Technology and Organizational Evolution: an Institutionalisation Perspective

IBIMA Publishing Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JIBBP/jibbp.html Vol. 2012 (2012), Article ID 655615, 12 pages DOI: 10.5171/2012.655615

Technology and Organizational Evolution: An Institutionalisation Perspective

Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios

University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia ______

Abstract

In contemporary business organizations, technology provides the foundation around which organizations evolve and mature. It not only aids organizations in enabling strategic business objectives through automation of operations, but with their information processing and decision support capabilities, these technologies also aid in business planning and management. Thus, the scope of these technologies extends from strategic enablers to strategic advisors. The literature suggests various perspectives on the role of technology in organization, i.e., techno-centric, human- centric, and technology institutionalisation. This paper aims to look at technology lifecycle process, through the lens of technology institutionalisation perspective. According to the institutional view and theories, there are various sub institutions operating in a broader environment of organization, such as organizational culture, social structure, and competitive environment. The organization thrives on the mutual interactions of these sub institutions and establishes its legitimacy. When technology becomes institutionalised, it is taken for granted by its users within the organization. This means that they are comfortable with technology and can employ its features effectively in their routine activities without requiring functional consultant or coach support. Moreover, an overview of literature on technology deinstitutionalisation and institutional change is presented in this paper which aims to study how old technologies of the organization and legacy systems are changed and replaced with new ones.

Keywords : Technology institutionalisation; Institutional theory; Institutional change; Technology deinstitutionalisation. ______

Introduction Technology implementation in contemporary business organizations, thus, should not be Technology 1 in an organization evolves viewed as simple installation and one off through continuous interaction with other endorsement of technology; instead the organizational sub-institutions like people, organization should engage in the process of culture, technological infrastructure, technology assimilation/ institutionalisation customers, competitors, suppliers and etc. to maintain its legitimacy, technical cohesion, and economic fitness on an on-going basis. The literature suggests different approaches 1 Technology in this paper refers to hardware, software, to define the role of technology through its communication networks, and systems that acquire, lifecycle, i.e., techno-centric, human-centric, process, store, and deliver information to external and internal stakeholders in order to facilitate business and innovation-institutionalisation processes. Here the term technology focuses on perspectives. Each of these perspectives, information systems, however, also envelops mainly, emphasizes one aspect of technology information technology

Copyright © 2012 Azadeh Pishdad, Abrar Haider and Andy Koronios. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License unported 3.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that original work is properly cited. Contact author: Azadeh Pishdad E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 2

implementation more than others. For When technology is institutionalised, its example Rogers (2003) considers mainly the usage within the organization becomes a technical characteristics of a technological routine activity, in the way that innovation and argues that people judge a organizational actors could not think about technology and decide to adopt or reject it doing their day-to-day job responsibilities based on their perceptions of five attributes without using it. In addition, this paper of it, i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, reviews the literature on technology complexity, trialability, and observability. deinstitutionalisation and institutional Matching between user task needs and the change to study how old technologies of the available functionality of the technology is organization (legacy system) are changed mainly the focus of task technology fit theory and replaced with new ones. (TTF). However, user’s attitudes toward a This paper is structured as follows. The next particular technology based on their section explains different approaches perceived usefulness and ease of use proposed by literature to define the concept comprises the determinants of technology of technology in organizations, followed by acceptance model (TAM) (Davis et al. 1989; more granular analysis of innovation- Goodhue and Thompson 1995; Wixom and institutionalisation perspective and various Todd 2005). Technology-organization- trends and streams to institutionalism and environment (TOE) framework explores how institutional thinking. Then, an overview of technology lifecycle process is influenced by institutional theory and three types of the technological, organizational, and institutional isomorphic pressures which are environmental context (Tornatzky and the essential part of institutional and Fleisher 1990), and the theory of social neoinstitutional theory is presented. The shaping of technology (Mackenzie and next section reviews the effects of Wajcman 2001; Law 2004; Latour 2005) institutional change/ evolution on explores the effects of social, organizational, technology lifecycle as the last stage of it. and cultural factors on the content of Finally, the last section provides conclusions, technology and the processes involved in and directions for future research. introduction of technology to an organization. However, for better Different Perspectives on the Concept of understanding of organization and their Technology in Organizations evolution, it is necessary to take into account different dimensions such as social, technical, Techno-centric perspective and human- organizational, political, competitive and centric perspective are two main schools in institutional environment, internal system defining the role of technology in and structure, and the legal and cultural rules organizations. The former school views and obligations that the organization are technology as discontinuous, revolutionary conformed to. Furthermore, the literature leaps beyond direct human control and review leads us to believe that mostly mostly by autonomous forces within which concepts related to innovation- technology mostly plays a deterministic role institutionalisation perspective such as (O'Donoghue et al. 2001; Munir and Phillips institutional theory, institutional pressures 2002; MacDougall 2011). In contrast, the and institutional change are used in political latter school views technology as a product of and social studies. However, there is an ongoing human actions in developing, urgent need to study the effects of these appropriating and changing technology concepts on technology implementation and (Orlikowski 2000; Lamb and Kling 2003; Law its lifecycle as well. 2004; Suchman 2007; Elle et al . 2010). However, none of these philosophies are self- This paper aims to look at technology completed and the successful structure lifecycle process, through the lens of should take into account both perspectives technology institutionalisation perspective. (Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski 2007). These 3 Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

two set of theories focus on the Institutional theory is gaining increasing implementation of technology in attention in technology management organizations. These theories have, research as a novel theoretical perspective therefore, been used extensively in research (Powel and DiMaggio 1991; Greenwood and practice. However, technologies like 2008; Weerakkody et al. 2009; Currie 2011). information systems are much more than Activities involving in development and use simple installation and endorsement of of technologies are subject to social, cultural, technology. The role and scope of organizational, technical, and other information systems evolves continuously, institutional pressures. These pressures such that the organizations evolve with their could be from external sources such as evolution. Therefore, there is a need to competition and customers, and government bridge up the gap between techno-centric agencies as well as from legitimated norms, perspective, human-centric perspective, and rules, and logics embedded within the innovation-institutionalisation perspective organization. Organizations may respond to and theories. these pressures by conforming to technology mandates, or modifying their business According to the institutional view and practices to fit the technology. As a result, theories, there are various sub institutions organizations address the opportunity for operating in a broader environment of social approval and/or legitimacy. According organization, such as organizational culture, to Powel and DiMaggio (1991), organizations social structure, and competitive as institutions are viewed as independent environment. The organization thrives on the variables influenced not only by direct mutual interactions of these sub institutions consequences of individuals’ attributes and and establishes its legitimacy (DiMaggio and stakeholders motives, but also by cognitive Powell 1983; Powel and DiMaggio 1991; and cultural explanations which are Grewal and Dharwadkar 2002; Zsidisin et al. continuously reproduced through the 2005; Delmestri 2007; Greenwood 2008). socialization process. In summary, institutionalisation process embodies both Technology- Institutionalisation objectification (i.e., the articulation of ideals, Perspective discourses and techniques), and subjectification (i.e., individuals’ enactment through role development), whereby An organization as an institution evolves organizational routines shape and are shaped through the mutual interactions of various by its sub-institutions (Powel and DiMaggio organizational sub-institutions. Technology 1991; Hasselbladh and Kallinikos 2000; Scott works as the binding factor that shapes 2001; Dambrin et al. 2007; Scheirer 2005; organizations and gives them their existing Currie 2011; Abrutyn and Turner 2011). In form and legitimacy by integrating together addition, Institutions are subject to these sub-institutions. The form and incremental and discontinuous change legitimacy define how organizations evolve processes. Change is natural, almost their structures, culture, and systems. inevitable and progressive. It takes decades Institutions are social structures composed for the need for change to be endorsed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and (Oliver 1992; Greenwood et al. 2002; Seal regulative elements that, together with 2003; Clegg and Bailey 2008). According to resources and associated activities, bring system theory, organizational sub- stability and meaning to social life (Scott institutions are interdependent and changes 2001). The organizational legitimacy, thus, in one will affect whole system (entropy). achieved through social acceptability, Thus, changes in the technical infrastructure credibility, and cultural support, derives the of an organization will affect whole institution (Delmestri 2007; Weerakkody et organization and its operational environment al. 2009). which may result in deinstitutionalisation of Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 4

current forms and practices and (1962) argues people accept the world as reinstitutionalisation of another how it is presented to them, with all its technological infrastructure. More detailed inherent typifications of behavior. These description on institutional change process is typifications result from sedimentation of provided in the rest of this article. individual’s experience through which the reality is taken for granted. People also Two Main Trends in Institutional Thinking interpret new events and experiences on the basis of their understanding and perception Theories related to institutional thinking are of these typifications. Thus, when a mainly divided into two main trends, i.e., technology becomes institutionalised, it is macro and micro level (Zucker 1987; Cleg taken for granted by actors within the social 1990). At the macro-level, external and system and typifications (cultural beliefs and environmental characteristics are considered scripts) become established as authoritative as the main conductors of institutionalised guidelines for organizational behavior. behavior. Coercive, normative, and mimetic Garfinkel (1967) conceptualize constitutive [explained in the following section] are three expectation as norms and procedural rules isomorphic mechanisms through which which are constructing cognitive guidance organizations try to excel in their practice of system to assure whether the organization social rules, ideals, and practices by aligning and its individuals play their role correctly themselves with the environmental and in a desirable way and their behavior is conditions (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Powel acceptable and reasonable. Thus, through and DiMaggio 1991; Greenwood 2008). At establishing rules and governance for the the micro-level, institutionalised behavior is gradual embedding of technology within the reproduced as a result of institutionalisation. organizational social fabric and expected This behavior is initially socially constructed formal functioning, technology is and become stabilized. However, over time, institutionalised and formalized its use in the the social background which led to the organization. emergence of that behavior will be forgotten, as a result of discontinuous and incremental Different Approaches to Institutionalism change process (Schutz 1962; Berger and Luckmann 1967; Baptista 2009). Lynne Organizations react to institutional forces in Zucker (1977) adopts the micro-level many different ways according to their thinking to define three stages of technology organizational structure, culture, institutionalisation process, i.e., stockholders, and field of business (Scott habitualisation (the production of shared 2001). There exist several approaches to social meanings), objectivation (the process institutionalism, i.e. normative, rational through which facts become independent as choice, historical, empirical, and a reality experienced in common with constructivist. Based on the normative others) , and sedimentation (the process by institutionalism, ‘logic of appropriateness’ is which objectified facts become part of the best way to describe the behavior of routine behavior). Later, she proposed the individuals within an organization; as institutional- based trust theory constituting normative standards, moral templates, and two key theoretical constructs, i.e., cognitive scripts are the major social background expectation and constitutive repositories of values shaping the actions of expectation (Schutz 1962; Garfinkel 1967; those acting within them (Hall and Taylor Zucker 1986). 1996; Peters 2000). Rational choice institutionalism views institutions as According to background expectation arrangements of rules, inducements and perspective, human perception of events and incentives, which influence members of objects is similar and shared among all institutions to behave appropriately in individual within one social setting. Schutz response to basic components of institutional 5 Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

structure to maximize their utilities. practice of social rules, ideals, and practices However, some preferences of the by aligning themselves with the individuals in responding to rules, environmental conditions. These inducements and incentives remain institutional pressures push organizations to unchanged (Hall and Taylor 1996; Peters adopt shared notions and routines. Thus, the 2000; Shepsle 2005). The third approach to interpretation of intention to adopt institutionalism is historical, which relies on technology and the prevailing context of the the concept of ‘path dependency’. The idea organization is affected by its perception of behind this concept is that the inception of an these pressures. Coercive (constraining), institution will have continued effects over normative (learning), and mimetic (cloning) its behavior for the remainder of its are three isomorphic mechanisms which existence, which explains sustainability and influence organizations in gaining persistence of strategies, structure and operational efficiency, similarity with peers, actions. Empirical institutionalism answers and success (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; the questions regarding organizational Powel and DiMaggio 1991; Greenwood differences in strategy and policy choices and 2008). institutional stability according to their formal and informal structures (Hall and Regulative, cultural-cognitive, and normative Taylor 1996; Peters 2000; Pierson and are three institutional views representing Skocpol 2002). Finally, constructivist theses isomorphic pressures which are not institutionalism is the newest approach to mutually exclusive and may be institutional analysis which describes the interdependent. For example, organizational role of ideas and discourses in organizational actors may interpret, negotiate and socially politics. This provides a more dynamic construct the meaning of rules and approach to institutional change than the regulations on the basis of normative and previous mentioned approaches (Schmidt cultural-cognitive considerations (Edelman 2008). et al . 1999), which are also useful in explaining the diffusion of technology Institutional Isomorphic Pressures innovation (Scott 2001; Currie 2011). Figure 1 demonstrates these three institutional Institutional isomorphism is a process in isomorphic mechanisms and the concepts which organizations try to excel in their related to each of them.

Fig 1. Institutional Isomorphism Mechanisms/ Pressures (Developed for This Research) Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 6

The coercive isomorphism occurs by who are not offering this service are more in organizational desire to conform to laws, the risk of damaging their legitimacy in the rules, and sanctions established by view of their industry and other institutions. institutional actors or sources. This similarity Normative pressures evolve through firm- results in gaining legitimacy and external supplier and firm-customer inter- validation that improves the organization's organizational channels as well as other access to resources (Bjorck 2004). Negative trading partners, and professional and sanctioning is the central component of industry institutions (Powell and DiMaggio coercive institutional process, as it includes 1991; Liang et al. 2007). For instance, the rules, regulations, and laws that are used to frequency of technology usage among an constrain organizational actions. The organization’s suppliers and customers may coercive pressure exerted on organizations wake up decision makers’ awareness of the by other organizations upon which they are technology and ignite organization’s dependent (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott inclination to adopt it. Furthermore, 2001). Constituents such as suppliers and compliance with norms with respect to customers mainly hold resources environmental concerns can lead to organizations need, e.g., new business profitability, e.g., reducing organizational contracts or funding (Grewal and cost by conforming to an environmental Dharwadkar 2002). As a result, a powerful norm such as reduction in wastage of efforts, organization can exert pressure on these time, and resources (DiMaggio and Powell partners by raising requirements such as 1983; Delmestri 2007; Scott 2001; Jei and Sia conforming to a security standard as a 2011). condition for customer requirements (Zsidisin et al . 2005). The dependent The mimetic isomorphism is a cause of organizations will call attention to the organizational tendency to remain similar to asymmetry of power when they perceive its peers in order to get a positive evaluation coercive pressure and, thus, better from the organizational environment. This understand the consequences of adopting or mechanism results in reducing uncertainty, not adopting the technology. In general, the improving predictability, and benchmarking dependent partner tends to comply with the organizations who are performing at or near powerful firm’s demand and be inclined to optimum level (Scott 2001; Teo et al. 2003). adopt and routinize technology usage into Organizations who are structurally daily operation process in order to maintain equivalent and having similar economic relationships with powerful partners, to network position, similar goals, produce, and make transaction process more efficient, to commodities are more likely to imitate each secure their market status and to continue other. Moreover, organizations mimic accessing to scarce resources provided by the because they anticipate similar benefits. powerful firm (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Therefore, when an organization starts Scott 2001; Jei and Sia 2011). adopting and implementing a technology, other competitors from the same industry The normative mechanism mostly concerns becomes aware of it and considers adopting the moral and pragmatic aspect of legitimacy it (Scott 2001; Katsumata 2011). However, by assessing whether the organization plays conceptually, it is not clear whether firms its role correctly and in a desirable way. It mimic other organizations to gain legitimacy can refer to the positive pursuit of valued rather than technological or economic ends, as well as negative deviations from advantage (Staw and Epstein 2000). goals and standards (Scott 2001). The Noncompliance with each of these progressive use of IT in an organization could mechanisms comes with a risk of costly be viewed as the result of normative penalties, or in the worst case with the death influences, such as, ATM service is a standard of organization (Baptista 2009). service offering by retail banks, and banks 7 Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

Institutional Change involves both the specification of the failings of existing norms and practices for which a Traditionally, research have been mainly local innovation is a solution or treatment, focused on the institutional effects of and the justification of new norms, practices, technologies by using three mechanisms of and technical innovations in terms of moral institutional isomorphism and little attention or pragmatic considerations. These concepts has been given to study how technologies have been neglected conceptually and could be a part of the process of empirically in the extent literature. If new deinstitutionalisation and ideas were more appropriate than existing reinstitutionalisation. Deinstitutionalisation ones, they would diffuse throughout an has only recently begun to attract attention organization or among organizations in a as it is increasingly recognized to be equally given field; thus, new norms and practices central to institutional process (Greenwood take on a greater degree of legitimacy and, in et al. 2002; Clegg and Bailey 2008). When turn, become institutionalised. This is a institutional isomorphic pressures increase, journey from theoretical formulation to the institutionalisation process emerges. On social movement and institutional imperative the other hand, when they decrease, which give technological innovations moral deinstitutionalisation process starts. and pragmatic legitimacy. When innovations Deinstitutionalisation is, therefore, a result of "objectify" or gain social consensus institutional change, erosion of existing concerning their pragmatic value, they institutions and creation of new ones (Seal diffuse into organization, and various 2003). Deinstitutionalisation also facilitates organizational actors can observe the unlearning in the organization to learn new institution and its interactions, and thus the facts, realities, and concepts. Through the new round of socialization starts. The next deinstitutionalisation, institutions weaken stage, i.e., full reinstitutionalisation occurs as and disappear because of new beliefs and the result of cognitive legitimacy. This is practices (Scott 2001). The process of when ideas are taken-for-granted as a institutional change is usually evolutionary natural and appropriate arrangement and and path dependent which is shaped by are accepted as the definitive way of existing institutions (Siti-Nabiha and Scapens organizational behaviour. After technology 2005). becomes sedimented and taken- for-granted by actors in a social system, they may even Greenwood et al. (2002) introduce a model not recognize that their behaviour is partly for institutional change which is described controlled by the institution (Bjorck 2004; here. Disequilibrium is the first stage of this Scott 2008; Baptista 2009). model which occurs when events or jolts destabilize established practices. These Oliver (1992) introduces three main sources events could be in the form of social and of pressures that can lead to the erosion of technological disruptions, competitive legitimacy or the taken for grantedness discontinuities, or regulatory changes. These which characterize institutions. These major changes result in deinstitutionalisation of antecedents are functional, political, and forms and practices, disturbance of socially social pressures [table 1]. Perceived constructed norms, introducing new ideas, problems in performance levels, or changes emergence of new players, domination of in the perceived utility associated with existing actors, and institutional institutionalised practices are the main entrepreneurship (Stage 2). In the third drivers of functional pressure that influence stage, i.e., preinstitutionalisation, deinstitutionalisation and institutional organizations start to innovate change. These functional pressures may be independently, and look for technically tied to intraorganizational and better and viable solutions to perceived environmental changes, e.g., technical problems. The next stage "theorization" aspects of activity or intensified competition Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 8

for resources (Lounsbury 2002; Dacin et al. debated and endorsed (Goetz and Peters 2002). If the perceived performance level of 1999; Burns and Scapens 2000; Dambrin et institution is not acceptable by actors al . 2007). Finally, social pressures are mainly constituting it, erosion of existing institution associated with increased differentiation will happen over time. Political pressures for among members of a group (such as deinstitutionalisation arise from shifts in the increasing workforce diversity), structural pattern of interests and underlying changes to organizations that reduce the distributions of power that have supported coherence of beliefs and practices, and and legitimated existing institutional changes in social expectations or laws that arrangements. These shifts may happen as a might prevent the continuation of a practice result of performance crises, re-valuation of (Dacin et al. 2002; Clegg and Bailey 2008). the instrumental value of the institution, These social pressures results in the erosion environmental changes, or shifts in the of the taken for granted assumptions and distribution of power that compel shared agreements upon which institutions organizations to question the legitimacy of a depend, thereby resulting in given practice. For example, Greenwood et al. deinstitutionalisation. In summary, these (2002) study institutional change within the functional, political, and social pressures will accounting profession in Canada, and the way not automatically lead to a breakdown in professional associations respond to market institutional norms. They should be forces and technological shifts for a new interpreted, given meaning, and responded range of services altered in the political to by actors within organizations (Scott context of accounting firms, and how they 2001; Dacin et al. 2002). In addition, in the legitimated the change. These forces result in research done by Siti-Nabiha and Scapens redefining and extending the scope of (2005), it was shown that financial services beyond traditional deinstitutionalisation is not just an accounting services and by incorporating organizational response to external management consulting, financial advisory (institutional) pressures and demands; and legal services. In this case, professional rather it can occur through the working out associations legitimated the change over a of resistance to embrace change. The 20-year period by referencing the prevailing evolutionary process of change constitutes values and practices of the profession, both stability and change simultaneously that particularly around service to clients. In this states they are not necessarily contradictory study, deinstitutionalisation addressed as a or opposing forces (Burns and Scapens 2000; process of discourse through which change is Siti-Nabiha and Scapens 2005).

Table 1: Three Main Sources of Institutional Change (Oliver (1992))

Pressure Main drivers Functional Perceived probl ems in performance levels, changes in the perceived utility associated with institutionalised practices, and Intensified competition for resources Political Shifts in the pattern of interests and underlying distributions of power. performance crises, re-valuation of the instrumental value of the institution, environmental changes Social Increased differentiation among members of a group (such as increasing workforce diversity), structural changes to organizations, changes in social expectations or laws

Reinstitutionalisation refers to departing which are organized around different from one institutionalisation and arriving principle and rules (Currie 2011). Full into another institutional form and practices reinstitutionalisation occurs as the result of 9 Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

cognitive legitimacy. This is when ideas are influenced by the institutional environment; taken for granted as a natural and conditions on which stable structures appropriate arrangement and are accepted become destabilized and call for change; the as the definitive way of organizational consequences of deinstitutionalisation behaviour. process for maintaining new institutional arrangements; relationships between Conclusions and Future Directions organizational characteristics, external pressures and institutional process; reasons Technology institutionalisation is an of resistance to change. These themes are evolutionary and nonlinear process and its important to explore because they provide success depends on a number of contextual, foundation for understanding how technical, environmental, social, cultural, and technologies in general and information other institutional factors and their mutual technologies in particular become embedded interactions. These interactions contribute to in the organization. organizational maturity, legitimacy, and success and define technology References implementation, institutionalisation, deinstitutionalisation and Abrutyn, S. & Turner, J. (2011). "The Old reinstitutionalisation in the organization. Institutionalism Meets the New Furthermore, although organization itself is Institutionalism," Sociological Perspectives, an institution, it consists of a variety of sub 54(3), 283-306. institutions. The mutual interactions of these institutional pressures not only define Baptista, J. (2009). "Institutionalisation as a technology implementation/ assimilation, Process of Interplay between Technology and but also have bearing on institutionalisation Its Organizational Context of Use," Journal of of technology through the process of Information Technology, 24(4), 305-319. institutional isomorphism. The aim of this paper is, thus, to review literature on how Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The technology institutionalisation occurs in Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in organizations, and more precisely how the Sociology of Knowledge, London: The institutional logics are diffused within Penguin Press, P. 249. organizations through three isomorphic processes i.e., coercive, mimetic and Bjorck, F. (2004). 'Institutional Theory: A normative. Moreover, how these New Perspective for Research into IS/IT technologies are changed by the process of Security in Organizations, HICSS, P. 70186b,' institutional change, deinstitutionalisation, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii and reinstitutionalisation. This paper International Conference on System Sciences concludes considering the effects of (HICSS'04) - Track 7. institutional pressures provide new insights Burns, J. & Scapens, R. W. (2000). into how the behaviors of individuals within "Conceptualising Management Accounting an organization are influenced by Change: An Institutionalist Framework," organizational norms, values, regulations, Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3- and culture. On the contrary, how they may 25. result in deinstitutionalisation and reinstitutionalisation of organizational forms Clegg, S. R. (1990). Modern Organizations: and practices. Organization Studies in the Post-Modern World, London: Sage Publications . Some research themes or dimensions that would be interesting to investigate are Clegg, S. R. & Bailey, J. R. (2008). including technology institutionalisation International Encyclopedia of Organization challenges, factors influencing and are Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 10

Currie, W. L. (2011). Institutional Theory of Creating Executive Organizations East and Information Technology. The Oxford West,' Paper Presented at Conference on Handbook of Management Information Institutional Theory, Ross Priory, Dunb., Systems: Critical Perspectives and New Scotland, October 18-19. Directions: 137-173. Goodhue, D. L. & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., Scott, W. R. (2002). "Task-Technology Fit and Individual "Institutional Theory and Institutional Performance," MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236. Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum," The Academy of Management Greenwood, R. (2008). 'The SAGE Handbook Journal, 45(1), 43-56. of Organizational Institutionalism,' Los Angeles: Sage. Dambrin, C., Lambert, C. & Sponemb, S. (2007). "Control and Change- Analysing the Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. & Hinings C. R. Process of Institutionalisation," Management (2002). "Theorizing Change: The Role of Accounting Research, 18(2), 172-208. Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalised Fields," Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. & Warshaw, P. R. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58- (1989). "User Acceptance of Computer 80. Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, Grewal, R. & Dharwadkar, R. (2002). "The 35(8), 982-1003. Role of Institutional Environment in Marketing Channels," Journal of Marketing, Delmestri, G. (2007). 'Institutional Theory. 66(3), 82–97. International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies,' Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, P. A. & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). "Political Science and the Three Institutionalisms," Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). "The Political Studies, 44, 936-957. Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Hasselbladh, H. & Kallinikos, J. (2000). "The Organizational Fields," American Sociological Project of Rationalization: A Critique and Review, 48 (2), 147-160. Reappraisal of Neo-Institutionalism in Organization Studies," Organization Studies, Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C. & Erlanger, H. S. 21(4), 697-720. (1999). "The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Jei, W. & Sia, C. L. (2011). The Process of RFID Myth," American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), Assimilation by Supply Chain Participants in 406-454. China: A Technology Diffusion Perspective on RFID Technology. In Proceedings of the 17th Elle, M., Darnmann, S., Lentsch, J. & Hansen, Americas Conference on Information K. (2010). "Learning from the Social Systems, Detroit, Michigan. Construction of Environmental Indicators: From the Retrospective to the Pro-Active Use Katsumata, H. (2011). "Mimetic Adoption and of SCOT in Technology Development," Norm Diffusion: ‘Western’ Security Building and Environment, 45(1), 135-142. Cooperation in Southeast Asia?," Review of

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in International Studies, 37(2), 557-576. Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, P. Xvi, 288 P. Lamb, R. & Kling, R. (2003). "Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Goetz, K, H. & Peters, B. G. (1999). Information Systems Research," MIS 'Institutional Theory and Political Executives: Quarterly, 27(2), 197-236. 11 Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). "Using Technology An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work," Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. & Xue, Y. (2007). Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. "Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Peters, B. G. (2000). 'Institutional Theory: Mediating Role of Top Management," MIS Problems and Prospects,' Political Science Quarterly, 31(1), 59-87. Series 69, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna. Lounsbury, M. (2002). "Institutional Transformation and Status Mobility: The Pierson, P. & Skocpol, T. (2002). "Historical Professionalization of the Field of Finance," Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Academy Of Management Journal, 45, 255- Science," In Political Science: The State of the 266. Discipline, Eds. I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner. New York: Norton, Pp. 445–88. MacDougall, R. (2011). "The Technological Imperative in Canada: An Intellectual History Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). (Review)," Labour (Halifax), 0700-3862, 67: The New Institutionalism in Organizational 232-234. Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mackenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (Eds.) (2001). Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of The Social Shaping of Technology (2nd Ed.) Innovations, 5th Ed. Free Press, New York. Buckingham: Open University Press. Scheirer, M. A. (2005). "Is Sustainability Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Possible? A Review and Commentary on "Institutionalised Organisations: Formal Empirical Studies of Program Sustainability," Structure as Myth and Ceremony," American American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 320- Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. 347.

Munir, K. A. & Phillips, N. (2002). "The Schmidt, V. A. (2008). "Discursive Concept of Industry and the Case of Radical Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Technological Change," The Journal of High Discourse," Annual Review of Political Science, Technology Management Research, 13(2), 11, 303–326. 279-297. Schutz, A. (1962). 'Collected Papers: The O'Donoghue, J., Singh, G. & Dorward, L. Problem of Social Reality,' In M. Natanson (2001). "Virtual Education in Universities: A (Ed.) the Hague: Martinus Nijhoff London, P. Technological Imperative," British Journal of Xlvii, 361p. Educational Technology, 32(5), 511-523. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Oliver, C. (1992). "The Antecedents of Organizations (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Deinstitutionalisation," Organization Studies, Sage. 13(4), 563-588. Seal, W. (2003). "Modernity, Modernization Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). "The Duality of and the Deinstitutionalisation of Incremental Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Budgeting in Local Government," Financial Technology in Organizations," Organization Accountability and Management, 19(2), 93- Science, 3(3), 398-427. 116. Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practices 12

Shepsle, K. A. (2006). Rational Choice Zucker, L. G. (1977). "The Role of Institutionalism. In: Rhodes. R. A. W. et Al. Institutionalisation in Cultural Persistence," (Eds.). Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726- University Press. 23–38. 743.

Siti-Nabiha, A. K. & Scapens, R. W. (2005). Zucker, L. G. (1986). "Production of Trust: "Stability and Change: An Institutionalist Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, Study of Management Accounting Change," 1840–1920," Research in Organisational Accounting Auditing and Accountability Behaviour, 8(1), 53–111. Journal, 18(1), 44-73. Zucker, L. G. (1987). "Institutional Theories Staw, B. M. & Epstein, L. D. (2000). "What of Organization," Annual Review of Sociology, Bandwagons Bring—Effects of Popular 13(1), 443–464. Management Techniques on Corporate Performance, Reputation and CEO Pay," Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 523- 556.

Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K. & Benbasat, I. (2003). "Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective," MIS Quarterly, 27, 19–49, 2003.

Tornatzky, L. G. & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts. Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Irani, Z. (2009). "The Diffusion and Use of Institutional Theory: A Cross-Disciplinary Longitudinal Literature Survey," Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 354-368.

Wixom, B. H. & Todd, P. A. (2005). "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.

Zsidisin, G. A., Melnyk, S. A. & Ragatz. G. L. (2005). "An Institutional Theory Perspective of Business Continuity Planning for Purchasing and Supply Management," International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 3401–3420.