IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v12y2010i3d10.1007_s10796-009-9194-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research

Author

Listed:
  • Devaki Rau

    (Northern Illinois University)

  • Thorvald Haerem

    (Dept. of Leadership and Organisational Management, Norwegian School of Management BI
    Paul Merage School of Business, University of California)

Abstract

Organizations often under-utilize expensive information technology (IT) enabled work processes that automate routines or processes that were previously carried out manually. One reason for this phenomenon may lie in the types of decisions made by technological gatekeepers, who are key individuals charged with deploying new technologies in organizations. From an organizational learning perspective, technological gatekeepers are more likely to perform successfully when they make appropriate decisions about exploring or exploiting the routines associated with a new technology. The factors that influence gatekeepers’ decisions about exploration or exploitation, however, are still largely unexplored. In this study, we present a model based on the basic technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine this issue. We use concepts from the literatures on organizational learning, expertise, and cognitive styles to elaborate on the constructs in our model, and examine how these literatures can inform our understanding of technological gatekeepers’ decisions. The goal of this paper is to accelerate micro-level research on new technology deployment in organizations by identifying some key issues and propositions for future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Devaki Rau & Thorvald Haerem, 2010. "Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 287-297, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:12:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s10796-009-9194-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-009-9194-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-009-9194-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-009-9194-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon & Donald A. Wehrung, 1990. "Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 422-435, April.
    3. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    6. Dennis Epple & Linda Argote & Rukmini Devadas, 1991. "Organizational Learning Curves: A Method for Investigating Intra-Plant Transfer of Knowledge Acquired Through Learning by Doing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 58-70, February.
    7. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    8. Paul Shrivastava, 1983. "A Typology Of Organizational Learning Systems," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 7-28, January.
    9. Se-Joon Hong & James Y. L. Thong & Jae-Yun Moon & Kar-Yan Tam, 2008. "Understanding the behavior of mobile data services consumers," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 431-445, September.
    10. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    11. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    12. Mark Easterby‐Smith & Mary Crossan & Davide Nicolini, 2000. "Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 783-796, September.
    13. Edward A. Stohr & J. Leon Zhao, 2001. "Workflow Automation: Overview and Research Issues," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 281-296, September.
    14. Gerald C. Kane & Maryam Alavi, 2007. "Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 796-812, October.
    15. Bernadette Szajna, 1996. "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 85-92, January.
    16. Robert A. Shumsky & Edieal J. Pinker, 2003. "Gatekeepers and Referrals in Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(7), pages 839-856, July.
    17. Franz Lehner & Ronald K. Maier, 2000. "How Can Organizational Memory Theories Contribute to Organizational Memory Systems?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 277-298, October.
    18. Shanteau, James, 1992. "Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 252-266, November.
    19. Nigel Nicholson & Emma Soane & Mark Fenton-O'Creevy & Paul Willman, 2005. "Personality and domain-specific risk taking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 157-176, March.
    20. Joost M.E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2000. "Assessing the Construct Validity of Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1337-1348, October.
    21. Finn Olav Sveen & Eliot Rich & Matthew Jager, 2007. "Overcoming organizational challenges to secure knowledge management," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 481-492, November.
    22. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    23. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    24. Karl E. Weick, 1991. "The Nontraditional Quality of Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 116-124, February.
    25. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    26. Paul S. Adler, 1990. "Shared Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 938-957, August.
    27. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    28. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ya-na Wang & Lifu Jin & Hanping Mao, 2019. "Farmer Cooperatives’ Intention to Adopt Agricultural Information Technology—Mediating Effects of Attitude," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 565-580, June.
    2. Amany Elbanna & Henrik C. J. Linderoth, 2015. "The formation of technology mental models: the case of voluntary use of technology in organizational setting," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 95-108, February.
    3. Yan Mandy Dang & Yulei Gavin Zhang & James Morgan, 2017. "Integrating switching costs to information systems adoption: An empirical study on learning management systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 625-644, June.
    4. Devaki Rau & Thorvald Haerem & Gautam Ray & Wei Zheng, 2010. "Guest editorial for the special section on “Technology acceptance, usage, and competitive advantage”," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 235-237, July.
    5. Yan Mandy Dang & Yulei Gavin Zhang & James Morgan, 0. "Integrating switching costs to information systems adoption: An empirical study on learning management systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    6. Kishor Vaidya & John Campbell, 2016. "Multidisciplinary approach to defining public e-procurement and evaluating its impact on procurement efficiency," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 333-348, April.
    7. Chulhwan Chris Bang, 2015. "Information systems frontiers: Keyword analysis and classification," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 217-237, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    4. Wong Lai Soon & Bobby Chai Boon Hui & Wong Kee Luen, 2013. "Joining the New Band: Factors Triggering the Intentions of Malaysian College and University Students to Adopt 4G Broadband," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 5(2), pages 58-65.
    5. Türker, Cansu & Altay, Burak Can & Okumuş, Abdullah, 2022. "Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Christopher R. Plouffe & John S. Hulland & Mark Vandenbosch, 2001. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 208-222, June.
    7. Venugopal, Aparna & Krishnan, T.N. & Upadhyayula, Rajesh Srinivas & Kumar, Manish, 2020. "Finding the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity - Demystifying the role of top management behavioural integration," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-11.
    8. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    9. Haque, Md Ziaul & Qian, Aimin & Hoque, Md Rakibul & Lucky, Suraiea Akter, 2022. "A unified framework for exploring the determinants of online social networks (OSNs) on institutional investors’ capital market investment decision," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Forés, Beatriz & Camisón, César, 2016. "Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 831-848.
    11. Agarwal, Reeti & Rastogi, Sanjay & Mehrotra, Ankit, 2009. "Customers’ perspectives regarding e-banking in an emerging economy," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 340-351.
    12. Yuan Li & Jiaqi Liang & Jingxiong Huang & Mengsheng Yang & Runyan Li & Huanxia Bai, 2022. "Would You Accept Virtual Tourism? The Impact of COVID-19 Risk Perception on Technology Acceptance from a Comparative Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Sunkee Lee & Philipp Meyer-Doyle, 2017. "How Performance Incentives Shape Individual Exploration and Exploitation: Evidence from Microdata," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 19-38, February.
    14. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    15. Nedra, Bahri-Ammari & Hadhri, Walid & Mezrani, Mariem, 2019. "Determinants of customers' intentions to use hedonic networks: The case of Instagram," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 21-32.
    16. Premkumar, G. & Bhattacherjee, Anol, 2008. "Explaining information technology usage: A test of competing models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 64-75, February.
    17. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    18. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    19. Bonesso, Sara & Gerli, Fabrizio & Scapolan, Annachiara, 2014. "The individual side of ambidexterity: Do individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 392-405.
    20. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:12:y:2010:i:3:d:10.1007_s10796-009-9194-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.