IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/3517.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Same Technology, Different Outcome? Lessons on Dummy Variables & Dependent Variable Transformations

Author

Listed:
  • Hunter, Starling David

Abstract

There is long-standing body of empirical research concerned with the consequences of information technology for organization structure and processes. Several of those studies have reported that the same technology, when implemented in similar organizational settings, can be associated with vastly different, even diametrically opposing, organizational consequences. The seminal study in this stream of research is Barley's (1986) article entitled "Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments." That study reported that two similarly-composed radiology departments implemented the same technology yet experienced different structural outcomes, i.e. that the two departments experienced different rates of decentralization and that they evolved through a different number of distinct phases of structuring. This difference in outcomes was attributed to differences between each departments' distribution of relevant expertise and "specific historical processes" (Barley, 1986:107) in which the technology was embedded. My reanalysis of the data uses different and arguably more appropriate research methods and shows that the failure to transform the dependent variable, as well as the exclusion, misspecification, and misinterpretation of several dummy variables, biased the regression estimates and led to erroneous conclusions. The methodological contribution of this paper is that it underscores problems attendant to not recognizing two of the ways in which dummy variables can be interpreted: as a means for capturing intercept shifts and as a means for controlling for the effects of unobserved heterogeneity. The theoretical contributions relate to how the reanalysis impacts our understanding of the information technology -organizational structure relationship. In short, I conclude that research on the organizational consequences of IT, particularly ethnographic research, may need to (1) exchange the assumption of homogeneity among similarly-constituted organizations for one of heterogeneity (2) take both the observable properties of technology and its context of use explicitly into account and (3) and make more clear what is meant by "different structural outcomes

Suggested Citation

  • Hunter, Starling David, 2003. "Same Technology, Different Outcome? Lessons on Dummy Variables & Dependent Variable Transformations," Working papers 4308-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:3517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/3517
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James & Singer, Burton, 1984. "A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 271-320, March.
    2. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    3. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina), 1993. "CASE tools as organizational change : investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development," Working papers WP 3579-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Rachid Zeffane, 1989. "Computer Use And Structural Control: A Study Of Australian Enterprises," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 621-648, November.
    5. Klatzky, S R, 1970. "Automation, Size, and the Locus of Decision Making: The Cascade Effect," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 141-151, April.
    6. Brian T. Pentland, 1995. "Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 541-556, October.
    7. Rosen, Sherwin, 2007. "Studies in Labor Markets," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226726304.
    8. Erik Brynjolfsson & Thomas W. Malone & Vijay Gurbaxani & Ajit Kambil, 1994. "Does Information Technology Lead to Smaller Firms?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(12), pages 1628-1644, December.
    9. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, 1988. "Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 251-267, October.
    10. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 1992. "The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 398-427, August.
    11. Daniel Robey & Sundeep Sahay, 1996. "Transforming Work Through Information Technology: A Comparative Case Study of Geographic Information Systems in County Government," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 93-110, March.
    12. James J. Heckman, 1981. "Heterogeneity and State Dependence," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 91-140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Russell L. Purvis & V. Sambamurthy & Robert W. Zmud, 2001. "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, April.
    2. Robert G. Fichman, 2004. "Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 132-154, June.
    3. Kun Shin Im & Varun Grover & James T. C. Teng, 2013. "Research Note---Do Large Firms Become Smaller by Using Information Technology?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 470-491, June.
    4. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    5. Arellano, Manuel & Carrasco, Raquel, 2003. "Binary choice panel data models with predetermined variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 125-157, July.
    6. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    7. Ahituv, Avner & Kimhi, Ayal, 2002. "Off-farm work and capital accumulation decisions of farmers over the life-cycle: the role of heterogeneity and state dependence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 329-353, August.
    8. A. Ronald Gallant & Han Hong & Ahmed Khwaja, 2018. "The Dynamic Spillovers of Entry: An Application to the Generic Drug Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1189-1211, March.
    9. Coelli, Michael B. & Green, David A. & Warburton, William P., 2007. "Breaking the cycle? The effect of education on welfare receipt among children of welfare recipients," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1369-1398, August.
    10. Marie-Claude Boudreau & Daniel Robey, 2005. "Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 3-18, February.
    11. Li Donni, Paolo, 2019. "The unobserved pattern of material hardship and health among older Americans," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 31-42.
    12. Cuellar, Michael J. & Gallivan, Michael J., 2006. "A framework for ex ante project risk assessment based on absorptive capacity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1123-1138, September.
    13. Andriopoulou, Eirini & Tsakloglou, Panos, 2011. "The Determinants of Poverty Transitions in Europe and the Role of Duration Dependence," IZA Discussion Papers 5692, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Deza, Monica, 2015. "Is there a stepping stone effect in drug use? Separating state dependence from unobserved heterogeneity within and between illicit drugs," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 193-207.
    15. Margunn Aanestad & Bob Jolliffe & Arunima Mukherjee & Sundeep Sahay, 2014. "Infrastructuring Work: Building a State-Wide Hospital Information Infrastructure in India," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 834-845, December.
    16. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    17. Sasaki, Yuya, 2015. "Heterogeneity and selection in dynamic panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 236-249.
    18. Jaap H. Abbring, 2010. "Identification of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 367-394, September.
    19. Caliendo, Marco & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2008. "Self-Employment Dynamics, State Dependence and Cross-Mobility Patterns," IZA Discussion Papers 3900, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2008. "Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer and Recent Developments," Working Papers 08-26, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.

    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:mit:sloanp:3517. 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: None (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssmitus.html .

    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.