. The e olutionary process o+ change constitutes both stability and change si!ultaneously that states they are not necessarily contradictory or opposing +orces 96urns and Dcapens 20001 Diti(Kabiha and Dcapens 200@:.

Table %: Three 'ain ,ources o Institutional !hange )Oliver )%--.++ Pressure 7unctional 'ain drivers Percei ed proble!s in per+or!ance le els, changes in the percei ed utility associated $ith institutionalised practices, and *ntensi+ied co!petition +or resources Dhi+ts in the pattern o+ interests and underlying distributions o+ po$er. per+or!ance crises, re( aluation o+ the instru!ental alue o+ the institution, en iron!ental changes *ncreased di++erentiation a!ong !e!bers o+ a group 9such as increasing $or%+orce di ersity:, structural changes to organizations, changes in social e-pectations or la$s $hich are organized around di++erent principle and rules 9Currie 2011:. 7ull reinstitutionalisation occurs as the result o+

Political

Docial

8einstitutionalisation re+ers to departing +ro! one institutionalisation and arri ing into another institutional +or! and practices

= 4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

cogniti e legiti!acy. This ta%en +or granted as appropriate arrange!ent as the de+initi e $ay beha iour.

is $hen ideas are a natural and and are accepted o+ organizational

!onclusions and $uture Directions Technology institutionalisation is an e olutionary and nonlinear process and its success depends on a nu!ber o+ conte-tual, technical, en iron!ental, social, cultural, and other institutional +actors and their !utual interactions. These interactions contribute to organizational !aturity, legiti!acy, and success and de+ine technology i!ple!entation, institutionalisation, deinstitutionalisation and reinstitutionalisation in the organization. 7urther!ore, although organization itsel+ is an institution, it consists o+ a ariety o+ sub institutions. The !utual interactions o+ these institutional pressures not only de+ine technology i!ple!entation3 assi!ilation, but also ha e bearing on institutionalisation o+ technology through the process o+ institutional iso!orphis!. The ai! o+ this paper is, thus, to re ie$ literature on ho$ technology institutionalisation occurs in organizations, and !ore precisely ho$ institutional logics are di++used $ithin organizations through three iso!orphic processes i.e., coerci e, !i!etic and nor!ati e. 0oreo er, ho$ these technologies are changed by the process o+ institutional change, deinstitutionalisation, and reinstitutionalisation. This paper concludes considering the e++ects o+ institutional pressures pro ide ne$ insights into ho$ the beha iors o+ indi iduals $ithin an organization are in+luenced by organizational nor!s, alues, regulations, and culture. An the contrary, ho$ they !ay result in deinstitutionalisation and reinstitutionalisation o+ organizational +or!s and practices. Do!e research the!es or di!ensions that $ould be interesting to in estigate are including technology institutionalisation challenges, +actors in+luencing and are

in+luenced by the institutional en iron!ent1 conditions on $hich stable structures beco!e destabilized and call +or change1 the conse/uences o+ deinstitutionalisation process +or !aintaining ne$ institutional arrange!ents1 relationships bet$een organizational characteristics, e-ternal pressures and institutional process1 reasons o+ resistance to change. These the!es are i!portant to e-plore because they pro ide +oundation +or understanding ho$ technologies in general and in+or!ation technologies in particular beco!e e!bedded in the organization. *e erences Abrutyn, D. 5 Turner, 4. 92011:. LThe Ald *nstitutionalis! 0eets the Ke$ *nstitutionalis!,L +ociological Perspectives$ @B9#:, 2>#(#0I. 6aptista, 4. 9200=:. L*nstitutionalisation as a Process o+ *nterplay bet$een Technology and *ts Arganizational Conte-t o+ Mse,L Journal of Information ,echnolog-$ 2B9B:, #0@(#1=. 6erger, P. ". 5 "uc%!ann, T. 91=IE:. The Docial Construction o+ 8eality& A Treatise in the Dociology o+ Kno$ledge, .on/on: ,he Penguin Press$ P. 2B=. 6,orc%, 7. 9200B:. C*nstitutional Theory& A Ke$ Perspecti e +or 8esearch into *D3*T Decurity in Arganizations, H*CDD, P. E01>Ib,C Proceedings o+ the #Eth Annual Ha$aii *nternational Con+erence on Dyste! Dciences 9H*CDDC0B: ( Trac% E. 6urns, 4. 5 Dcapens, 8. .. 92000:. LConceptualising 0anage!ent Accounting Change& An *nstitutionalist 7ra!e$or%,L 0anagement %ccounting 1esearch$ 1191:, #( 2@. Clegg, D. 8. 91==0:. 0odern Arganizations& Arganization Dtudies in the Post(0odern .orld, .on/on: +age Publications. Clegg, D. 8. 5 6ailey, 4. 8. 9200>:. *nternational 'ncyclopedia o+ Arganization Dtudies. ,housan/ )a2s: +age Publications.

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices 10

Currie, .. ". 92011:. *nstitutional Theory o+ *n+or!ation Technology. ,he )3for/ 4an/boo2 of 0anagement Information +-stems: 5ritical Perspectives an/ 6ew &irections: 1#E(1E#. <acin, 0. T., ?oodstein, 4., Dcott, .. 8. 92002:. L*nstitutional Theory and *nstitutional Change& *ntroduction to the Dpecial 8esearch 7oru!,L ,he %ca/em- of 0anagement Journal$ B@91:, B#(@I. <a!brin, C., "a!bert, C. 5 Dpone!b, D. 9200E:. LControl and Change( Analysing the Process o+ *nstitutionalisation,L 0anagement %ccounting 1esearch$ 1>92:, 1E2(20>. <a is, 7. <., 6agozzi, 8. P. 5 .arsha$, P. 8. 91=>=:. LMser Acceptance o+ Co!puter Technology& A Co!parison o+ T$o Theoretical 0odels,L 0anagement +cience$ #@9>:, =>2(100#. <el!estri, ?. 9200E:. C*nstitutional Theory. *nternational 'ncyclopedia o+ Arganization Dtudies,C ,housan/ )a2s$ 5%: +age. <i!aggio, P. 4. 5 Po$ell, .. .. 91=>#:. LThe *ron Cage 8e isited& *nstitutional *so!orphis! and Collecti e 8ationality in Arganizational 7ields,L %merican +ociological 1eview$ B> 92:, 1BE(1I0. 'del!an, ". 6., Mggen, C. 5 'rlanger, H. D. 91===:. LThe 'ndogeneity o+ "egal 8egulation& ?rie ance Procedures as 8ational 0yth,L %merican Journal of +ociolog-$ 10@92:, B0I(B@B. 'lle, 0., <arn!ann, D., "entsch, 4. 5 Hansen, K. 92010:. L"earning +ro! the Docial Construction o+ 'n iron!ental *ndicators& 7ro! the 8etrospecti e to the Pro(Acti e Mse o+ DCAT in Technology <e elop!ent,L Buil/ing an/ 7nvironment$ B@91:, 1#@(1B2. ?ar+in%el, H. 91=IE:. Dtudies in 'thno!ethodology, 'ngle$ood Cli++s, 6J: Prentice84all$ P. N i, 2>> P. ?oetz, K, H. 5 Peters, 6. ?. 91===:. C*nstitutional Theory and Political '-ecuti es&

Creating '-ecuti e Arganizations 'ast and .est,C Paper Presented at Con+erence on *nstitutional Theory, 8oss Priory, <unb., Dcotland, Actober 1>(1=. ?oodhue, <. ". 5 Tho!pson, 8. ". 91==@:. LTas%(Technology 7it and *ndi idual Per+or!ance,L 0I+ 9uarterl-$ 1=92:, 21#(2#I. ?reen$ood, 8. 9200>:. CThe DA?' Handboo% o+ Arganizational *nstitutionalis!,C .os %ngeles: +age. ?reen$ood, 8., Duddaby, 8. 5 Hinings C. 8. 92002:. LTheorizing Change& The 8ole o+ Pro+essional Associations in the Trans+or!ation o+ *nstitutionalised 7ields,L %ca/em- of 0anagement Journal$ B@91:, @>( >0. ?re$al, 8. 5 <har$ad%ar, 8. 92002:. LThe 8ole o+ *nstitutional 'n iron!ent in 0ar%eting Channels,L Journal of 0ar2eting$ II9#:, >2O=E. Hall, P. A. 5 Taylor, 8. C. 8. 91==I:. LPolitical Dcience and the Three *nstitutionalis!s,L Political +tu/ies$ BB, =#I(=@E. Hasselbladh, H. 5 Kallini%os, 4. 92000:. LThe Pro,ect o+ 8ationalization& A Criti/ue and 8eappraisal o+ Keo(*nstitutionalis! in Arganization Dtudies,L )rgani:ation +tu/ies$ 219B:, I=E(E20. 4ei, .. 5 Dia, C. ". 92011:. The Process o+ 87*< Assi!ilation by Dupply Chain Participants in China& A Technology <i++usion Perspecti e on 87*< Technology. *n Proceedings o+ the 1Eth A!ericas Con+erence on *n+or!ation Dyste!s, <etroit, 0ichigan. Katsu!ata, H. 92011:. L0i!etic Adoption and Kor! <i++usion& J.estern; Decurity Cooperation in Doutheast AsiaP,L 1eview of International +tu/ies$ #E92:, @@E(@EI. "a!b, 8. 5 Kling, 8. 9200#:. L8econceptualizing Msers as Docial Actors in *n+or!ation Dyste!s 8esearch,L 0I+ 9uarterl-$ 2E92:, 1=E(2#I.

11 4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices

"atour, 6. 9200@:. 8easse!bling the Docial& An *ntroduction to Actor(Ket$or%(Theory. )3for/$ ;<: )3for/ ;niversit- Press. "a$, 4. 9200B:. A+ter 0ethod& 0ess in Docial Dcience 8esearch. 6ew =or2: 1outle/ge. "iang, H., Dara+, K., Hu, Q. 5 Nue, R. 9200E:. LAssi!ilation o+ 'nterprise Dyste!s& The '++ect o+ *nstitutional Pressures and the 0ediating 8ole o+ Top 0anage!ent,L 0I+ 9uarterl-$ #191:, @=(>E. "ounsbury, 0. 92002:. L*nstitutional Trans+or!ation and Dtatus 0obility& The Pro+essionalization o+ the 7ield o+ 7inance,L %ca/em- )f 0anagement Journal$ B@, 2@@( 2II. 0ac<ougall, 8. 92011:. LThe Technological *!perati e in Canada& An *ntellectual History 98e ie$:,L .abour "4alifa3#$ 0E00(#>I2, IE& 2#2(2#B. 0ac%enzie, <. 5 .a,c!an, 4. 9'ds.: 92001:. The Docial Dhaping o+ Technology 92nd 'd.: Buc2ingham: )pen ;niversit- Press. 0eyer, 4. .. 5 8o$an, 6. 91=EE:. L*nstitutionalised Arganisations& 7or!al Dtructure as 0yth and Cere!ony,L %merican Journal of +ociolog-$ >#, #B0O#I#. 0unir, K. A. 5 Phillips, K. 92002:. LThe Concept o+ *ndustry and the Case o+ 8adical Technological Change,L ,he Journal of 4igh ,echnolog- 0anagement 1esearch$ 1#92:, 2E=(2=E. AC<onoghue, 4., Dingh, ?. 5 <or$ard, ". 92001:. LSirtual 'ducation in Mni ersities& A Technological *!perati e,L British Journal of 7/ucational ,echnolog-$ #29@:, @11(@2#. Ali er, C. 91==2:. LThe Antecedents o+ <einstitutionalisation,L )rgani:ation +tu/ies$ 1#9B:, @I#(@>>. Arli%o$s%i, .. 4. 91==2:. LThe <uality o+ Technology& 8ethin%ing the Concept o+ Technology in Arganizations,L )rgani:ation +cience$ #9#:, #=>(B2E.

Arli%o$s%i, .. 4. 92000:. LMsing Technology and Constituting Dtructures& A Practice "ens +or Dtudying Technology in Arganizations,L )rgani:ation +cience$ 119B:, B0B(B2>. Arli%o$s%i, .. 4. 9200E:. LDocio!aterial Practices& '-ploring Technology at .or%,L )rgani:ation +tu/ies$ 2>9=:, 1B#@(1BB>. Peters, 6. ?. 92000:. C*nstitutional Theory& Proble!s and Prospects,C Political Dcience Deries I=, Institute for %/vance/ +tu/ies$ Vienna. Pierson, P. 5 D%ocpol, T. 92002:. LHistorical *nstitutionalis! in Conte!porary Political Dcience,L In Political +cience: ,he +tate of the &iscipline$ 'ds. *. Katznelson and H. S. 0ilner. Ke$ Ror%& Korton, Pp. BB@O>>. Po$ell, .. .. 5 <i!aggio, P. 4. 9'ds.:. 91==1:. The Ke$ *nstitutionalis! in Arganizational Analysis. 5hicago: ;niversit- of 5hicago Press. 8ogers, '. 0. 9200#:. <i++usion o+ *nno ations, @th 'd. >ree Press$ 6ew =or2. Dcheirer, 0. A. 9200@:. L*s Dustainability PossibleP A 8e ie$ and Co!!entary on '!pirical Dtudies o+ Progra! Dustainability,L %merican Journal of 7valuation$ 2I9#:, #20( #BE. Dch!idt, S. A. 9200>:. L<iscursi e *nstitutionalis!& The '-planatory Po$er o+ <iscourse,L %nnual 1eview of Political +cience$ 11, #0#O#2I. Dchutz, A. 91=I2:. CCollected Papers& The Proble! o+ Docial 8eality,C *n 0. Katanson 9'd.: the Hague& 0artinus Ki,ho++ "ondon, P. Nl ii, #I1p. Dcott, .. 8. 92001:. *nstitutions and Arganizations 92nd 'd.:. Thousand Aa%s, 5%: +age. Deal, .. 9200#:. L0odernity, 0odernization and the <einstitutionalisation o+ *ncre!ental 6udgeting in "ocal ?o ern!ent,L >inancial %ccountabilit- an/ 0anagement$ 1=92:, =#( 11I.

4ournal o+ *nno ation 5 6usiness 6est Practices 12

Dhepsle, K. A. 9200I:. 8ational Choice *nstitutionalis!. *n& 8hodes. 8. A. .. et Al. 9'ds.:. Political *nstitutions. )3for/: )3for/ ;niversit- Press. 2#O#>. Diti(Kabiha, A. K. 5 Dcapens, 8. .. 9200@:. LDtability and Change& An *nstitutionalist Dtudy o+ 0anage!ent Accounting Change,L %ccounting %u/iting an/ %ccountabilitJournal$ 1>91:, BB(E#. Dta$, 6. 0. 5 6and$agons 0anage!ent Per+or!ance, %/ministrative @@I. 'pstein, ". <. 92000:. L.hat 6ringT'++ects o+ Popular Techni/ues on Corporate 8eputation and C'A Pay,L +cience 9uarterl-$ B@9#:, @2#(

Fuc%er, ". ?. 91=EE:. LThe 8ole o+ *nstitutionalisation in Cultural Persistence,L %merican +ociological 1eview$ B29@:, E2I( EB#. Fuc%er, ". ?. 91=>I:. LProduction o+ Trust& *nstitutional Dources o+ 'cono!ic Dtructure, 1>B0O1=20,L 1esearch in )rganisational Behaviour$ >91:, @#O111. Fuc%er, ". ?. 91=>E:. L*nstitutional Theories o+ Arganization,L %nnual 1eview of +ociolog-$ 1#91:, BB#OBIB.

Duch!an, ". A. 9200E:. Hu!anO0achine 8econ+igurations& Plans and Dituated Actions. Decond 'dition, 5ambri/ge: 5ambri/ge ;niversit- Press. Teo, H. H., .ei, K. K. 5 6enbasat, *. 9200#:. LPredicting *ntention to Adopt *nterorganizational "in%ages& An *nstitutional Perspecti e,L 0I+ 9uarterl-$ 2E, 1=OB=, 200#. Tornatz%y, ". ?. 5 7leischer, 0. 91==0:. The Processes o+ Technological *nno ation. .e3ington Boo2s$ .e3ington$ 0assachusetts. .eera%%ody, S., <$i edi, R. K. 5 *rani, F. 9200=:. LThe <i++usion and Mse o+ *nstitutional Theory& A Cross(<isciplinary "ongitudinal "iterature Dur ey,L Journal of Information ,echnolog-$ 2B9B:, #@B(#I>. .i-o!, 6. H. 5 Todd, P. A. 9200@:. LA Theoretical *ntegration o+ Mser Datis+action and Technology Acceptance,L Information +-stems 1esearch$ 1I91:, >@(102. Fsidisin, ?. A., 0elny%, D. A. 5 8agatz. ?. ". 9200@:. LAn *nstitutional Theory Perspecti e o+ 6usiness Continuity Planning +or Purchasing and Dupply 0anage!ent,L International Journal of Pro/uction 1esearch$ B# 91I:, #B01O#B20.