Skip to main content
Log in

Same technology, different outcome? Reinterpreting Barley's Technology as an Occasion for Structuring

  • Special Section Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

In the last few decades, several studies have found the same technology implemented in highly similar organizational settings to be associated with very different consequences for structure and process. The seminal study in this stream of research is Barley's (1986) Technology as an Occasion for Structuring, which reported that two similarly composed radiology departments implemented the same technology (computerized tomography scanners), yet experienced very different structural outcomes. In this paper I re-analyze the original study's data under three different statistical assumptions. First, I performed an arcsine transformation on the dependent variable where the original study used the raw probabilities. Second, I specified a power regression model in which the original study employed a linear regression. Finally, I user fewer dummy variables in the ‘combined’ regression models to determine the distinct phases through which the two hospitals evolved. Taken together, these assumptions produce very different results from the original study. Specifically they indicate that the radiology departments did not decentralize at different rates and did not do so over a different number of distinct phases. From my analysis come three specific recommendations for research investigating the consequences of information technology in similarly constituted organizations: (1) exchange the default assumption of homogeneity of outcomes with one of heterogeneity; (2) explicitly account for both the observable properties of technology and the context of its use; and (3) state clearly and a priori the standard used to classify structural and organizational outcomes as ‘different’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  • Anderson JG and Aydin CE (1997) Evaluating the impact of health care information systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment In Health Care 13 (2), 380–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley SR (1986) Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1), 78–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The mediator-moderator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett MS (1937) Subsampling for attributes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Supplement) 4, 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett MS (1947) The use of transformations. Biometrics 3, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black LJ, Carlile P and Repenning N (2004) A dynamic theory of expertise and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: building on Barley's study of CT scanning. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (4), 572–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau P, Falbe C, Mckinley W and Tracy P (1976) Technology and organization in manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss CI (1937) The analysis of field experimental data expressed in percentages. Plant Protection 12, 66–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson E, Malone T, Gurbaxani V and Kambil A (1994) Does information technology lead to smaller firms? Management Science 40 (12), 1628–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter NM (1984) Computerization as a predominate technology: its influence on the structure of newspaper organizations. Academy of Management Journal 27 (2), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J and Cohen P (1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desanctis G and Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5 (2), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan J and Gijbels I (1996) Local Polynomial Modeling and Its Applications, Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R and Yates F (1938) Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J (2000) Multiple and Generalized Nonparametric Regression, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garson GD (2009) Multiple regression. [www document] http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/regress.htm#nonpar (accessed 10 January 2010).

  • George J and King JL (1991) Examining the computerization and centralization debate. Communications of the ACM 34 (7), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R and Black W (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman J (1981) Heterogeneity and state dependence. In Studies in Labor Markets (ROSEN S, Ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman J, Hotz J and Walker J (1985) New evidence on the timing and spacing of births. American Economic Review 72 (2), 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt LM and Brynjolfsson E (1997) Information technology and internal firm organization: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (2), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP (1990) A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review 15 (1), 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao C (1986) Analysis of Panel Data, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones MR and Karsten H (2008) Gidden's structuration theory and information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 32 (1), 127–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky SR (1970) Automation, size, and the locus of decision-making: the cascade effect. The Journal of Business 43 (2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner DE and Elam JJ (1995) The impact of executive information systems on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Organization Science 6 (6), 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy 17 (5), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long RG, Bowers WP, Barnett T and White MC (1998) Research productivity of graduates in management: effects of academic origin and academic affiliation. Academy of Management Journal 41 (6), 704–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Robey D (1988) Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science 34 (5), 583–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (1968) Automation & bureaucratic structure. American Journal of Sociology 74 (3), 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrill C and Fine GA (1997) Ethnographic contributions to organizational sociology. Sociological Methods & Research 25 (4), 424–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Kutner M, Nachtschiem C and Wasserman W (1996) Applied Linear Statistical Models, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Columbus, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W and Barley S (2001) Technology and institutions: what can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly 25 (2), 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen DB (1962) Handbook of Statistical Tables, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT (1995) Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science 6 (5), 541–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J and Leblebici H. (1977) Information technology and organizational structure. Pacific Sociological Review 20 (2), 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A and Rivard S (1998) Information technology and the nature of managerial work: from the productivity paradox to the Icarus paradox? MIS Quarterly 22 (3), 287–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS (2009) Response to Jones and Karsten, “Giddens's Structuration theory and information systems research”. MIS Quarterly 33 (3), 583–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D (1981) Computer information systems and organization structure. Communications of the ACM 24 (10), 679–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D and Rodriguez-Diaz A (1989) The organizational and cultural context of systems implementation: case experience from Latin America. Information & Management 17 (4), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D and Sahay S (1996) Transforming work through information technology: a comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research 7 (1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahay S (1997) Implementation of information technology: a time-space perspective. Organization Studies 18 (2), 229–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor GW and Cochran WG (1967) Statistical Methods, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL. (1978) Negotiations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL (1982) Interorganizational negotiations. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 11 (3), 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vendelo MT (1998) Recycling software – on the road to high performance in software companies. International Journal of Technology Management 16 (1–3), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Eye A and Schuster C (1998) Regression Analysis for Social Sciences, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker HM and Lev J (1953) Statistical Inference, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1990) Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in organizations. In Technology and Organizations (GOODMAN P and SPROULL L, Eds), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whisler TL (1970a) Information Technology and Organizational Change, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whisler TL (1970b) The Impact of Computers on Management, Praeger, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer BJ (1970) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeffane R (1989) Computer use and structural control: a study of Australian enterprises. Journal of Management Studies 26 (6), 621–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeffane R (1992) Patterns of structural control in high and low computer user organizations. Information & Management 23 (5), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Starling David Hunter III.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunter III, S. Same technology, different outcome? Reinterpreting Barley's Technology as an Occasion for Structuring . Eur J Inf Syst 19, 689–703 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.33

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.33

Keywords

Navigation