Swanson InnovatingMindfullyInformation 2004

Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology
Author(s): E. Burton Swanson and Neil C. Ramiller

Source: MIS Quarterly , Dec., 2004, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 553-583
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of
Minnesota
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148655
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly
This content downloaded from

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Swanson & Ramiller/lnnovating Mindfully with IT
^L tflC^%Ji % ^%_r*" E.^T Research Article
Innovating Mindfully with

Information Technology1
By: E. Burton Swanson grounded in its own organizational facts and spe
The Anderson School cifics. We contrast this with mindless innovation,
University of California, Los Angeles where a firm's actions betray an absence of such
110 Westwood Plaza attention and grounding. We develop these con
Los Angeles, CA 90095 cepts by drawing on the recent appearance of the
U.S.A. idea of mindfulness in the organizational literature,
burt.swanson@anderson.ucla.edu and adapting it for application to IT innovation. We
then bring mindfulness and mindlessness together
Neil C. Ramiller in a larger theoretical synthesis in which these
School of Business Administration apparent opposites are seen to interact in ways
Portland State University that help to shape the overall landscape of
P. O. Box 751 opportunity for organizational innovation with IT.
Portland, OR 97207-0751 We conclude by suggesting several promising new
U.S.A. research directions.
neilr@sba.pdx.edu
Keywords: Information technology innovation,

Abstract organizing vision, organizational mindfulness,
bandwagon phenomena, organizational
Although organizational innovation with information mindlessness
technology is often carefully considered, band
wagon phenomena indicate that much innovative
behavior may nevertheless be of the "me too"
variety. In this essay, we explore such differences Introduction
in innovative behavior. Adopting a perspective
that is both institutional and cognitive, we introduce Whether, when, and how to innovate with infor
the notion of mindful innovation with IT. A mindful
mation technology?this complex and crucial
firm attends to an IT innovation with reasoning question confronts managers in virtually all of
today's enterprises. Yet, it is by no means clear
that managers always engage the question in a
deliberative way. Reminiscing about his experi
1Jane Webster was the accepting senior editor for this ence as a Gartner Group analyst for enterprise
paper. resource planning (ERP) systems in the 1990s,
MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4 pp. 553-583/December 2004 553

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Erik Keller recalls the explosive growth in this misunderstandings, uncertain, complex, and
market: recondite" (Weick 1990, p. 2). But organizational
difficulties also intrude, and the firm trying to make
By the mid-1990s, ERP was a topic that sense of an IT innovation may confront ambig
was being bandied about in boardrooms. uous, portentous, and disruptive issues of organi
It wasn't just an information technology zational transformation and strategic repositioning.
(IT) project, but a strategic business In this light, to witness an organization jumping on
imperative....The ERP genie was out of the bandwagon in the pursuit of some widely
the bottle?every company needed to touted "best practice" should perhaps be regarded
have an ERP implementation....When I as commonplace. Indeed, it may be more
asked (one client) why he was embarking remarkable to observe an organization being fully
on an ERP program, he looked at me in "mindful" in its engagement with an IT innovation.
a puzzled way and said, "No one ever
asked me that before." After 45 minutes In fact, where IT innovation is concerned, we
of further discussion, he could still not believe it is apposite to wonder at both mindful and
come up with a reason. (Keller 1999, pp. mindless organizational behavior. We do so in this
45-46) essay. Our overall aim is to explore both mind
fulness and mindlessness and, in so doing, break
Such stories are familiar in information technology new ground for research in the domain of IT
practice. Bandwagon phenomena (Abrahamson innovation. (For recent reviews, see Fichman
1991; Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999 Abraham 2000; Gallivan 2001; Swanson 1994.) In parti
son and Rosenkopf 1997) suggest that more than cular, we undertake to theorize more richly than
a little innovative behavior may be of the "me too" has heretofore been done about the constitution of
variety, where adopting organizations entertain organizational rationality and sensemaking, where
scant reasoning for their moves. Especially where IT innovation is concerned. To accomplish this,
the innovation achieves a high public profile, as our approach takes an institutional view that is, in
with ERP, deliberative behavior can be swamped itself, relatively novel to IT research (Orlikowski
by an acute urgency to join the stampeding herd, and Barley 2001). The concept of mindfulness
notwithstanding the high costs and apparent risk also enables us to offer a fresh perspective on IT
involved. How should we account for such innovation adoption, a phenomenon that in the
seemingly "mindless" behavior (Fiol and O'Connor past has often implicitly been framed as a good
2003)? What are its antecedents and effects? thing to do and the earlier the better. (For a
What implications might it have for the develop broader discussion of pro-innovation bias in
ment and prospects of the IT innovations them innovation research, see Chapter 3 in Rogers
selves? Indeed, what implications might it hold for 1995.) Finally, we strive to connect IT innovation
the shaping of our own academic community's to larger issues of organizational capabilities and
research agenda (Swanson 2000)? competence that are central to research in organi
zation and strategy (Cohen and Levinthal 1990;
On the other hand, perhaps we should regard such Dosi et al. 2001; Hamel and Prahalad 1990; Kogut
mindlessness as unsurprising. Consider IT inno and Zander 1992; Nelson and Winter 1982; Teece
vation as a practical matter. It can be a daunting 1998; Teece etal. 1997).
challenge to make sense of a major IT innovation
in a way that fully considers its potential fit to the We proceed as follows. We first review the
particular circumstances of a real organization. mindfulness concept as it has been developed by
Some of the challenge may reside in the inno Karl Weick and his colleagues. To set the stage
vation itself; after all, given their frequently novel for extending mindfulness into the arena of IT
technological foundations, IT innovations are often innovation, we next introduce an institutional view
subject to "several possible or plausible inter that embraces both the IT innovation and the firm's
pretations and therefore can be esoteric, subject to innovation-engagement process. We then adapt
554 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
mindfulness to the IT-innovation context, after For Weick and his colleagues, mindfulness is an
which we draw instructive contrasts to the condi organizational property grounded in, although not
tions and effects of mindlessness. We then outline reducible to, the minds of participating individuals
a preliminary theoretical synthesis, bringing mind through a process of heedful interrelating (Weick
fulness and mindlessness together as dynamically and Roberts 1993). Heedful interrelating arises as
interdependent complements, and we offer a individuals interpret and act upon a model of the
related set of propositions to help frame future organizational situation in such a way that they
work around this pair of concepts. We close with produce (and reproduce) that model in objective
a wider discussion of the possibilities for research fact, fashioning their individual actions in
in this domain. accordance with the presuppositions that consti
tute their complementary (if not entirely shared)
mental representations of the situation.
Although they take HROs as their point of

Conceptual Foundations departure, Weick and his colleagues argue for
extending the mindfulness concept to other kinds
Mindfulness in Organizations
of organizations:
Mindfulness, at its roots, is a psychological notion

longer term environmental conditions
that reflects upon the cognitive qualities of the
such as increased competition, higher
individual (Langer 1989b; Langer and Moldoveanu
2000). The key qualities of a mindful state of
customer expectations, and reduced
cycle time create unforgiving conditions
being are said to involve:
with high performance standards and
little tolerance for errors. These condi
(a) openness to novelty; (b) alertness to
tions are likely to continue, as environ
distinction; (c) sensitivity to different
ments become more competitive, uncer
contexts; (d) implicit, if not explicit,
tain, turbulent, and complex (Weick et al
awareness of multiple perspectives; and
1999, p. 104).
(e) orientation in the present (Sternberg
2000, p. 12; see also Langer 1989a, p.
62). In general, then, for any organization seeking
reliability or, to speak more broadly, viability,
mindfulness concerns the adaptive management
Recently, the idea of mindfulness has been
of expectations in the context of the unexpected.
extended from individuals to organizations, and
It entails
more specifically to high reliability organizations
(HROs) ( Weick and Sutcliffe 2001; Weick et al.
1999). HROs, such as naval aircraft carriers, the ongoing scrutiny of existing expecta
tions, continuous refinement and differen
nuclear power-generation stations, and air traffic
control units, "operate in an unforgiving social and tiation of expectations based on newer
political environment, an environment rich with the experiences, willingness and capability to
potential for error, where the scale of conse invent new expectations that make sense
quences precludes learning through experimen of unprecedented events, a more
tation, and where to avoid failures in the face of nuanced appreciation of context and
shifting sources of vulnerability, complex pro ways to deal with it, and identification of
cesses are used to manage complex technology" new dimensions of context that improve
(Weick et al. 1999, p. 83). Organizational mind foresight and current functioning (Weick
fulness is necessary if an HRO is to avoid situa and Sutcliffe 2001, p. 42).
tions in which minor errors compound one another
to precipitate catastrophic failure. High reliability, As a concerted venture into the unexpected,
for these firms, means achieving a high resistance innovation, we believe, constitutes a critical area
to intolerable failure. for organizational mindfulness. Innovative initia
MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 555

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
tives are frequently a core part of a substantively of a new IT and the eventual onset of important
mindful response to emerging opportunities and uses for it. Our view of innovation is also adopter
changing conditions (Van de Ven 1993). At the oriented. Even laggards can meaningfully be said
same time, efforts at innovation may themselves to be innovators (Rogers 1995).
be more or less mindful. Accordingly, mindfulness
plays a dual role in innovation, enhancing the While innovating with IT is at one level an
recognition of organizational circumstances organizational process (Fichman 2000; Gallivan
demanding an innovative response, while also 2001), it also takes place in a wider institutional
fostering effectiveness in executing the response field (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). While the firm
itself. Mindfulness, however, is not simplistically is necessarily the site where the material instan
promotive of innovation. It may entail wariness in tiation of an IT innovation occurs, the innovation
some circumstances, and where needed it may as-concept simultaneously enjoys an existence at
foster a resistance to jumping on innovation large, beyond the boundaries of any particular
bandwagons (Fiol and O'Connor 2003, p. 66). enterprise. We call the innovation in this form an
organizing vision, which we define as a focal
Accordingly, innovating mindfully may actually community idea for applying IT in organizations
mean that the firm forestalls or foreswears a new (Swanson and Ramiller 1997).
initiative, as facts and conditions relevant to the
local organizational context dictate. An organizing vision is a construction in discourse
(Foucault 1972; Porter 1992; Ramiller 2001c) that
What is true for mindfulness in organizational emerges from a heterogeneous collective con
innovation overall also holds more specifically for sisting of such parties as technology vendors, con
IT innovation. Mindfulness as the nuanced appre sultants, industry pundits, prospective adopters,
ciation of context and ways to deal with it lies at business and trade journalists, and academics.
the heart, we believe, of what it means to manage The organizing vision is always a work-in-progress,
the unexpected in innovating with IT. But taken by evolving to incorporate the experiences, insights,
itself, this rather general observation begs the and beliefs of these diverse interests. It defines
question of what the context really comprises the innovation it speaks to in broad strokes. In
where IT innovation is concerned. Attempting to doing so, it provides a focus for the innovation's
answer that question sets one down the path interpretation, aids in legitimizing it, and helps to
toward a conceptualization of mindfulness that is mobilize associated material and commercial pro
specific to IT and its management. We begin that cesses (Swanson and Ramiller 1997). It influ
undertaking, next, with an examination of the ences the sensemaking and decision making of
institutional and processual nature of the IT prospective adopters. And eventually it advances
innovation phenomenon. the material innovation toward institutionalization
and a taken-for-granted status (Scott 2000; Zucker
1987) or, alternatively, toward a collapse in
credibility and eventual abandonment.
The IT Innovation Phenomenon
An organizing vision is commonly recognizable by
We will start by defining IT innovation, in process one or a few "buzzwords" that serve as a topical
terms, as the pursuit of IT applications new to an label for the wider community discourse. Knowl
organization. Our view is therefore oriented edge management, customer relationship man
around how IT comes to be applied in novel ways. ageent (CRM), and Web services provide recent
(Swanson [1994] provides a typology.) The examples. The proliferation of such buzzwords
potential for new applications is commonly created and the rapidity with which they come to promi
by the emergence of enabling technologies that nence and then fade away are themselves hall
are new in their own right. Nevertheless, there marks of the general milieu of IT innovation. This
may be significant lags between the first availability ebb and flow in discourse reflects the fact that

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
every organizing vision has in effect a career, firm's innovation journey begins with compre
marked by rising and falling visibility, prominence, hension. Through the sensemaking efforts of its
and influence over time (Ramiller and Swanson members, the firm engages the organizing vision
2003). This discursive career parallels the mate in substantive terms and ponders the signals about
rial diffusion of the innovation itself (Wang 2002). its importance embedded in the broader com
munity's reaction to it (Swanson and Ramiller
If an organization's mindfulness toward an IT 1997). As it learns more about the innovation, the
innovation is a matter of careful attention to local firm develops an attitude or stance toward it
specifics, the larger community's organizing vision (Rogers 1995, Chapter 5) and positions itself, in a
is nevertheless the point of embarkation for the basic way, as a prospective adopter or non
organization's sensemaking journey. How its adopter.
members engage that vision will weigh heavily in
the organization's determination of whether, when, If adoption is entertained, a deeper consideration
and how it will innovate, and what measure of of the IT innovation follows in which the firm
success it will enjoy (Ramiller 2001c). typically develops a supportive rationale, or
business case (see, for example, Orlikowski 1993).
The organization's engagement with the com Organizational know-why becomes central to the
munity discourse extends over time and evolves deliberations among the participants (Swanson
along with the organization's practical involvement 2003). The organizing vision typically provides
with the material innovation. This brings us, then, some general principles to draw on, but know-why
to the processual character of IT innovation. In demands attention to issues specific to the firm.
Figure 1, we depict a firm's involvement with an IT Both the business value of the innovation and the
innovation as a mosaic of several interrelated challenge presented by the prospective change
processes and intentionalities. We note that while are likely to be weighed before the organization
there is an inherently sequential order to the decides whether to proceed and commit its
activation of these processes and intentionalities, resources.
once activated each process or intentionality is
likely to remain more or less active over the course The implementation process that follows then calls
of the firm's innovation. Hence Figure 1 is not, for a myriad of considerations, choices, and
strictly speaking, a stage model of innovation (see actions that will shape the transition. Timing may
Wolfe 1994). be a crucial issue, relative both to the organi
zation's own preparedness and to the readiness of
We introduce the concept of intentionalities in the enabling technology and the maturity of
order to emphasize the goal-oriented and complementary services in the larger community.
purposeful character of IT innovation. Among the Know-when is accordingly a focus of the organi
intentionalities, engagement and achievement are zation's attention. Know-how also comes to the
positionaT because they focus primarily on a state fore as the firm navigates the details of what may
the organization strives to achieve. Commitment be, and commonly is, a perilous venture (Swanson
is transitional because it revolves around the 1988). Some of this know-how may need to be
change process itself. acquired in the marketplace, and here the larger
community discourse may provide guideposts,
We identify four processes: comprehension, although what is acquired will need tailoring to the
adoption, implementation, and assimilation.2 The
several terms more narrowly than elsewhere in the

20ur four processes combine elements of Rogers' (1995) innovation literature, where the terms adoption,
familiar innovation-decision process model (p. 161) and implementation, and assimilation have sometimes been
his model of the organization's innovation process (p. stretched to cover the innovation process in its entirety.
392). We draw sharper distinctions between compre For other innovation process frameworks in an IT context
hension and adoption, and implementation and see Cooper and Zmud (1990), Fichman (2000), Gallivan
assimilation, than does Rogers. We caution that we use (2001), Kwon and Zmud (1987), Larsen (1998).

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Comprehension
/Positional
(Engagement)
Adoption
. .. Transitional
InnOVatlOn /rW,mitrr?_nt\
(Commitment)
\ Implementation
Re-positional
(Achievement)
Assimilation
Figure 1. Organizational Innovation: Its Processes and Intentionalities

(Innovation comprises four component processes: comprehension, adoption,
implementation, and assimilation. Each is associated strongly [solid line] or weakly
[dotted line] with underlying positional and transactional intentionalities.)
firm-specific context. Bringing the innovation to innovation may come to be infused and routinized
productive life for its users is the immediate aim, (Cooper and Zmud 1990), woven into the fabric of
with the wider goal being to advantageously the organization's work systems, even as the latter
reposition the firm in its larger environment. undergo their own adaptive change. The orga
nizing vision that inspired and motivated the
Assimilation commences as the IT innovation innovation may then be largely forgotten. Alter
begins to be absorbed into the worklife of the firm natively, the innovation may be visited by
and to demonstrate its usefulness. In time, the persistent and disruptive problems that eventually

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
discredit it in the perceptions of management and vision discourse provide some generic guidance in
users, sometimes leading to its curtailment or applying the technology?which may, indeed,
eventual rejection. In such an event, the larger improve and become more useful over time?
community discourse may now provide contrary organizational particulars are missing. So alert
rationales, particularly where the organization's ness to the unexpected falls of necessity to the
own encounter with the innovation mirrors the firm itself, and depends on paying close attention
problematic experiences of others. to the IT innovation's fit to local circumstances.
Where innovations are involved,
In summary, organizational process and purpose
fulness interact with discursive and material mindful decision making involves dis
resources in the larger institutional environment to criminating choices that best fit a firm's
shape the pattern of a firm's engagement with an unique circumstances, rather than
IT innovation. While the journey begins with the familiar and known behaviors based on
firm's consideration of what others in the field are what others are doing (Fiol and O'Connor
being said to accomplish with the innovation, it 2003, p. 59).
ends with its consideration of what it has itself
achieved.3 Accordingly, an organization is mindful in
innovating with IT when it attends to an innovation
Purposefulness implies that cognition counts in our with reasoning grounded in its own organizational
understanding of IT innovation (Daft and Weick facts and specifics. Attention to organizational
1984; Meindl et al. 1994; Weick 1995). Never specifics is crucial in supporting sound judgments
theless, simply pointing to the purposefulness of about whether adopting a particular innovation is
innovation does not imply that organizational a good thing to do, when committing to the
mindfulness necessarily obtains. Accordingly, we innovation is likely best to take place, and how
next consider more closely what mindfulness implementation and assimilation can best be
entails when an organization undertakes to pursued. This is so because context matters in
innovate with IT.
rendering such judgments.
In short, although the term mindful might at first

glance suggest merely a cognitive alertness, for
Innovating Mindfully with true mindfulness such alertness must be joined to
contextually differentiated reasoning. By this we
Information Technology HHI mean that the organization's engagement with the
Mindfulness, again, concerns the adaptive IT innovation must entail a learning process rich
with interpretation of the innovation's implications
management of expectations in the context of the
unexpected. In innovating with IT, there is often for the organization's own situation. The situa
much that is unexpected. While the nostrums and tional specifics, in fact, can be quite complex,
prognostications that appear in the organizing including, among other issues, the innovation's
ramifications for operational efficiencies and
strategic advantage; the organization's pre
paredness for the change involved; the quality and
3ln outlining the four processes, we mean to offer a
useful, albeit general, scheme for thinking about IT availability of complementary resources needed;
innovation in process terms. We acknowledge that the implications for various common and conflicting
reality is commonly more complicated. Thus, for interests, both internally and in interfirm relation
example, an organization can often experiment with an
innovation before committing to it (Rogers 1995, p. ships; and the effects of adoption on the firm's
171)?in a sense, implementing it before adopting it. legitimacy with outside constituencies.
Similarly, a firm may do a pilot rollout in one unit before
deciding whether to install it elsewhere. In practice, the
four processes will often be engaged in overlapping and How, then, can an organization accomplish a high
complex ways. level of such contextually differentiated reasoning?

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Weick and his colleagues identify five attributes of for the organization to eschew stock or formulaic
mindfulness that can provide a point of departure interpretations of IT innovations. This entails
for addressing this question (Weick and Sutcliffe resistance to the simplified image of the innovation
2001; Weick et al. 1999), including a preoccupa that is encoded in the organizing vision. That
tion with failure, a reluctance to simplify interpre image, commonly imbued with an exaggerated
tations, a sensitivity to operations, a commitment sense of discontinuity, tempts the firm to forgo
to resilience, and a reliance on expertise over thoughtful comparisons to current practices; often,
formal authority. In the next section, we elaborate the image is also associated with the aura of best
and adapt these attributes for use in the context of practice, which can undermine critical and con
IT. We then suggest ways in which IT-innovation tingent thinking (Ramiller 2001 b). The exercise of
mindfulness, characterized in this manner, may mindfulness, by contrast, entails entertaining
come into play during a firm's evolving engage complex and even conflicting interpretations. On
ment with an IT innovation. the one hand, it demands an alert attention to
organizational variability that may render certain
generalities about an innovation of little account
locally. On the other, it entails vigilance against
Attributes of Mindfulness the proverbial not-invented-here syndrome, a
in IT Innovation response to innovations of external origin, which
occurs like an antibody to preserve routine and
The mindful organization, first, does not celebrate "protect" the firm from new ideas.
its successes. Instead, it is obsessed with the
possibility of failure and interprets close calls as The mindful organization attends vigilantly to small
cautionary lessons. It regards quiescent periods and seemingly insignificant details in day-to-day
marked by smooth operation as potentially operations. This reflects the fact that catastrophes
dangerous?an indication, perhaps, that important commonly originate in the interactions of minor
signals of trouble are being overlooked. With errors and random events. In the context of
regard to IT innovation, such a preoccupation with HROs, such a sensitivity to operations is valued
failure can aid in identifying opportunities for because organizational reliability depends on
realizing value from an IT innovation. Sustaining sensemaking and responsiveness under extreme
and extending the firm's competence thus sets the time pressure. By contrast, innovating with IT
context for mindfulness about the innovation itself. may call for entertaining a pronounced degree of
This larger mindfulness may entail being alert for unreliability in current operations. Indeed, IT
the success that breeds failure, those paradoxical innovation commonly involves thinking beyond and
competency traps in which pronounced success eventually dismantling one operational process,
during a certain period in the organization's history however reliable, and replacing it with another,
fosters an inability to adapt to changing conditions. often because of crucial miscues that appear
More narrowly, the process of IT innovation is itself outside moments of everyday operation but that,
prone to failure, and reflective attention to the nevertheless, can still produce dire consequences
possibilities for failure in this domain also enlarges (albeit over a longer timeframe). Still, innovating
mindfulness. with IT concerns reliability in the broader sense of
assuring the firm's viability in a changing
The mindful organization resists the temptation to environment. Sensitivity to operations accordingly
settle into simplified and reproducible heuristics in still applies to the IT context. Often, improvement
its interpretation of events. Instead, recognizing in problematic operations is itself the goal of the
that complex responses are needed in complex innovation, providing the focal know-why for IT
environments (Weick 1995), it actively entertains innovation. Also, the innovation project itself
novel, diverse, and conflicting perspectives. Such constitutes a kind of operation that interdigitates
a reluctance to simplify interpretations applies to IT with the business operations of the firm. It is the
innovation in a number of ways. Mindfulness calls occasion for the firm not merely to implement the

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
innovation, but also to discover how it can best be tionship to its larger environment. This implies that
made to fit (Orlikowski 1996). How successful the the requisite expertise is heterogeneous and
firm is in this undertaking will depend upon its dispersed, and that authority for action must flow
sensitivity to the particulars that come to define the readily to different places over the course of the
mutual adjustment and interaction between the innovation project. It means, more specifically,
innovation and the firm's work systems (Alter that expertise is often found with senior manage
1999, 2002). In practice, it seems that this lesson ment and other business-side participants (Ross
has to be continually relearned. Thus, many ERP and Weill 2002). Also, because the expertise
implementations have encountered problems with needed is to a substantial degree constructed
business process change, as opposed to software collectively through the very process of innovation,
change, through insensitivity to the complexities of organizational mindfulness depends in part on the
their operations (see, for example, Markus and on-going learning that organizational members can
Tannis 1999). help to foster in one another.
The mindful organization is resilient, favoring

improvisation over planning, adaptation over
routine, and effectiveness over efficiency. Mindfulness Across the
Resilience entails the recognition that anticipation IT Innovation Process
is necessarily incomplete: It is impossible to
identify and develop contingency plans for every Mindfulness, as characterized in the preceding
possibility. In the context of IT innovation, com manner, is concerned not only with moving the
mitment to resilience is likely to assume increasing organization from the abstractions of the
weight as time passes and unfolding reality organizing vision to the specifics of locally adapted
departs ever more widely from the firm's initial innovation; it also has to do with rising to a
expectations. This implies a practical and realistic succession of emergent challenges during the
view, one that acknowledges that trade-offs course of innovation.
between schedule, budget, and delivered func
tionality may need creative adjustment. More In first engaging the organizing vision for an IT
broadly, this implies a dedication to opportunistic innovation (see comprehension in Figure 1), the
learning from the inevitable surprises and mistakes mindful enterprise will not take generalized claims
that attend such undertakings, not only when new about the innovation's benefits and applicability at
systems are first rolled out to their users, but face value but will instead critically examine their
beyond. local validity. Organizational members will ask,
"Would this be true for us? How so?" Boundary
Mindfulness depends on a readiness to relax spanning activities (Adams 1976; Aldrich and
formal structure so that authority for action can Herker 1977) are key at this juncture, as the firm
flow in times of crisis to the individuals and units exploits its community ties in an effort to gather
having the requisite expertise to deal with the available information and diverse interpretations.
problem at hand. Such deference to expertise is In the process, it is likely to extend those
central to mindfulness in IT innovation. But in relationships in ways that serve the sensemaking
bringing this attribute into the IT context, care must task. The mindful enterprise will also act to create
be taken not to conceptualize expertise too situations for rich and context-specific learning
narrowly. Mindfulness in this domain is, again, (Lave and Wenger 1991), expanding its compre
about attending to the innovation with reasoning hension through such activities as demonstrations,
grounded in the firm's own facts and specifics? site visits, R&D alliances, and experimental
and these facts and specifics reach well beyond prototyping.
the technology and "system," narrowly conceived.
Indeed, they also concern the firm's objectives, The mindful firm will cast a critical eye on model
structure, and processes, and the firm's rela rationales for adopting the IT innovation that are

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
being promulgated in the wider community's early on to support implementation. Hence, the
discourse. Mindfulness here will be found in the mindful firm is characterized more by early
care with which the available rationales are comprehension and contingent engagement than
considered and examined for fit to the firm's own it is, necessarily, by early commitment. It aims
circumstances. The mindful firm will respond with above all to be a discerning and prudent adopter.4
complex interpretations that rely on the efforts of
internal experts, working in the relevant technical The mindful firm will chart an implementation
and business domains, who are able to relate the strategy with deliberateness, giving particular
larger vision to substantive problems in the firm's attention to the processes with which it will
existing operations. manage its own on-going expectations. With its
focus on organizational-specific learning, it will be
In considering adoption (again, see Figure 1), the skeptical of simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions,
mindful firm will fashion its own rationale, for or and it will look to reinvent the innovation as
against. A rationale in favor of adopting will be necessary. Even so, the mindful firm will attend
context-specific, rich in its consideration of local closely to the experiences of the innovation's
organizational facts, and focused on the earlier adopters, seeking to capitalize on the
innovation's potential contribution to the firm's community's growing knowledge about the
distinctive competence (Selznick 1957). It is innovation. Of course, the mindful firm that adopts
important to recognize, however, that the mindful relatively late will enjoy access to richer community
firm's rationale may actually point against resources and will seek to take advantage of its
adoption, or it may favor deferred adoption. A late entry by coming up the learning curve faster
significant benefit of mindfulness is that it helps to than did earlier adopters (Swanson 2003).
open up the option to reject innovations. A
preoccupation with failure schools the mindful firm The five attributes of mindfulness assume promi
in caution, as it resists the powerful cultural norm nence in implementation. Mindfulness begins with
that suggests that innovation is perse a good thing an appreciation of the significant potential for
(Rogers 1995), and as it works to counter the failure along the way. Eschewing simplistic inter
industry hyperbole that often dresses up an IT pretations, then, the mindful firm will be attentive to
innovation with claims about revolutionary problems of all kinds, treating them not merely as
advances and best practices (Ramiller 2001a). obstacles to be overcome but also as potential
The mindful firm, then, approaches the threshold symptoms of prior misconceptions. Operational
of commitment through complex interpretations, sensitivity will draw attention to small oversights or
the marshaling of heterogeneous expertise, and areas of neglect that might otherwise lead, through
close attention to the problems of current opera complex and poorly understood causal chains, to
tions. Furthermore, commitment to resilience now larger failures. Meanwhile, with the expansion in
comes into play, helping to keep the firm from participation that accompanies implementation,
premature commitment. care will be taken in marshaling, and giving
Even if the mindful firm decides in favor of an

innovation, it will not necessarily settle on being an This claim, we note, represents a departure from
early adopter. Being an early adopter, indeed, is classical innovation adoption theory (Rogers 1995). We
are proposing that the mindful firm is likely to be early,
not always a good idea. An innovation may or may and even pioneering, in its sensemaking, but it may well
not be an irresistible concept destined to sweep not be an early adopter. This suggests that the
innovation researchers' traditional search for the
the broader industry, and early adopters can find
predictors of early adoption is not entirely to the point.
themselves stranded with odd technologies and We are likely to find the mindless as well as the mindful
practices lacking network support (Shapiro and among both early and later adopters. The preoccupation
Varian 1999). The organization itself may or may in innovation research with early adoption therefore fails
to effectively distinguish and explain mindful choices,
not be ready for the innovation, particularly in light
whenever they may be made over the course of the
of the relative lack of wider resources available innovation's diffusion.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
authority to, the requisite experts. On the other Mindlessness ^ M_____HH1

hand, external consultants, who often lack under
standing of the local context, will be used We have presented mindfulness in innovating with
judiciously. Resilience will characterize the effort, IT as a kind of ideal type, in the Weberian sense of
overall. While planning is to be taken seriously, an elaborated abstract category for use in making
mindful implementation demands a readiness to empirical comparisons to real cases (Weber 1949).
make needed adjustments. At the extreme, the But the reader may be tempted to infer that we are
mindful organization must be prepared to eschew also offering mindfulness as a normative ideal.
escalation (Keil et al. 2000) and identify and Indeed, why should an organization be anything
accept implementation failure, if necessary, to but fully mindful in its engagement with IT
serve its overall interests. innovations? Of course, real organizational con
duct, as we noted at the outset, commonly departs
In assimilating the IT innovation, the mindful from this apparent ideal. In this section, we
enterprise will shun rapid acceptance and closure, entertain some reasons why this should be so.
and will instead remain open to surprises,
continued learning, and the potential for adapta We begin by characterizing mindlessness, also, as
tions that address unanticipated problems or an ideal type. We then consider what in the basic
realize unforeseen potential. Apparently smooth nature of organizations appears to make mindless
assimilation may mask the overlooked opportunity ness not only possible but even commonplace. In
or the unexpected threat. Accordingly, the mindful addition to considering origins, we also examine
firm will attend closely to what early users' the matter from the point of view of purposeful
utilization reveals about the innovation's incorpora action, by looking at the rewards and risks of
tion into work-system routines and its integration mindlessness. This will help set the stage for
into user knowledge-sets (Cooper and Zmud considering the interrelationship between mindful
1990). It will also reflect on what this means for ness and mindlessness, a task which we take up
the organizational benefits that might yet be subsequently.
achieved.5
Failure remains possible even at this stage but,

absent wholesale user rejection, catastrophic Characterizing Mindlessness
failure is less a concern than the possibility that the in IT Innovation
innovation will fail to deliver on its potential value.
Mindfulness in this phase is crucially served by a In contradistinction to mindfulness, an organization
commitment to resilience: Recognizing that the is mindless in innovating with IT when its actions
innovation, as a locally constructed material fact, betray a lack of attention to organizational speci
is still less than fully constituted helps to foster the fics. This lack of attention manifests itself in a
learning-by-doing (Rosenberg 1982) that real use variety of ways across the phases of the innova
promotes. Deference to expertise also matters tion process.
now: Here the focus of expertise shifts in great
part to the innovation's users, whose sensitivity to The mindless firm pays little attention to identifying
their own operations and interpretive sophistication and exploring new IT innovations. It attaches little
are essential to further organizational progress or no importance to the early comprehension of
with the innovation. organizing visions. Content to be a follower rather
than a leader, it may believe that IT is not critical to
its distinctive competence. Rather than actively
5For instance, is a lack of mindfulness during seeking intelligence about IT innovations, it will
assimilation a factor in the situation reported for many wait for innovations to come to it?thrust upon it,
firms that have failed to take advantage of the advanced
say, by a consultant selling a solution for a putative
functionality available with ERP (Davenport 2000;
Markus and Tannis 1999)? performance gap, or by a CEO who happens to

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
encounter a fashionable idea (Ramiller 2001a). of themselves. Where conflict obtains, manage
Confident that others will call the important ment will trust that a negotiated truce among
innovations to its attention when needed, the affected parties can eventually be achieved
mindless enterprise conserves its cognitive (Nelson and Winter 1982, Chapter 5).
resources, perhaps for other good ends.
This characterization of mindless conduct across
If and when a bandwagon develops around an IT the IT innovation process suggests, not unsur
innovation, the mindless firm may join it, caught up prisingly, that mindlessness may be deeply
in the momentum generated by prior adopters, and problematic. It may become particularly so as the
impressed by "success stories" that appear to firm's engagement with the innovation progresses.
validate the innovation as a good, maybe even an Why, then, should we witness mindlessness at all?
irresistible, idea (Strang and Macy 2001). To
justify adoption, then, the mindless firm may be
content with the rationale that "everyone is doing
it" or the justification that "it's time to catch up." It The Origins of Mindlessness
thereby places its faith in what the broader
community appears to know?in the common Conditions endemic to organizational life tend to
competence, so to speak?rather than pursuing by set the stage for mindlessness in organizations'
means of innovation its own distinctive compe encounters with IT innovations. We suggest three
tence. While, as we have already observed, the such conditions here, which can operate sepa
mindful innovator also draws upon the common rately or in combination: attention deferral, con
competence, the mindless innovator seeks simply textual insensitivity, and institutional preemption.
to attach itself to this learning, its engagement
superficial and uncritical. Many things compete for the attention of
organizational members (March and Simon 1993).
Mindless adoption can presage equally mindless As cognitive effort isn't limitless or free, some
implementation. When mindless firms adopt an issues, events, and opportunities are heeded while
ERP package, for example, they, like many of the others inevitably are not. One consequence, when
mindful companies before them, may turn to the it comes to innovating with IT, can be attention
dominant vendor within their industry. They may deferral. In particular, an organization can some
then join some of these other firms in imple times sacrifice early comprehension without
menting a "plain vanilla" version. Indeed, the immediate ill effects. When other matters press
mindless firm may see no need to consider upon management's attention, there may be little
anything else, since its decision to adopt was not time for engagement with the new and especially
guided by attention to organizational specifics. with that which may be "not quite here yet."
Deferral of attention can also extend into adoption,
Since mindlessness entails an inattention to the a common occurrence where the decision is
firm's own circumstances, assimilation is likely to rushed under a sense of urgency induced by
be regarded as unproblematic, a simple matter of bandwagon pressures.
rolling out the innovation to its end-users, who will
in effect be left to fend for themselves. Initial Mindlessness can also be traced to contextual
confusion, frustration, or resistance may be insensitivity on the part of the firm and its
dismissed as anomalous or attributed to short management. This insensitivity may come about
comings in the users themselves. Purposeful because the organization and its members take
adaptation of the innovation based on users' much of their circumstances for granted. The firm
experience will not be entertained; rather, users "knows itself to a substantial degree tacitly (Brown
will be left to devise work-arounds as needed. and Duguid 2000), and while genuine skill and
Above all, management will stubbornly seek to deep knowledge is encoded in this manner, it can
stay the course, letting certain problems take care also constitute a dark pool of unreflective,

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
unexamined assumptions that drifts into conflict imposed by the larger community's organizing
with the firm's shifting circumstances. Knowledge vision. All these influences tend to be preemptive,
is also locked into organizational routines (Nelson reinforcing the taken-for-granted in innovating with
and Winter 1982), which may enhance the IT (Covaleski and Dirsmith 1988), and potentially
reproducibility and efficiency of work under normal undermining mindfulness.
conditions, but can also narrow attention in a way
that reduces acuity for changing circumstances. Institutional effects of these kinds are, we believe,
rather common and clearly important in IT
Contextual insensitivity can also follow from certain innovation. Organizing visions, being prescriptions
strategic choices, often in the guise of innovation for new IT that attract a variety of powerful
itself. We may witness this, for example, where a interests, become focal points for institution
firm's performance lags and its leadership calls for building activity (DiMaggio 1991; Galaskiewicz
radical change, and perhaps brings new manage 1991). IT innovations, accordingly, tend to acquire
ment in to shake things up. Here the attraction of the institutional quality of being "infused with value
innovating with IT may be precisely because it can beyond the technical requirements of the task at
help to overthrow the established order. For hand" (Selznick 1957, p. 17).
example, some managers have reportedly adopted
ERP as a means to force reengineering of the Together, the three conditions we have identified
firm's business processes, valuing the software can interact to produce a potently mindless
first of all for its potential to foster creative response in a firm's engagement with an IT
destruction (Champy 1997). In such circum innovation, especially in the context of fads and
stances, managers may be all but invited to be bandwagons. In providing sweeping legitimacy to
insensitive to the current operational context. an IT innovation, however transiently so, a band
Where destruction is the first order of business, wagon can in effect legitimize the exercise of
mindlessness is sometimes entertained, while mindlessness. Attention deferral and contextual
mindfulness is left to the rebuilding. insensitivity may appear to be unproblematic in the
face of the overwhelming "proof afforded by the
Finally, mindlessness in innovating with IT may be larger community's rush toward the innovation.
rooted in what we will call institutional preemption. Mindlessness can therefore be rendered socially
In their IT structures and practices, as in many and politically acceptable, to some degree, in
other respects, firms often come to look more alike innovating with IT. We note too that because IT
than might be expected given differences in their innovation is widely understood to be both good
individual circumstances. Such isomorphism and problematic, a certain amount of failure can be
(DiMaggio and Powell 1983) reflects the operation tolerated (and even celebrated in the guise of
of institutional forces, of which three types have learning), providing ready excuses for the
been described: coercive, based in political power misfortunes of mindlessness. In innovating with
and/or regulatory authority; normative, stemming IT, mindlessness and its consequences can in part
primarily from professionalism; and mimetic, be masked.
derived from standard responses to uncertainty,
which commonly have the effect of cognitively
foreclosing the consideration of alternatives (Scott
2000). Thus, firms are sometimes compelled by Mindlessness as Strategic Choice:
more powerful parties to proceed with an innova Rewards and Risks
tion (see, e.g., Hart and Saunders 1997). In other
circumstances they may be carried along toward To be mindless is certainly not a good thing, on the
innovation by influential norms. And finally, there face of it. Still, we will suggest that there are
are occasions where it is simply difficult for an circumstances in which mindlessness may prove
organization to think outside the box?that is, even to be adaptive, and therefore may constitute a
to imagine a possibility outside the framing reasonable, if not fully reasoned, course of action.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
In fact, we will argue that organizations often alludes to the common competence; it hardly
choose to be IT-mindless, at least in some captures it. Still, it provides a kind of focal
respects. They may do so relative to certain narrative structure for organizing the activities and
innovations. Or they may do so during particular discourse of those working on the innovation, such
periods of their engagement with a given as consultants, vendor representatives, and
innovation. Because mindfulness represents a peripatetic IT professionals. This heterogeneous
costly and demanding sensemaking regime, a firm collective gradually assembles a certain trans
may, as a matter of strategic choice, decide to organizational know-how, which enables trans
forego or delay it. To do so does not necessarily mission and replication of the common compe
imply that the organization's members are tence among firms. As experience mounts, a
indulging in a wider disregard for the organization's degree of contingent thinking can feed back into
own welfare. the organizing vision and help the community
move beyond one-size-fits-all thinking, where the
Broadly, mindlessness in innovating with IT can specific IT innovation is concerned. Accordingly,
reasonably be entertained whenever and wherever bandwagons in innovating with IT can in part be
its likely rewards outweigh its risks. Consider the reflective of real, appropriable, learning.
practice of attention deferral in early compre
hension of IT innovations. Firms that consider Mindless adoption of a prominent IT-enabled best
themselves followers, rather than leaders, may practice may also be justified by the enhanced
reasonably choose to embrace this practice, as legitimacy a firm can enjoy with wider consti
already suggested. Consider too the phenomenon tuencies (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), such as
of apparently mindless adoption under bandwagon trading partners, the financial markets, and
pressures. In fact, relatively mindless adoption regulatory agencies. Such enhanced legitimacy
may suffice where homogeneity in outcomes may yield benefits apart from those that
across firms is basically acceptable. This can mindfulness would identify (Staw and Epstein
happen with reception of a new industry standard, 2000), an eminently practical consideration given
or when the firm sees no need to differentiate itself the importance of the firm's public image in
in its response from the larger community of garnering access to external resources. Also, the
adopters. Also, even a mindless adopter may be mindless adopter can position itself to benefit from
able to improve upon its situation, where it can the network effects that are characteristic of much
employ the innovation as a means to jettison IT innovation (Au and Kauffman 2001; Katz and
particularly bad legacy systems (Davenport 2000). Shapiro 1986; Kauffman et al. 2000; Rohlfs 1974;
More generally, the mindless adopter can become Shapiro and Varian 1999).6
through imitation a participant in a kind of trans
organizational learning taking place in the wider In short, mindless adoption can position an
community. There is, after all, usually something organization to enjoy benefits from an IT
to the best practices being touted, even if these innovation, however fortuitous these may appear
lack contextual specificity. to be. Even so, the hazards of inattention may be
significant here. The integrity of the adoption
Considering again the common competence, we decision can be undermined by a neglect of firm
note that much learning associated with new IT in particulars pertinent to both strategic fit and organi
fact takes place within the broader community,
rather than within the individual firm itself
(Swanson and Ramiller 1997). The organizing
vision constitutes a kind of umbrella for the se do not mean to suggest that organizational
legitimacy and network effects cannot be the subject of
common competence, providing a developing mindful attention. Because the magnitude of these
innovation story that incorporates, and yet benefits is likely to depend to some degree on the firm's
circumstances, mindfulness toward them is likely to
generalizes across, the experiences of a range of
produce outcomes superior to those that mindless
adopters. Of course, the vision itself merely conduct can achieve.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
zational capability. Not every innovation is good especially plainly in regard to the users' encounter
for everyone, common competence and best prac with the IT innovation. Under such conditions,
tices notwithstanding. Accordingly, the mindless assimilation is likely to be painful, and may pro
pursuit of a best practice may be just as likely to duce negative human-resource effects such as
produce real and sustained performance losses as excessive turnover and knowledge loss. Inatten
it is accidental improvement (Nash 2000; O'Neill et tion and insensitivity will fail to correct mismatches
al. 1998). Legitimacy effects and network benefits in the fit of IT to the task. Moreover, the implicit
may be transitory, leaving the mindless adopter discounting of user experience may lead the
stranded?and even conspicuously de-legiti organization to overlook opportunities for the
mized?when the tide of the larger community's mutual adaptation of technology and work sys
enthusiasm for the innovation washes out. tems. Thus, mindlessness in assimilation can
mean a crucial loss of learning opportunity and a
Even where adoption does prove to be appropriate diminishing of the larger organization's
in principle, mindlessness raises another set of adaptability.
issues when the organization engages in
processes of implementation and assimilation. In summary, the me-too stance of the mindless
Here, as material investments come heavily into innovator may secure certain rewards, subject to
play, the practical consequences of mindlessness associated risks. Even if mindfulness generally
begin to be most keenly and gravely felt. represents better practice, mindlessness has its
place in IT innovation. Nevertheless, we would
On the positive side, the mindless follower can let argue that mindlessness is in general entertained
the leaders bear the costs of working with insuffi with the lowest risk during the firm's early engage
ciently tested technology and unproven imple ment with the innovation, and that risk tends to rise
mentation methods. It can subsequently benefit from comprehension, through adoption, implemen
from well-tested, off-the-shelf methods that are tation, and assimilation, as the firm's depth and
relatively easy to execute. The difficulty is that not complexity of engagement with the IT innovation
all stock implementation approaches are equally increases. Accordingly, the firm that begins as
suitable in all situations, a point the mindless relatively mindless in its engagement will tend to
adopter is likely to miss. Relative to network find increasingly compelling reasons for mindful
effects, even as complementary technologies and ness as it advances. As a prelude to the following
services grow around the IT innovation, the discussion, then, in which we bring mindfulness
mindless implementer will be at risk of making bad and mindlessness together, we offer the following
picks from among them. It may face stiff compe proposition:
tition for the community's knowledge resources,
particularly during an accelerated and crowded (P1) The organization that innovates with IT will
growth period, when these resources are likely to be most prone to mindlessness in its early
be stretched thin (Swanson 2003). Having engagement with the innovation. It will be
developed little knowledge of its own, the mindless less prone to mindlessness the longer it has
innovator faces substantial implementation risks, been engaged with the innovation.
not the least of which may arise through the use of
under-skilled consultants and contractors who
spring up to fill the larger void.
Toward a Synthesis -I
In assimilation, the new IT must be absorbed by
the firm's work systems (Alter 2002). Here, local Considering mindfulness and mindlessness in IT
organizational facts may raise a particularly innovation raises certain compelling questions.
obvious challenge to the mindless firm's on-going For example, why do we tend to witness mindful
course of action. Nevertheless, as we have noted, ness or mindlessness in varying degrees, at dif
mindlessness can persist. It can manifest itself ferent times, across populations of organizations?

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Does mindfulness simply displace mindlessness efforts to make sense of the innovation. Cumula
(or vice versa), or is it meaningful to talk about an tively, then, innovating with IT involves more
interaction between the two? Addressing ques imitation than invention. The majority of firms
tions like these calls for theory that accomplishes inevitably follow the lead of a few innovators and
a synthesis of mindfulness and mindlessness as early adopters (Rogers 1995). As we have sug
complementary expressions of a common under gested, they may do so more mindfully or less
lying phenomenon. This synthesis, we believe, mindfully, with a deeper or shallower consideration
has to be based on threading back and forth of their own organizational particulars. Their
between the organizational level, in which mindful experience in turn becomes grist for the sense
ness is realized and practiced, and the wider making mill of later adopters. Over time, then, the
institutional environment\Nh\ch invariably affects all larger environment comes to be infused with the
adopters, the relatively more mindful and the manifest actions of the mindful and mindless alike,
relatively less mindful. While we do not seek to as their claims, counter-claims, critiques, heroic
depart from Weick's regard for mindfulness as an stories, tragedies, and ironic tales make their way
organizational property, we do intend to call into the community discourse.
attention to the interdependence of organizational
mindfulness and the larger community discourse Accordingly, while we can speak of mindfulness
surrounding the innovation, where the latter serves and mindlessness displacing one another by
as the crucial site for the development, capture, degrees within a given firm, at the level of the
and sharing of knowledge among firms. larger community the relatively mindful and the
relatively mindless substantively interact. On that
Revisiting the five attributes of mindfulness larger stage, mindfulness and mindlessness
(Figure 2), we note that preoccupation with failure, complement one another to define a kind of
sensitivity to operations, and commitment to dynamic landscape of knowledge and belief. At
resilience are by their nature organizational any point that landscape, in turn, strongly affects
accomplishments. On the other hand, richness of what prospective adopters perceive as the
interpretation and the development and deploy universe of possibilities for innovating with IT.
ment of expertise can be said to apply to both the
organization's sensemaking and the interorgani What can we say, then, about this interaction
zational discourse. Moreover, the firm and the between the mindful and the mindless? Most
larger interorganizational field do a kind of trade in centrally, mindfulness often must confront mindl
interpretations and expertise. The firm draws on essness. In taking other adopters' actions as
the knowledge resources of the larger community possible models for emulation and adaptation, the
(Attewell 1992), as it navigates the innovation mindful organization is on uncertain ground in
process. Reciprocally, those resources are built evaluating the mindfulness that lay behind those
up over time, in great part through the contri models. Some firms' choices and actions are
butions of innovating firms. Interpretation and surely mindful on balance, but others will not be,
expertise, then, define a zone of mutual and telling the difference can be difficult. For one
permeability between the firm's own mindfulness thing, interpreting the validity of other firms'
and knowledge construction in the wider com interpretations challenges the mindful firm to
munity discourse. distinguish real learning "in which management
discourse properly specifies the connection
Within this context defined by the interplay of the between actions...and outcomes" (Abrahamson
organizational and the institutional, mindfulness and Fairchild 1999, p. 714) from superstitious
and mindlessness travel together, complementary learning in which "the subjective experience of
aspects of innovation diffusion. A given firm learning is compelling, but the connection between
engages an IT innovation in an environment actions and outcome is misspecified" (Levitt and
shaped by its prior adoption by other firms, as well March 1988, p. 325). Bandwagon conditions may
as by the public manifestations of other firms' make such a determination especially problematic,

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
\ preoccupation with failure /

?r \ sensitivity to operations /
^^ \commitment to resilience/
the organization \ /
discourse in the S\. /\

interorganizational / \ / \
field ^*. I \ I \ /reluctance to smripltfy interpretations
/ reliance Wexpertise \
(other organizations)
Figure 2. The Interpenetration of Mindfulness in Organizational and

Institutional Spheres
given their ability to obscure the more mindful The mindful firm attempting to judge the mindful
bases for adoption in sheer noise and tumult. ness behind others' behavior must also recognize
Also, informational cascades may prevail, falsely that while mindfulness is adaptive, it is not
suggesting that a broad, substantive, and well necessarily definitive. Thus, caution must be
considered consensus exists (Bikhchandani et al. exercised in inferring mindfulness based on out
1992). comes. Mindfulness, as an organizational capa
bility, is not to be confused with the relative supply
In practice, then, mindfulness may call not only for of knowledge; in fact, the mindful firm can be
a keen alertness to the organization's own circum especially short on knowledge early in its
stances, but also an outward-looking wariness of engagement with new IT. Where knowledge is
herd behavior and a stubborn insistence on scant and uncertainty is high, unintended and
uncovering, to the extent possible, the contexts in unanticipated consequences can readily afflict
which others' actions are taking place (Fiol and even the mindful. Moreover, under these condi
O'Connor 2003). For instance, have firms in one tions mindfulness can point toward incom
industry simply followed their high-status leader in mensurate and conflicting conclusions about the
adopting an innovation, or have they adopted the best course of action. As one aspect of its
innovation for perhaps similar but nevertheless reluctance to simplify interpretations, then, the
firm-specific reasons? Are any of these firms mindful firm may sometimes be recognized by its
experiencing implementation problems with this willingness to embrace paradox (Fiol and
new IT and if so, what does this suggest? O'Connor 2003; Ramiller 2001b; Robey and

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Boudreau 1999). For example, the executive challenge mindfulness at the level of the individual
endorsing ERP may find herself asking, "How do organization.
we retain competitive advantage by doing exactly
what others are doing?" In short, in evaluating the
mindfulness of others, their processes, to the
Patterns in the Institutional
extent observable, are likely to be a better
indicator than their outcomes. Landscape of Mindfulness
If organizational mindfulness must take account of If the community can be said to learn about an IT
mindlessness in the institutional field, mindfulness innovation, we believe also that the distribution of
meanwhile creates opportunities for the mindless. mindfulness in the larger population of firms tends
Here we are thinking about a kind of mindfulness to shift systematically over time. This, we note, is
by-proxy, based on imitation and invoked to fill the not the same thing as saying that the distribution
gaps left by uncertainty. The prospective adopter of knowledge about an innovation changes?
may "borrow" mindfulness by taking with serious although this, too, is certainly true. Mindfulness,
regard what salient and respected parties have to again, is not about what firms know as such, but
say about an innovation's benefits (Fulk et al. about a disposition that shapes their capacity for
1987; Kraut et al. 1998; Rogers 1995). We note learning and adapting. In this section we consider
that imitation as a rational response to uncertainty some possible patterns in the distribution of
has a long history in organization theory (Cyert organizational mindfulness. In a subsequent
and March 1963; DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Rao section, we entertain some complementary
research directions.
et al. 2001); in the context of IT innovation, it can
reflect the considered acknowledgement that
others may have resources, including time, money, We suggest that patterns of mindfulness and
mindlessness among firms, overtime, and across
experience and knowledge, unavailable to the
innovating firm itself. Nevertheless, such mindful innovations will tend to reflect:(1) the nature of the
ness-by-proxy has its limits, because of the innovations themselves, (2) the reception of the
absence of truly local attention to organizational corresponding organizing visions in the larger
community, (3) the normative force that diffusion
particulars. Moreover, even where little differen
imparts in its own right, and (4) firm characteristics.
tiation is sought and a stock solution is tolerable,
mindfulness-by-proxy still demands a direct and
We consider each influence in turn, advancing a
critical mindfulness of the suitability of particular small and suggestive set of propositions with
opinion leaders to serve as generic models. which to seed future theorizing.
In summary, the relatively mindful and the

The Nature of Innovations
relatively mindless interact, through the organizing
vision discourse, to create an evolving landscape
of supposition, hopeful belief, and qualified Here, our attention is attracted specifically to an
knowledge. If telling the difference between the innovation's radicality. Radical innovations, as
mindful and mindless is, as we have noted, opposed to incremental innovations, require com
difficult, challenging too is distinguishing among pletely new organizational routines and may
these categories of putative "knowledge." This impact participants' beliefs and values (Dewar and
challenge, however, does not remain the same Dutton 1986; Nord and Tucker 1987; Tornatzky
over time: We propose that the community can and Fleischer 1990). Their organizing visions
generally be expected to advance in its suggest a substantial discontinuity in the degree of
understanding of an IT innovation as its collective departure from current practice (Ramiller and
experience grows. Certain things do get decided, Swanson 2003). The greater this discontinuity and
through processes of learning at this higher level, the more compelling the new concept, then, the
even as the need for local adaptation continues to more likely firms will be tempted to dismiss their

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
own present circumstances as seemingly passe. vision's discourse and may be found in a variety of
For example, in the early 1990s many firms rushed communication forums, including the published
to embrace business process reengineering which, literature and trade press (Wang 2002). Amplified
with the aid of enabling IT, promised "orders of by hyperbole (Ramiller 2001b), the fashionable
magnitude improvement" through the "obliteration" vision may exert a strong, if transitory, normative
of current inept practice (Hammer and Champy pull among managers. It is also likely to attract
1993). Accordingly, we propose that those who have heretofore been deferring atten
tion to the innovation in question.
(P2) Mindlessness in innovating with IT will be
observed more widely the more radical the Recently, Gartner Research has articulated a
innovation. Mindfulness, in contrast, will be "hype cycle" model that may be understood to
observed more widely the more incremental address this phenomenon (and indirectly is a com
the innovation. mentary on its own role in the process). The
regard for an IT innovation rises in the community
We acknowledge that this proposition may suggest to a "peak of inflated expectations," from which it
to skeptics that if it were true, more radical then falls into a "trough of disillusionment"; from
innovations would be adopted more widely.7 there it can then rise again, more gradually, along
Where fads are concerned, there may certainly be a "slope of enlightenment." Nelson (2001), for
something to this. However, not all radical con example, provides a hype cycle for CRM. We sug
cepts catch on, and, where they do, mindlessness, gest that such inflated expectations can constitute
while significant, may also be fleeting, tempering a fashion bubble in which the innovation is fol
further adoption. Future research around this lowed mindlessly; this is especially likely when a
proposition will want to consider the sensitivity of large number of firms are simultaneously engaged
the proposed association to temporal dynamics in the early phases with the innovation and are
and conditions in the adopter community (see the therefore more prone to mindlessness. (Refer
following discussion), as well as the all-important again to proposition P1, above.) The preeminent
observation that widespread (and perhaps illustration of such a bubble may be the dot.com
transitory) adoption does not necessarily imply movement associated with the vision for electronic
actual implementation (Fichman and Kemerer commerce. Thus, over a vision's career,
1999).
observed more widely the more fashionable
The Community Reception the organizing vision. Mindfulness, in con
of Organizing Visions trast, will be observed more widely the less
fashionable the organizing vision.
Here, we pick up on the phenomenon of IT fads
and consider a vision's fashionableness. A
The Normative Force of Diffusion
management fashion is defined as "relatively
transitory collective beliefs, disseminated by the
In some circumstances an innovation's cumulative
discourse of knowledge entrepreneurs, that a
diffusion pattern can help to foster institutional
management technique is at the forefront of
preemption. The rate of adoption, conveyed and
rational management progress" (Abrahamson and
amplified in the organizing-vision discourse, may
Fairchild 1999, p. 709). This definition serves
send a strong message to managers that there is
reasonably well for IT fashions, with the substi
a convergence in expectations regarding the IT
tution of "IT innovation" for "management tech
innovation's efficacy. Rapid adoption together with
nique." Fashionableness is thus reflected in the
news of successful implementations may signal a
"social sweep" (Mohr 1987, pp. 16-17) that exerts
normative force over the remainder of the
We are grateful to a reviewer for pointing this out. population:

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
(P4a) Mindlessness in innovating with IT will be arise in substantial part from real knowledge
observed more widely the more rapid and barriers, they can also be exacerbated by mindless
widespread the adoption of the innovation. adoption associated with the innovation's fashion
Mindfulness, in contrast, will be observed ableness and rapid early diffusion. Nevertheless,
more widely the less rapid and wide once the gaps become apparent within the
spread the adoption of the innovation. community, they are likely to dampen mindless
behavior by signaling to those yet to adopt that the
We note that this proposition is mute on the benefits of adoption can't be rapidly and easily
question of whether early adoption, in circum achieved. Similarly, exposure of such gaps will
stances of rapid diffusion, is more mindful than warn recent adopters that mindfulness in fitting the
later adoption. Nevertheless, our lead-in argument new IT to the firm may be unavoidable.
does imply that later adopters are more likely to be
"impressed" by the accumulating number of As a consequence, where implementation and
adoptions that precede theirs. However, received assimilation gaps become prominent in the larger
wisdom arguably holds that later adopters will community's discourse, the innovation's progress
make more informed decisions, because more toward institutionalization will be slowed. In the
knowledge is available.8 While the quantity of extreme, persistent problems can force a
available knowledge, as we pointed out earlier, is reexamination of the innovation itself, slowing or
not equivalent to the level of mindfulness, one reversing the course of adoption, and even leading
might suppose that it is easier to be mindful when
eventually to abandonment, as happened widely
greater knowledge exists. On the other hand,
with CASE (computer-aided software engineering)
evidence from institutional theory suggests that
(livari 1996; Ramiller and Swanson 2003).
there are circumstances where firm specifics more
Broadly, implementation and assimilation gaps are
strongly explain early adoption but later adoption
likely to burst whatever fashion bubble remains.
is driven by the very fact of diffusion, which
Thus, mindlessness receives a wake-up call:
legitimates the innovation and becomes a
comprehensive and self-perpetuating rationale for
(P4b) Mindlessness in innovating with IT will
adoption (Tolbert and Zucker 1983). Such
contrary predictions, then, qualify this issue as a tend to be displaced by mindfulness the
larger the implementation and assimilation
promising topic for empirical investigation.
gaps that arise with the innovation.
We note that P4a specifically addresses adoption
(recall Figure 1). Where innovating with IT is We add a caveat, however. Should the community
involved, however, legitimacy is not likely to be become too discouraged with an IT innovation
sustained by adoptions alone. Implementation, in because implementation and assimilation gaps
particular, can be deeply problematic, as well persist, it may give rise to a kind of mindless
illustrated by ERP (Davenport 1998; Willcocks and foreclosure on further efforts to innovate with that
Sykes 2000). Until firms have seriously engaged IT! Some might wish to argue that this happened
implementation, the community more generally with CASE, for instance. Accordingly, while we
cannot be said to have learned much from the have proposed that the community generally
innovation. Indeed, the apparent diffusion of some advances in its understanding of an IT innovation,
IT innovations, when examined more closely in we view this as an empirical tendency rather than
terms of real implementations and genuine an a priori principle.
assimilation, may be found to be illusory (Fichman
and Kemerer 1999). While such innovation gaps
Firm Characteristics
Firm characteristics can play a role in determining

8We also owe our thanks to a reviewer for outlining this
position. where mindfulness and mindlessness appear in a

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
population of prospective adopters over time. Prior experience with IT is another organizational
Consider recent firm performance. Firms per characteristic we propose for consideration. Firms
forming relatively well are likely to be mindful of the with substantial in-house experience in imple
possibilities for IT innovations to enhance their menting IT applications are more likely to be
competitive advantage. On the other hand, those mindful. Their know-how concerning the applica
performing relatively poorly may be preoccupied tion of IT to the enterprise provides context
with their competitive disadvantage. A firm in this specific expertise for the mindful evaluation of new
category, concluding that it has fallen behind opportunities. This sophistication contrasts with
others in innovating with IT, may come to that of firms content to purchase IT services and
disparage its own competence in this arena. As a expertise as marketplace commodities. The latter
consequence, in contemplating the innovative should be more vulnerable to mindlessness:
activities of others, it may be more inclined to look
for models to slavishly emulate than to critically (P6) Mindlessness in innovating with IT will be
appropriate for local fit. observed more widely among organizations
that are not IT sophisticated. Mindfulness, in
In the early 1990s, many firms coming under cost contrast, will be observed more widely
pressure turned to business process reengineering among organizations that are IT sophis
in part because it promised to relieve them of this ticated.
burden through simple headcount reduction
(Kleiner 2000). Mindlessness in innovating with
BPR accordingly may have been induced in part
by the economic conditions of this period. Of Additional Research
course, some firms innovated very mindfully with
BPR, and these were more likely to have reaped
Directions HHHHHHHHIH
the touted benefits (Hammer and Champy 1993).
The propositions we have just entertained relate to
However, on the whole,
the complementary distribution of mindfulness and
mindlessness. This area of concern suggests
some additional lines of research that might be
observed more widely among organizations
undertaken with mindfulness as the focal point of
with relatively poor recent performance.
inquiry. We structure our discussion around inter
Mindfulness, in contrast, will be observed
secting levels of analysis, beginning with com
more widely among organizations with rela
munity-level diffusion, proceeding to the level of
tively good recent performance.
organizational process, and concluding with
individual mindfulness.
As a qualification, however, we should point out
that the successful organization may also be prone
to fall short in mindfulness?precisely because of
its success. Routines that are currently effective Mindfulness and Mindlessness
can lull a firm into complacency.9 This is an in Innovation Diffusion
important aspect of competency traps which, as
we argued earlier, a truly embracing mindfulness We suggest first that research should examine
must actually take account of. Accordingly, this how mindfulness and mindlessness in the com
proposition, too, invites nuanced consideration in munity affect the genesis, evolution, and fate of the
future empirical work. IT innovation itself. For example, what is the effect
of mindless adoption on the innovation's organi
zing vision? While it is unlikely to contribute much
to the substantive shaping of the innovation,
mindless adopters' commitments should neverthe
9We thank the senior editor for reminding us about this
important phenomenon. less tend to reinforce the prevailing conventional

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
wisdom about the value of the innovation. Mind Is institutional preemption more prominent in
less adoption can thereby give added momentum diffusion within industries than diffusion across
to the organizing vision, providing one more case industries? In diffusion across industries, more
showing that "everyone is doing it." obvious differences may invite more careful
scrutiny. (This may be a contributing cause for
On the other hand, where mindless innovators ERP's rapid diffusion within a few industries at
visibly stumble in implementation, the community first, while catching on in other industries only
may need to rework its discourse. Research gradually.) Time may be a consideration here, too.
should therefore be alert to repair activities As diffusion becomes more widespread, would
appearing in the larger discourse, such as the such cross-industry mindfulness tend to wane?
inclusion of key risks and contingencies, that serve Finally, should these industry effects be expected
to put distance between the innovation as high for all IT innovations or just some?
concept and the foolhardy whose misbehavior
would give it a bad name. Accordingly, compara Lastly, studies might compare IT innovation
tive longitudinal studies of organizing visions that diffusion during different social and economic
take both mindless and mindful adoption into periods. Extrapolating from our conjecture (P5)
account may yield important institutional insights, that mindlessness may be associated with
offering new explanations for diffusion patterns relatively poor organizational performance, should
and histories. Emerging methods in discourse we also expect widespread mindlessness to be
analysis (Phillips and Hardy 2002) offer consi characteristic of economic downturns? A
derable promise for systematic inquiries of this competing conjecture is that economic boom
kind. periods would witness greater mindlessness, with
excess slack providing a cushion for indulging
Studies of organizing visions that become man mindlessness that would tend to be absent in lean
agement fashions should also be helpful in times. Here, in addition to empirical studies,
shedding light on patterns in mindfulness and alternative conjectures might be explored through
mindlessness. Here the period during which the dynamic modeling.
organizing vision is in "high fashion" can be
contrasted with the periods before and after to
discern differences in the mindfulness associated
Mindfulness in Organizational Process
with behaviors across firms.
Moving to the organizational level, we see a

Research on succession among management particular need for field studies of innovation
fashions (Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999) sug sensemaking in the early stages of organizations'
gests that it might also be fruitful to undertake engagements with new IT (Figure 1). This implies
historical studies of the interrelationships among closer study of early comprehension, including
the careers of organizing visions. Particular organizational approaches for tapping into industry
attention could be paid to shifting patterns of discourses. Studies should pursue not just
mindfulness and mindlessness in organizing boundary-spanning activities as such, but the
visions that appear to successively occupy a extent to which such activities enable the firm to
common fashion niche. An example would be the derive contextually differentiated meaning from
process by which ERP displaced MRP II, which their encounters with organizing visions (Nambisan
earlier had displaced MRP, in the manufacturing etal. 1999; Tillquist2000).
systems fashion niche. We might then ask, what
patterns of mindfulness and mindlessness charac The adoption process, although historically the
terize such fashion transitions? For example, subject of considerable research attention (Fich
given the absence of a dominant fashion during a man 2000), nonetheless offers some unexplored
transition period, would the period be charac territory where mindfulness is concerned. We
terized by widespread mindfulness? need to learn more about the processes through

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
which adoption rationales are developed, and attend to and respond to the unexpected in their
whether certain routines and structures for creating members' use of IT innovations. We note that
them are important in determining the mindfulness such responses may range from simple emer
involved. We also need to consider more directly gency support (or correctives), through structural
how the decision is transformed into commitment, forms of post-implementation support (e.g., help
and how that process may be influential in setting desks), to processes that support continual
up the conditions for mindfulness in implemen learning (such as close partnerships between
tation.10 Furthermore, research should examine technical staff and users). Studies of the re
how mindfulness enters into sustaining and invention of the innovation by its users (Rice and
adapting the adoption rationale, as the organi Rogers 1980) should also yield new insights.
zation moves forward into implementation.
In addition to investigations specific to each inno
With regard to implementation, we would be vation process, we also recommend work that
interested to know how mindfulness embraces better articulates linkages among the processes.
opportunities for continuous learning, as distinct This is another arena in which mindfulness or its
from the taking of more prepackaged and pre lack may affect outcomes. For example, whether
determined approaches. Consider, for example, organizational readiness (lacovouet al. 1995) is
the explicit incorporation of change management mindfully factored into the decision to adopt is
expertise and responsibilities in ERP implemen likely to be important downstream in implemen
tations, in recognition of the need to attend tation. In turn, mindfulness in implementation is
mindfully to the innovation's disruptive effects (see, likely to affect the course of secondary adoption
for example, Bancroft et al. 1998, Chapter 11). (Leonard-Barton 1988; Leonard-Barton and Des
Such disruptive effects can be anticipated at best champs 1988), infusion, and routinization (Cooper
in a general way, and must ultimately be dealt with and Zmud 1990). Methodologically, longitudinal
in situation-specific terms through rich interpre field studies may be particularly well-suited to the
tations, contextual sensitivity, and commitment to exploration of linkages among processes.
flexibility.
Finally, we point to the importance of timing in the
Relative to mindfulness in assimilation, we organization's innovation processes relative to
envision research that goes beyond individual developments in the broader environment. As we
perceptions and attitudes, and begins to address have noted, early adoption and late adoption are
how the individual's response is formed in the not the same. Because of evolution in the larger
context of what are fundamentally social pro context, later adopters often face a very different
cesses of technology appropriation (DeSanctis and situation in comprehending, adopting, imple
Scott Poole 1994). A promising foundation for menting, and assimilating the innovation. Ac
such work is the research in our field based on cordingly, what mindfulness demands may shift
Giddens' (1984) structuration theory (see, for systematically over the course of the innovation's
example, DeSanctis and Scott Poole 1994; history. For example, the stock of appropriable
Majchrzak et al. 2000; Orlikowski and Robey 1991; adoption rationales is likely to change as the
Orlikowski et al. 1995). Apropos organizational innovation matures and proves itself in one area
mindfulness, studies should examine how firms but not another. Also, early adopters may need to
be especially mindful in their implementations, as
the community knows little about crucial contin
10ln the case of ERP, Markus and Tannis (1999) remark gencies determining the applicability of different
that, "Clearly, what companies think they are about when
approaches.
they adopt enterprise systems must figure somehow in
the ways they approach the enterprise systems
experience and in the outcomes they achieve" (p. 180). On a methodological note, organizational-level
Swanson and Wang (2003) find that firms that adopted research must be served by the development of
ERP for business coordination reasons tended to be the
more successful. measurements for mindfulness. Weick and

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Sutcliffe (2001, Chapter 4) provide an instrument his/her own identity as an innovator) is, we would
for assessing organizational mindfulness in a argue, doing little to foster organizational mind
broad way, based on their five attributes. This fulness. Given contrasts like this, studies of
might be adaptable for use in measuring mindful managerial innovativeness and mindfulness taken
ness in innovating with IT. However, given the together should yield valuable insights into what
complexities in the organizational processes we constitutes effective managerial agency.
have discussed, we believe that measurement
approaches will need to be tailored carefully to In a similar vein, we believe that innovation cham
particular studies. pionship (Beath 1991; Heng et al. 1999; Howell
and Higgins 1990) might be usefully studied in
relation to mindfulness. As with personal innova
tiveness, we conjecture that innovation champion
Managerial Mindfulness ship may be more or less mindful. Champions'
"transformational visions" for IT (Armstrong and
While organizational mindfulness is our principal Sambamurthy 1999) may be more or less
concern, research on the individual mindfulness of anchored in local realities. They may give more or
managers is of related importance. Mindfulness is less attention to knowledge barriers and the
not an exclusive prerogative of management, nor development of means to overcome them (Attewell
is the organization's mindfulness reducible to the 1992; King et al. 1994; Tanriverdi and lacono
astuteness of individual managers. Nevertheless, 1998). They may be more or less oriented around
managers have a special responsibility: In addi the substantive organizational learning process.
tion to contributing their own mindfulness, they
must foster conditions that promote collective Finally, the oft-mentioned top management
mindfulness in the firm.11 support (Rai and Patnayakuni 1996; Swanson
1988) deserves reexamination in a mindfulness
Managerial mindfulness should not be equated context. Earlier we remarked that a certain stra
with a manager's personal innovativeness with IT, tegic mindfulness is needed to attend to the
or "the willingness of an individual to try out any disruptive effects of IT initiatives. Such a strategic
new information technology" (Agarwal and Prasad mindfulness, which entails a wary concern for the
1998, p. 206). Such personal innovativeness may firm's longer-term viability, may best be placed
be more mindful or less mindful, with important with top management. In its absence, other forms
organizational ramifications. On the one hand, the of support, such as the provisioning of monies and
manager who fosters selective and careful in people, might not suffice to enable the innovation
house experimentation with new IT helps to to weather the storms of implementation and ulti
promote learning about the technology's local mately be successfully assimilated. To explore
efficacy. On the other hand, the manager who this issue, case studies should be especially
indiscriminately puts into play all kinds of new IT helpful.
(perhaps largely for the pleasure of a profes
sionally oriented technical staff or to promote
Conclusion
11 Here, Fiol and O'Connor (2003) suggest that mindful
senior managers, in pursuit of more discriminating In this essay, we have explored the concept of
choices, cultivate expanded scanning for data beyond mindfulness in innovating with IT. We began by
traditional sources as well as questioning interpretations
based in multiple organizational perspectives. They add,
considering the idea of mindfulness in the
with respect to future research, "We ... need to know psychological and organizational literatures, and
more about how widespread mindfulness must be among then argued for its applicability in the IT realm.
decision makers in order to produce positive outcomes,
as well as the costs and returns of the investment Next, we introduced some conceptual foundations
required to produce this level of mindfulness" (p. 67). needed to adapt the concept for use in IT

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
research. These included, first, recognizing the processes of organizations (Meindl et al. 1994),
institutionally embedded nature of the IT and to recognize in firms' engagements with new
innovation, and second, specifying a process IT their fundamental character as systems for
model for organizational innovation that takes accomplishing interpretation (Daft and Weick
cognizance of the larger institutional context. With 1984). Finally, our effort here points toward one
this background in place, we characterized possible way in which to theorize the IT artifact
mindfulness and mindlessness in some depth, and (Benbasat and Zmud 2003; Orlikowski and lacono
then outlined a theoretical synthesis in which these 2001), specifically as the multilevel product of local
apparent opposites could be seen to interact in and trans-organizational forces acting in concert.
systematic ways. Finally, we identified a number Hence, it serves to remind researchers who turn
of potential implications for research. their attention to the cognitive that local interpre
tations are invariably bound to a wider institutional
We have attempted to break new ground in this context. On that larger stage, the trade in new
essay, and our approach to the subject has ideas is shaped and complicated by norms,
therefore been decidedly exploratory. Other fashions, and cognitive limitations, the problematic
researchers may wish to take different paths. quality of expertise and authority, and the chal
They may wish, for instance, to argue for a lenge posed by the shifting patchwork of others'
different focus for mindfulness or to propose a mindfulness and mindlessness.
different set of mindfulness attributes. Our own
work, in short, merely provides a beginning.
Acknowledgments
One of our primary goals has been to raise
questions about (1) what it means to be mindful in
The authors are grateful to Rick Watson, who first
innovating with IT, (2) when organizations should
suggested that we undertake this research, and
be mindful, and (3) how organizations can be especially to Jane Webster and three anonymous
mindful. While our discussion has been theo
reviewers for their patience and constructive
retically motivated, its implications in fact are quite
comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
practical. Deficient understanding?handmaiden to
The authors are further grateful to David Firth and
mindlessness?has been identified as a prime
Ping Wang for their important research assistance.
cause of firms' widespread failures with IT
The research was funded in part by the Infor
investments (Nash 2000). Meanwhile, the very
mation Systems Research Program at UCLA's
language of IT practitioners speaks to the hazards Anderson School.
of innovating on the basis of weak interpretation
and poor communication (Ramiller 2001b, 2001c),
additional hallmarks of mindlessness. Accordingly,
the concept of mindfulness offers an eminently References
practical focus for managers seeking to increase
their firms' collective intelligence and respon Abrahamson, E. "Managerial Fads and Fashions:
siveness in the face of the uncertainties associated The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations,"
with new IT. Academy of Management Review (16:3), 1991,
pp. 586-612.
On the scholarly side, our contribution has been to Abrahamson E., and Fairchild, G. "Management
lay the groundwork for the application of the Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective
mindfulness concept in future studies that seek to Learning Processes," Administrative Science
elucidate organizational processes in IT innovation Quarterly (44), 1999, pp. 708-740.
or to explain wider patterns in the spread of Abrahamson, E., and Rosenkopf, L. "Social
innovative IT ideas. More broadly, our discussion Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation
also represents a call for enlarging our academic Diffusion," Organization Science (8:3), May
community's efforts to investigate the cognitive June 1997, pp. 289-309.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Adams, J. S. "The Structural Dynamics of Harvard Business Review (78:3), May-June

Behavior in Organizational Boundary Roles," in 2000, pp. 3-7.
Handbook of Organizational and Industrial Champy, J. "Packaged Systems: One Way to
Psychology, M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Rand Force Change," Cbmputerworld, December 22,
McNally, Chicago, 1976, pp. 1175-1199. 1997, p. 61.
Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. "A Conceptual and Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. "Absorptive
Operational Definition of Personal Innovative Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
ness in the Domain of Information Technology," Innovation ," Administrative Science Quarterly
Information Systems Research (9:2), June (35), 1990, pp. 128-152.
1998, pp. 204-215. Cooper, R., and Zmud, R. "Information Techno
Aldrich, H., and Herker, D. "Boundary Spanning logy Implementation Research: A Technologi
Roles and Organization Structure," Academy of cal Diffusion Approach," Management Science
Management Review (2), 1977, pp. 217-230. (36:2), February 1990, pp. 123-139.
Alter, S. "A General, Yet Useful Theory of Infor Covaleski, M. A., and Dirsmith, M. W. "An
mation Systems," Communications of the AIS Institutional Perspective on the Rise, Social
(1:13), 1999. Transformation, and Fall of a University Budget
Alter, S. "The Work System Method for Under Category," Administrative Science Quarterly
standing Information Systems and Information (33), 1988, pp. 562-587.
Systems Research," Communications of the Cyert, R., and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory
of the Firm, Wiley, NewYork, 1963.
AIS (9:6), 2002.
Daft, R. L., and Weick, K. E. "Toward a Model of
Armstrong, C. P., and Sambamurthy, V. "Informa
tion Technology Assimilation in Firms: The Organizations as Interpretation Systems,"
Academy of Management Review (9), 1984, pp.
Influence of Senior Leadership and IT Infra
284-295.
structure," Information Systems Research
Davenport, T. H. Mission Critical: Realizing the
(10:4), December 1999, pp. 304-327.
Promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard Busi
Attewell, P. "Technology Diffusion and Organiza
ness School Press, Boston, 2000.
tional Learning: The Case of Business Com
Davenport, T. H. "Putting the Enterprise into the
puting," Organization Science (3:1), February
Enterprise System," Harvard Business Review
1992, pp. 1-19.
(76:4), July-August, 1998, pp. 121-131.
Au, Y. A., and Kauffman, R. J. "Should We Wait?
DeSanctis, G., and Scott Poole, M. "Capturing the
Network Externalities, Compatibility, and Elec
Complexity in Advanced Technology Use,"
tronic Billing Adoption," Journal of Management
Organization Science (5:2), 1994, pp. 121-147.
Information Systems (18:2), 2001, pp. 47-63.
Dewar, R. D., and Dutton, J. E. "The Adoption of
Bancroft, N. H., Seip, H., and Sprengel, A. Radical and Incremental Innovations: An
Implementing SAP R/3 (2nd Ed.), Manning Empirical Analysis," Management Science (32),
Publications, Greenwich, CT, 1998. 1986, pp. 1422-1433.
Beath, C. M. "Supporting the Information Techno DiMaggio, P. J. "Constructing an Organizational
logy Champion," MIS Quarterly (15:3), 1991, Field as a Professional Project: U.S. Art
pp. 355-372. Museums, 1920-1940," in The New Institu
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. "The Identity Crisis tionalism in Organizational Analysis, W. W.
Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Com Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), University of
municating the Discipline's Core Properties," Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991, pp. 267-292.
MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 183-194. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. "The Iron
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welch, I. "A Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and
Theory of Fads, Fashions, Custom, and Cultural Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,"
Change as Information Cascades," Journal of American Sociological Review (48), 1983, pp.
Political Economy (W0), 1992, pp. 992-1026. 147-160.
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. "Balancing Act: How Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. (Eds.).
to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It," The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, lacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S.
UK, 2001. "Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organi
Fichman, R. G. "The Diffusion and Assimilation of zations; Adoption and Impact of Technology,"
Information Technology Innovations," in MIS Quarterly(19:4), December 1995, pp. 465
Framing the Domains of IT Management 485.
Research, R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Pinnaflex Educa livari, J. "Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?," Com
tional Resources, Cincinnati, OH, 2000. munications of the ACM (39:1), 1996, pp. 94
Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. "The Illusory 103.
Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Katz, M. L., and Shapiro, C. "Technology Adop
Assimilation Gaps," Information Systems tion in the Presence of Network Externalities,"
Research (10:3), September 1999, pp. 255-275. Journal of Political Economy (94:4), 1986, pp.
Fiol, C. M., and O'Connor, E. J. "Waking Up! 822-841.
Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons," Kauffman, R. J., McAndrews, J., and Wang, Y.
Academy of Management Review (28:1), 2003, "Opening the 'Black Box' of Network Exter
pp. 54-70. nalities in Network Adoption," Information
Foucault, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Systems Research (11:1), 2000, pp. 61-82.
Trans. A. Sheridan, Pantheon, NewYork, 1972. Keil, M., Mann, J., and Rai, A. "Why Software
Fulk, J., Steinfield, C. W., Schmitz, J., and Power, Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and
J. G. "A Social Information Processing Model of Test of Four Theoretical Models," MIS Quarterly
Media Use in Organizations," Communication (24:4), 2000, pp. 631-664.
Research (14:5), 1987, pp. 529-552. Keller, E. "Lessons Learned," Manufacturing Sys
Galaskiewicz, J. "Making Corporate Actors tems, November 1999, pp. 44 ff.
Accountable: Institution-Building in Minneapolis King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L.,
St. Paul," in The New Institutionalism in McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., and Yap, C. S.
Organizational Analysis, W. W. Powell and P. J. "Institutional Factors in Information Technology
DiMaggio (Eds.), University of Chicago Press, Innovation," Information Systems Research
Chicago, 1991, pp. 293-310. (5:2), June 1994, pp. 139-169.
Gallivan, M. "Organizational Adoption and Assimi Kleiner, A. "Revisiting Reengineering," Strategy +
lation of Complex Technological Innovations: Business, Issue 20, 2000, pp. 27-31.
Development and Application of a New Frame Kogut, B., and Zander, U. "Knowledge of the Firm,
work," Data Base (32:3), 2001, pp. 51-85. Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of
Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline Technology," Organization Science (3), 1992,
of the Theory of Structuration, University of pp. 383-397.
California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984. Kraut, R. E., Rice, R. E., Cool, C, and Fish, R. S.
Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K. "The Core Com "Varieties of Social Influence: The Role of
petence of the Corporation," Harvard Business Utility and Norms in the Success of a New Com
Review (68:3), May-June 1990, pp. 79-92. munication Medium," Organization Science
Hammer, M., and Champy, J. Reengineering the (9:4), 1998, pp. 437-453.
Corporation, HarperCollins, NewYork, 1993. Kwon, T. H., and Zmud, R. W. "Unifying the
Hart, P., and Saunders, C. "Power and Trust: Fragmented Models of Information Systems
Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Elec Implementation," in Critical Issues in Informa
tronic Data Interchange," Organization Science tion Systems Research, R. J. Boland and R. A.
(8:1), January-February 1997, pp. 23-42. Hirschheim (Eds.), Wiley, NewYork, 1987, pp.
Heng, M. S. H., Trauth, E. M., and Fisher, S. J. 227-251.
"Organizational Champions of IT Innovation," Langer, E. J. Mindfulness, Addison-Wesley,
Accounting, Management and Information Reading, MA, 1989a.
Technologies (9:3), 1999, pp. 193-222. Langer, E. "Minding Matters: The Consequences
Howell, J. M., and Higgins, C. A. "Champions of of Mindlessness-Mindfulness," in Advances in
Technological Innovation," Administrative Sci Experimental Social Psychology (22), L. Berkow
ence Quarterly (35:2), June 1990, pp. 317-341. (Ed.), Academic Press, 1989b, pp. 137-173.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Langer, E., and Moldoveanu, M. "The Construct Nash, K. S. "Companies Don't Learn From
of Mindfulness," Journal of Social Issues (56:1), Previous IT Snafus," Computerworld, October
2000, pp. 1-9. 30, 2000, pp. 32-33.
Larsen, T. J. "Information Systems Innovation: A Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. An Evolutionary
Framework for Research and Practice," in Theory of Economic Change, Harvard Uni
Information Systems Innovation and Diffusion: versity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
Issues and Directions, T. J. Larsen and E. Nelson, S. "The Implications of the 2001 CRM
McGuire (Eds.), Idea Group Publishing, Hype Cycle," Decision Framework DF-13-0755,
Hershey, PA, 1998, pp. 411-434. Gartner Group, April 3, 2001.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Nord, W. R., and Tucker, S. Implementing
Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge Routine and Radical Innovations, Lexington
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991. Books, Lexington, MA, 1987.
Leonard-Barton, D. "Implementation Characteris O'Neill, H. M., Pouder, R. W., and Buchholtz, A. K.
tics of Organizational Innovations," Communi "Patterns in the Diffusion of Strategies Across
cations Research (15:5), 1988, pp. 603-631. Organizations: Insights from the Innovation
Leonard-Barton, D., and Deschamps, I. "Mana Diffusion Literature," Academy of Management
gerial Influences in the Implementation of New Review(23A), January 1998, pp. 98-114.
Technology," Management Science (34:10), Orlikowski, W. J. "CASE Tools as Organizational
1988, pp. 1252-1265. Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical
Levitt, B., and March, J. G. "Organizational Changes in Systems Development," MIS Quar
Learning," Annual Review of Sociology (14), terly (17:3), September 1993, pp. 309-340.
1988, pp. 319-340. Orlikowski, W. J. "Improvising Organizational
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change
and Ba, S. "Technology Adaptation: The Case Perspective," Information Systems Research
of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational (7:1), March 1996, pp. 63-93.
Virtual Team," MIS Quarterly (24:4), December Orlikowski, W. J., and Barley, S. R. "Technology
2000, pp. 569-600. and Institutions: What Can Research on Infor
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Organizations (2nd mation Technology and Research on Organi
Ed.), Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 1993. zations Learn from Each Other?," MIS Quarterly
Markus, M. L., and Tanis, C. "The Enterprise (25:2), June 2001, pp. 145-165.
System Experience- from Adoption to Success," Orlikowski, W. J., and lacono, S. "Research
in Framing the Domains of IT Research: Commentary: Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in IT
Glimpsing the Future through the Past, R. W. Research?A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact,"
Zmud (Ed.), Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Information Systems Research (12:2), June
Cincinnati, OH, 1999, pp. 173-207. 2001, pp. 121-134.
Meindl, J. R., Stubbart, C, and Porac, J. F. Orlikowski, W. J., and Robey, D. "Information
"Cognition Within and Between Organizations: Technology and the Structure of Organizations,"
Five Key Questions," Organization Science Information Systems Research (2:2), 1991, pp.
(5:3), 1994, pp. 289-293. 143-169.
Mohr, L. B. "Innovation Theory: An Assessment Orlikowski, W., Yates, J., Okamura, K., and
from the Vantage Point of the New Electronic Fujimoto, M. "Shaping Electronic Communica
Technology in Organizations," in New Techno tion: The Metastructuring of Technology in the
logy as Organizational Innovation, J. M. Context of Use," Organization Science (6:4),
Pennings and A. Buitendam (Eds.), Ballinger, July-August, 1995, pp. 423-444.
Cambridge, MA, 1987, pp. 13-31. Phillips, N., and Hardy, C. Discourse Analysis:
Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., and Tanniru, M. Investigating Processes of Social Construction,
"Organizational Mechanisms for Enhancing Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.
User Innovation in Information Technology," Porter, J. E., Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeo
MIS Quarterly (23:3), 1999, pp. 365-395. logical Composition of the Discourse Com

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
munity, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Ross, J. W., and Weill, P. "Six IT Decisions Your
1992. IT People Shouldn't Make," Harvard Business
Powell, W. W., and DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). The Review (80:11), 2002, pp. 84-92.
New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Scott, W. R. Institutions and Organizations (2nd
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991. Ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
Rai, A., and Patnayakuni, R. "A Structural Model 2000.
for CASE Adoption Behavior," Journal of Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration: A
Management Information Systems (13:2), 1996, Sociological Interpretation, Row, Peterson &
pp. 205-234. Co., Evanston, IL, 1957.
Ramiller, N. C. "'Airline Magazine Syndrome': Shapiro, C, and Varian, H. Information Rules,
Reading a Myth of Mis-Management," Infor Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999.
mation Technology & People (14:3), 2001a, pp. Staw, B. M., and Epstein, L. D. "What Band
287-303. wagons Bring: Effects of Popular Management
Ramiller, N. C. "Exaggeration in Information Sys Techniques on Corporate Performance,
tems: Charting an Inquiry into its Functions, Reputation, and CEO Pay," Administrative
Processes, and Paradoxes," in Proceedings of Science Quarterly (45:3), 2000, pp. 523-556.
the 7th Americas Conference on Information Sternberg, R. J. "Images of Mindfulness," Journal
Systems, D. Strong and D. Straub (Eds.), of Social Issues (56:1), 2000, pp. 11-26.
Boston, 2001b, pp. 2019-2023. Strang, D., and Macy, M. W. "In Search of Excel
Ramiller, N. C. "The Textual Attitude' and New lence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive
Technology," Information and Organization (11), Emulation," American Journal of Sociology
2001c, pp. 129-156. (107:1), 2001, pp. 147-182.
Ramiller, N. C, and Swanson, E. B. "Organizing Swanson, E. B. "Information Systems as Buzz," in
Visions for Information Technology and the IS Proceedings of the 6th Americas Conference on
Executive Response," Journal of Management Information Systems, M. J. Chung (Ed.), Long
Information Systems (20:1), 2003, pp. 13-50. Beach, CA, 2000, pp. 923-925.
Rao, H., Greve, H. R., and Davis, G. F. "Fool's Swanson, E. B. Information System Implementa
Gold: Social Proof in the Initiation and tion, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1988.
Abandonment of Coverage by Wall Street Swanson, E. B. "Information Systems Innovation
Analysts," Administrative Science Quarterly Among Organizations," Management Science
(46), 2001, pp. 502-526. (40:9), 1994, pp. 1069-1092.
Rice, R. E., and Rogers, E. M. "Re-Invention in Swanson, E. B. "Talking the IS Innovation Walk,"
the Innovation Process," Knowledge (1), 1980, in Global and Organizational Discourse About
pp. 499-514. Information Technology, E. H. Wynn, E. A.
Robey, D., and Boudreau, M-C. "Accounting for Whitley, M. D. Myers, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.),
the Contradictory Organizational Consequences Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2003, pp.
of Information Technology: Theoretical Direc 15-31.
tions and Methodological Implications," Informa Swanson, E. B., and Ramiller, N. C. "The
tion Systems Research (10:2), 1999, pp. 167 Organizing Vision in Information Systems Inno
185. vation," Organization Science (8:5), September
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.), October 1997, pp. 458-474.
The Free Press, NewYork, NY, 1995. Swanson, E. B., and Wang, P. "Knowing Why and
Rohlfs, J. "A Theory of Interdependent Demand How to Innovate with Packaged Business
for a Communications Service," Bell Journal of Software," IS Working Paper 1-03, Anderson
Economics (5:1), 1974, pp. 16-37. School, University of California, Los Angeles,
Rosenberg, N. "Learning by Using," in Inside the January 2003.
Black Box: Technology and Economics, Tanriverdi, H., and lacono, C. S. "Knowledge
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982, Barriers to Diffusion of Telemedicine," in Pro
pp. 120-140. ceedings of the 19th International Conference on

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
Information Systems, R. A. Hirschheim, M. Age of Complexity, Jossey-Bass, San

Newman, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Helsinki, Francisco, 2001.
Finland, 1998, pp. 39-50. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Obstfeld, D.
Teece, D. J. "Capturing Value from Knowledge "Organizing for High Reliability: Processes of
Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know Collective Mindfulness," Research in Organi
how, and Intangible Assets," California Manage zational Behavior (21), 1999, pp. 81-123.
ment Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 55-79. Weick, K. E., and Sutcliffe, K. M., with Obstfeld, D.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. "Dynamic "High Reliability: The Power of Mindfulness," in
Capabilities and Strategic Management," Stra On High Performance Organizations, F.
tegic Management Journal (18:7), 1997, pp. Hesselbein and R. Johnston (Eds.), Jossey
509-533. Bass, San Francisco, 2002, pp. 7-18.
Tillquist, J. "Institutional Bridging: How Concep Willcocks, L. P., and Sykes, R. "The Role of the
tions of IT-Enabled Change Shape the Planning CIO and IT Function in ERP," Communications
Process," Journal of Management Information of the ACM (43:4), 2000, pp. 32-38.
Systems (17:2), Fall 2000, pp. 115-152. Wolfe, R. A. "Organizational Innovation: Review,
Tolbert, P. S., and Zucker, L. G. "Institutional Critique, and Suggested Research Directions,"
Sources of Change in Formal Structure of Journal of Management Studies (31), 1994, pp.
Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service 405-431.
Reform," Administrative Science Quarterly (28), Zucker, L. G. "Institutional Theories of Organiza
1983, pp. 22-39. tion," Annual Review of Sociology (13), 1987,
Tornatzky, L. G., and Fleischer, M. The Pro pp. 443-464.
cesses of Technological Innovation, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA, 1990.
Van de Ven, A. H. "Managing the Process of About the Authors
Organizational Innovation," in Organizational
Change and Redesign, G. P. Huber and W. H. E. Burton Swanson is Professor of Information
Glick (Eds.), Oxford University Press, New Systems at UCLA's Anderson School, where he
York, 1993, pp. 269-294. also presently serves as Academic Unit Chair, Co
Wang, P. "What Drives Waves in Information Director of the Information Systems Research
Technology? Studying IT Discourse from the Program, and Faculty Director for the Center on
Organization Vision Perspective," IS Working Management in the Information Economy. He is
Paper 2-02, Anderson School, University of also presently Associate Dean and Director of the
California, Los Angeles, February 2002. Anderson School's Doctoral Program. Professor
Weber, M. The Methodology of the Social Sci Swanson was the founding Editor-in-Chief of the
ences, Trans. E. Schils and H. Finch, The Free journal, Information Systems Research, 1987-92.
Press, NewYork, 1949. Earlier he was also a co-founder of the Inter
Weick, K. E., Sensemakingin Organizations, Sage national Conference on Information Systems
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995. (ICIS), in 1980. His research examines the life
Weick, K. E. "Technology as Equivoque: Sense cycles of systems in and among organizations,
making in New Technologies," in Technology addressing issues of innovation, implementation,
and Organizations, P. S. Goodman, L. S. utilization, and maintenance.
Sproull, and associates (Eds.), Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, 1990, pp 1-44. Neil Ramiller is on the faculty at the School of
Weick, K. E., and Roberts, K. H. "Collective Mind Business Administration, Portland State University.
in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight He holds a Ph.D. from the Anderson School at
Decks," Administrative Science Quarterly (38), UCLA, an MBA from U.C. Berkeley, and under
1993, pp. 357-381. graduate degrees from Sonoma State University.
Weick, K. E., and Sutcliffe, K. M. Managing the His primary research interests focus on the role
Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an that rhetoric, narrative, and discourse play in

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00
innovation processes within organizations and Information & Organization, Information Techno
across interorganizational fields. He also conducts logy & People, Organization Science, the Journal
work on the social construction of information of Management Information Systems, Communi
technology scholarship, and the implementation of cations of the AIS, Information Systems Research,
the "linguistic turn" in information technology Journal of Information Technology Theory &
studies. He has presented his work at a variety of Applications, and Journal of Information Systems
national and international conferences, and pub Education. He is a member of the editorial board
lished articles in a number of journals, including for Information Technology & People.

41.77.221.162 on Wed, 07 Feb 2024 06:21:38 +00:00

Swanson InnovatingMindfullyInformation 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Swanson InnovatingMindfullyInformation 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovating Mindfully with Information Technology

Author(s): E. Burton Swanson and Neil C. Ramiller

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148655

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating

This content downloaded from

^L tflC^%Ji % ^%_r*" E.^T Research Article

Innovating Mindfully with

Keywords: Information technology innovation,

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4 pp. 553-583/December 2004 553

This content downloaded from

554 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

Although they take HROs as their point of

Mindfulness, at its roots, is a psychological notion

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 555

This content downloaded from

556 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

several terms more narrowly than elsewhere in the

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 557

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. Organizational Innovation: Its Processes and Intentionalities

558 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

In short, although the term mindful might at first

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 559

This content downloaded from

560 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

The mindful organization is resilient, favoring

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 561

This content downloaded from

Even if the mindful firm decides in favor of an

562 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

authority to, the requisite experts. On the other Mindlessness ^ M_____HH1

Failure remains possible even at this stage but,

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 563

This content downloaded from

564 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 565

This content downloaded from

566 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 567

This content downloaded from

568 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

\ preoccupation with failure /

discourse in the S\. /\

Figure 2. The Interpenetration of Mindfulness in Organizational and

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 569

This content downloaded from

In summary, the relatively mindful and the

570 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 571

This content downloaded from

Firm characteristics can play a role in determining

572 MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004

This content downloaded from

MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 4/December 2004 573

This content downloaded from