Critical Perspectives on Technology and Organization - Essay Example

Critical Perspectives on Technology and Organization Technology has a great impact on organization, its development, growth opportunities and performance. Information processing activities of organizational members are changing, since access to new technologies is leading to a change in behavior. Given the uncertain influence of technology on core managerial activities, the relationship between technology and organizations needs to be addressed, since the use of these technologies mediates and contributes to the changing character of organizations. Such researches as Scarbrough & Lannon (1988, 1989), Newell (2002) describe and analyze the impact of technology on learning and organizational change in different organizational settings. The case study by Scarbrough & Lannon (1989) describes the impact of innovations and technology on the UK banking sector and discusses possible problems and advantages of technology implementation. The authors suggest that innovations and technological change can help to improve knowledge and learning in different service sectors. One reason for this is that once new technical knowledge is acquired, it can usually be embodied in a readily transferable form. The smoothness and slope of the corporate technical learning curve depend on two factors: (1) how well learning about the particular technology is transmitted from site to site and (2) how representative of later sites the first ones that influence developers design decisions are. Scarbrough & Lannon (1989) underline that technology has a great impact on learning and service improvements. It is possible to apply ‘double loop learning’ to the case of the Bank of Scotland to describe learning and knowledge creation influenced by technology. “Double loop learning’ was first developed by Argyris & Schon in their work Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness published in 1974. “Double loop learning’ can be defined as “is learning where assumptions about ways of seeing things are challenged and underlying values are changed. Double loop learning, in questioning givens or taken-for-granteds, has the potential to bring about a profound shift in underlying values by cracking their paradigms or ways of seeing the world” (Argyris & Schon 1992, p. 18). Also, ‘Double loop learning’ can be characterized through reflection, particularly with others in dialogue. Applied to the case by Scarbrough & Lannon, it is possible to say that “double loop learning’ is achieved by means of technology and innovations. Scarbrough & Lannon (1989) state that learning and knowledge creation cannot exist in a vacuum. The case study shows that in learning the emotional and social as well as the cognitive context is important. Employees can benefit from interaction with others through dialogue and interaction. Although the integration of tasks across teams has the potential for redesigning the entire organization in terms of job descriptions or promotion schemes, management frequently lacks the commitment to change the entire control structure of the organization. It may take time to realize the potential of integrating tasks through teams. The potential may lie in a reduction of the number of middle managers or a change in the authority structure. It is, however, only when the full potential of technology has been realized that organizational structure changes become more visible. In this case, ‘double loop learning’ is performed through emotions and feelings which surround the action learning process (Argyris & Schon 1992). Technology can facilitate the establishment of interorganizational ties, yet success depends on the inherent business necessities of such ties, and top management’s commitment to making them work. Since knowledge workers become accessible to a number of legally independent organizations, they are assets to a wider community, making them a valuable resource to be protected. Following Argyris & Schon (1992): “all human beings – not only professional practitioners – need to become competent in taking actions and simultaneously reflecting on this action to learn from it” (Argyris & Schon p. 4). In the case study, Scarbrough & Lannon (1989) show that new technology implementation could be described in terms of one or more individual learning curves in that the implementation team members, as well as the factory-floor users, accumulated knowledge about the new technology. However, of greater interest from the corporate viewpoint are two overall organizational learning, each of which describes the aggregate corporate experience across a number of implementations: (1) a technical learning describing the cumulative knowledge about the technical aspects of implementing a particular technology (including additions that aid in aligning the technology with existing equipment or systems) and (2) an organizational learning describing the cumulative knowledge about the management of organizational issues (changes in user skills, procedures, performance criteria) raised by a particular technology (Dosi et al 2001). In order to keep control over the assets that are invested into these new business alliances, organizations may establish a hierarchical structure of formal control for them. This depends on the significance of the alliance and the potential danger associated with losing key internal resources (Dosi et al 1998). Control is an important factor described by Scarbrough & Lannon (1988) which helps to integrator tasks across teams and has the potential for redesigning the entire organization in terms of job descriptions or promotion schemes, management frequently lacks the commitment to change the entire control structure of the organization. Applying the concept of “double loop learning”, it is possible to say the example of Bank of Scotland shows that it may take time to realize the potential of integrating tasks in service sector. Personal change is a crucial element of learning and organizational change. The potential may lie in a reduction of the number of middle managers or a change in the authority structure. It is, however, only when the full potential of technology has been realized that organizational structure changes become more visible. It may therefore take time to notice the long-term effect of increased technology use on organizational design (Scarbrough & Lannon (1988). Technology can facilitate the establishment of interorganizational ties, yet success depends on the inherent business necessities of such ties, and top management’s commitment to making them work. Since knowledge workers become accessible to a number of legally independent organizations, they are assets to a wider community, making them a valuable resource to be protected. In order to keep control over the assets that are invested into these new business alliances, organizations may establish a hierarchical structure of formal control for them. This depends on the significance of the alliance and the potential danger associated with losing key internal resources (Boden, 2001). In the case study by Scarborough & Lannon (1989) “Invention of new meanings and production of new actions” (Argyris & Schön 1992, p. 19) are depicted through organizational change and creation of a new culture. Although technology has been found to have the potential to change organizational behavior by decreasing response time, by speeding up information processing and altering the time and place of work, there are unavoidable second-order effects that may constrain learning. These effects relate to the increased dependence on technology, the stimulation of unanticipated responses from competitors or customers, or the need to manage a more complex organization. These may hinder learning taking place. Although technology has been found to have the potential to change organizational behavior by decreasing response time, by speeding up information processing and altering the time and place of work, there are unavoidable second-order effects that may constrain learning (Scarbrough & Lannon 1989). These effects relate to the increased dependence on technology, the stimulation of unanticipated responses from competitors or customers, or the need to manage a more complex organization. Another constraint for learning arises from the failure to use IT technology effectively at an early stage (Galliers & Baets 1998). This is related to the pressure for immediate success. Since organizations are faced constantly with external pressure, organizational members find it difficult to spare the extra time, energy and resources to identify the problems inhibiting the effective use of IT technology. In addition, established patterns of use in the early period of introduction are difficult to revise, as organizational members adapt themselves quickly to their new IT technologies. In the banking service system, once functions have become habitual or automatic, organizational members resist changes to technology use (Boden, 2001). Although the new technology may have initially been intended to lead to more information distribution, evaluations may lead to an adaptation of expectations regarding actual achievements or the capability for them, thereby lowering the standard set. Once the initial enthusiasm of organizational members for the new technology has waned, it becomes difficult to adjust the technology (Scarborough & Lannon 1988). In sum, it is possible to say that Scarborough & Lannon (1989) use many notions and factors similar to ‘double loop learning’ proposed by Argyris & Schon (1992). In order for technology to serve as a learning tool, knowledge workers need to be prepared to use it for the purpose of information acquisition, distribution, interpretation and storage. This involves changing people’s mindset and creating the willingness to use IT technology as a facilitator. Without the willingness to apply IT technology to enhance the organizational knowledge base, the instrument will not serve its purpose (Frappaolo, 2006). Thus the first and most important step is to change the existing mindset of knowledge workers to accept IT technology as a learning tool. It is top management’s responsibility to encourage knowledge workers to take this first step. It is easier for managers to create this willingness in a crisis situation, as organization members are aware of the danger of failure, so they may be more ready to accept new practices within the organization at such a time. There are similarities between Scarbrough and Lannon approach to innovation with the codified approach and organizational change described by Newell et al (2002). According to Scarbrough and Lannon, the operationalization of the cognitive construct, which is an indicator of one of the organizational learning streams, is problematic, since it does not have tangible characteristics that would measure the effects of change in a person’s understanding. Information-processing as an activity of organizational members can provide an indicator of change in the state of knowledge. According to Scarbrough and Lannon (1989 cited Boden 2001, p. 123), organizations learn when they increase their knowledge of action–outcome relationships by obtaining information that they recognize as being potentially useful. This is achieved through the processing of information. Organizational learning encompasses the acquisition, distribution, interpretation and storage of information (Boden 2001). Similar ideas are shared by Newell et al (2002) who state that "the extent of this change in the scope of knowledge production is also not confined to those sectors typically labelled knowledge-intensive” (Newell et al 2002, p. 18). Information acquisition is the process by which information is obtained from the environment and added to the collective stock of knowledge within the organization. Information distribution involves sharing information sources among organizational members as it is needed or can be applied. Information interpretation refers to the process of establishing a shared understanding based on distributed information. Storing information plays a critical role in organizational learning, since socially accepted past experiences need to be accumulated for future use (Galliers & Baets 1998). Newell et al (2002) and Scarborough & Lannon (1989) follow structuralist perspective on knowledge. “Embrained Knowledge is a knowledge that is dependent on conceptual skills and cognitive abilities" (Newell et al 2002, p. 6). The main similarity between Newell et al (2002) and Scarborough & Lannon (1989) is their perception and understanding of knowledge creation and its impact on teams and HR policies. When managers observe the environment, they often find that external information cues are ambiguous. This ambiguity may be a result of diverse interpretations by different organizational members, or it may be due to the inability of individuals to make sense of confusing information. As a result of ambiguity, managers are unsure about the consequences of that observation on organizational action. In order to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the information, there is a need to develop minimal shared interpretations in order to produce organized action (Boden, 2001). This may be achieved by negotiating a solution based on accumulated experience in order to establish mutual understanding. A major difference between uncertainty and ambiguity is the required information-processing response. Acquiring additional information through the process of search reduces uncertainty (Galliers & Baets. 1998). Exchanging individual constructions of reality among organizational members to enact a solution jointly reduces ambiguity. Organizational members resolve disagreements based on ambiguity to arrive at a shared understanding. Thus, to reduce ambiguity, individuals within the organization have to define information jointly. IT techniques vary in their capacity to reduce uncertainty or ambiguity. Following Newell et al (2002): “the firm, which is often the case in knowledge-intensive firms populated by a highly skilled, diverse workforce. This perspective acknowledges ambiguity" (Newell et al 2002, p. 35). Since the information-processing context connected with each learning process varies, managers need to match the context – that is, one of uncertainty or ambiguity – with the appropriate medium. Following Huber (1991) ‘an entity learns if, through the processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed’ (p. 89). The processing of information is the cognitive dimension, while the change in behavior refers to the behavioral dimension. For information acquisition, perception is a less important moderator compared to the other learning processes – information distribution, interpretation and storage – since there is a larger degree of individual autonomy in using various techniques to acquire information from the outside. This autonomy enables managers to make choices with a relatively high degree of independence vis-à-visthe organizational context. However, managers need to be aware of the learning techniques patterns of their communication partners outside the organization. Similar to Scarbrough & Lannon, Newell et al (2002) suggest that obtaining a report through electronic mail from an industry association, for example, requires knowledge about the availability of electronic mail within the association. “The more groups and interests affected by a particular innovation, the wider the range of perceptions and views on the technology, and the greater the possibility of conflict." (Newell et al 2002, p. 162). The differences in approaches are found in their understanding of environment and its impact on an individual and organization. Following Scarbrough & Lannon (1989), information technology can influence organizations through an incremental process starting at the individual level, transcending teams, affecting the entire organization, and eventually redefining the boundaries of the firm. The immediate effect of technology use may therefore only become visible after technology has been used intensively for a longer period of time. The impact of technology on middle managers depends on the level of penetration within the organization. Newell et al (2002) underline that the greater the level of technology penetration, the more likely it is that technology will have an impact on middle managers. Without some critical mass of penetration, however, the impact will be insignificant, as the capital investment will not be able to show its potential in reducing labor costs (Boden, 2001). The advantage of this framework is that it decomposes the overall learning phenomenon into a number of smaller and more observable processes. Although these processes are distributed over time and space, this classification makes the learning construct more readily identifiable (Boden, 2001). Following Newell et al (2002) the ability to observe and identify these processes leads to a practical benefit: the diagnosis of ineffective or dysfunctional systems. The constituent processes of learning help to isolate problems for which practical solutions can be found. To understand the nature of information processing, which is at the heart of learning, it is necessary to examine its origins. Research within the field of organization theory and communication suggests that there are two influences on information processing: uncertainty and ambiguity. Galliers & Baets (1998) proposed that, with increasing levels of uncertainty, organizational members process more information. Uncertainty is the difference between the amount of information required to perform a task and the amount of information already possessed by the organization. Organizations acquire more data in order to reduce uncertainty. In contrast to uncertainty, ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple and conflicting interpretations about a situation within the organization (Newell et al 2002). When managers observe the environment, they often find that external information cues are ambiguous. This ambiguity may be a result of diverse interpretations by different organizational members, or it may be due to the inability of individuals to make sense of confusing information. As a result of ambiguity, managers are unsure about the consequences of that observation on organizational action. In order to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the information, there is a need to develop minimal shared interpretations in order to produce organized action (Newell et al 2002). This may be achieved by negotiating a solution based on accumulated experience in order to establish mutual understanding. A major difference between uncertainty and ambiguity is the required information-processing response. Acquiring additional information through the process of search reduces uncertainty. Exchanging individual constructions of reality among organizational members to enact a solution jointly reduces ambiguity. "Effective implementation depends, then, on changes in knowledge, skills and organizational practices that lie outside the remit of the technical expert” (Newell et al 2002, p. 149). Organizational members resolve disagreements based on ambiguity to arrive at a shared understanding. Thus, to reduce ambiguity, individuals within the organization have to define information jointly (Galliers & Baets 1998). In contrast Scarborough & Lannon (1989) underline that individuals retain information mentally based on their own experiences and observations about action–outcome relationships. Face-to-face communication, a rich medium, minimizes the amount of distortion and enables the storage of information in the cognitive repositories of individuals. The degree to which these cognitive repositories serve learning depends on the interconnectedness, integration and trust of individuals within the organization (Boden, 2001). In sum, Scarborough & Lannon (1989) and Newell et al (2002) have similar pespetive on knowledge creation and its ‘cognitive’ nature. Thus, they differ in their application to modern organization and impact on IT and organizational change. Organizational members develop routines over time through a process of sharing interpretations. For this purpose, communication and learning are required, since a shared definition of information is primarily created through natural language, rapid feedback and multiple cues. Technology effectiveness is a multidimensional construct, consisting of a great many measures. This could lead to preferential recall of earlier memories, or to the repression of information from memory. A comprehensive scheme of performance measurement of technology effectiveness should include both individual and organizational level measures. The underlying goal is to develop valid measures that can be employed by researchers and managers. Findings of both studies allow managers to understand the link between individual- and organizational-level variables. Bibliography 1. Argyris, C and Schön, D 1992, Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, London. 2. Boden, M. 2001, Services and the Knowledge-Based Economy (Science, Technology & the Ipe). Routledge. 3. Dosi, G., Teece, D., Chytry, J. 2001, Technology, Organization and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford University Press. 4. Frappaolo, C. 2006, Knowledge Management. Capstone; 2 edition. 5. Galliers, R. D., Baets, W. R. J. 1998, Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: Innovation for the 21st Century Organization. Wiley. 6. Huber, G. P. 1991, ‘Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures’, Organization Science, 2, pp. 88–115. 7. Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. 2002, Managing Knowledge Work, Palgrave, London. 8. Scarborough, H., Lannon, R. 1988, "The successful exploitation of new technology in banking", Journal of General Management, vol. 13, no.3, pp.38-51. 9. Scarborough, H., Lannon, R. 1989, "The management of innovation in the financial services sector: a case study", Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 5, vol.1, pp.51-62. 10. Tiwane, A. 1999, Knowledge Management Toolkit, The: Practical Techniques for Building a Knowledge Management System. Pearson Education; Pap/Cdr edition. Read More