學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 例規越界：解讀產品生命週期管理系統於設計鏈的科技內涵
Routines crossover: interpreting product lifecycle management systems in design chain作者 廖啟旭
Liao, Chihsu貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Rueylin
廖啟旭
Liao, Chihsu關鍵詞 科技採納
組織例規
變革
調適
technology adoption
organizational routine
change
adaption日期 2009 上傳時間 4-九月-2013 11:56:30 (UTC+8) 摘要 企業常藉由採納新科技的作法提升本身的競爭力，科技因此成為創造企業核心競爭力的關鍵。但是要讓科技在組織中發揮其功能，並不是一件容易的事，科技的導入常伴隨著新工作方式的產生，而團隊成員不一定能馬上轉換工作方式，或接受新的工作方式，因此需要經歷過一段調適的過程，使得科技能融入到組織的工作例規當中，成為組織例規的一部份。過去的文獻從例規的觀點談科技採納並不多，本研究從組織例規的觀點著手，探究科技採納的過程中科技與組織的調適行為。本研究以質性研究的方法進行，長期觀察與分析一家台灣知名的電腦代工廠商，研究其導入產品生命週期管理系統以提升其設計鏈績效的歷程。透過分析優品公司採納產品生命週期管理系統的前後時期，工作例規與審核變化的變化；以及分析內嵌在產品生命週期管理系統中的組織例規，以瞭解組織中的工作例規與審核例規變化的情形。最後，本研究發現有一種例規衝突的現象，我稱之為「例規越界」，這是過去文獻所未曾提及的情況，但是卻對科技採納產生重大的影響。這是科技中的組織例規與採納科技後組織的新例規之間的衝突，我將在研究中呈現不同例規間的衝突對於科技採納的影響。本研究在學理上的貢獻有三：首先，反思在科技調適的文獻中，是否忽略了科技精神的重要性？調適不能只重視功能面的調適，更需要注重精神面的調適。其次是，透過反思審核例規背後的精神，去凸顯出當使用者在與科技進行調適時，是如何產生學習上的失靈。當使用者能有效的解讀科技的精神時，調適才有可能更有效。最後，回應Feldman的單一例規變化的主張，進行延展性解釋，本研究發現例規是否成為變動的來源取決於例規間互動的關係，其中例規變動的方向，不僅取決於例規間變動的關係，還取決於使用者是否能反思例規的內涵。因此，本研究認為組織例規不只是像Feldman所主張的「例規是變革的來源」，而且還是「例規的反思是變革的路徑」。
The organization always promotes its competitive ability by adopting new technology. Therefore, technology has been a key element to build core competitive for organization. However, it is a hard work for technology to develop its performance in organization. When organization adopts a new technology, organization will accompany to develop a new work routine. But a lot of organization members could not switch or accept their work routines to new routines. Therefore, organization needs a period of time to adapted technology, then the technology will embed in organizational routine to be a part of organizational routines. In past literatures, there are seldom use “organizational routine” to explore technology adoption. The study will take the “organizational routine” view to understand adoptive process in technology and organizational adaption.The study is an qualitative research that reviews and analysis a famous computer OEM ( Original Equipment Manufacturer) in Taiwan. The study explore the process of a company adopted the PLM（product Lifecycle Management） to improve the performance of design-chain management. In the study , I analysis the organizational routines and the organizational routines embedded in PLM that before and after adopt PLM. And, the study find a routines conflict phenomenon that I call “routine crossover”. It is a important phenomenon in technology adoption that never discuss in prior research.The theoretical contribution as followings: First, the study reflected whether those prior literatures ignore the important of the “Technology Spirit” ? The technology adaption could not only focus on functional level but also spirit level. Second, by to reflect the spirit that embedded in technology, the study illustrate that the “learning disfunction” and argued that the effective technology adaption was come from effective interpret the technology spirit. Third, the study respond Feldman’s argument that “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”, extend to “The reflect of organizational routines is a path of change.”參考文獻 中文部分：吳建明, 林尚平, 湯大緯, & 李純誼. 2008. 資訊系統「後採納階段」使用慣例之個案研究. 台大管理論叢, 19(1): 213-240.吳學修. 2003. PDM 對研發管理之影響----以A 公司為例. 國立政治大學. 碩士論文.林尚平, 吳建明, & 陳怜秀. 2006. 資訊系統使用階段變革歷程之研究－以動態觀點，檢視“使用慣例”與介入措施交互調適的影響效應. 管理學報(23卷5期): 22.林芬慧, 曾智義, & 郭峰淵. 2006. 資訊科技啟動組織變革的歷程模式研究. 資訊管理學報, 13(1): 26.劉思慧. 2005. 企業設計鏈之型態研究. 成功大學. 碩士論文 英文部分：Agre, P. E. 1985. Routines. AI Memo: MIT Press.Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1): 1-19.Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1): 78-109.Barley, S. R. 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 61-104.Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. 2005. Understanding user response to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 493-526.Becker, M. C. 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4): 643-677.Becker, M. C. (Ed.). 2008. Handbook of Organizational Routines: Edward Elgar Publishing.Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winder, S. 2005. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 775-791.Bruque, S., Moyano, J., & Eisenberg, J., 2008. Individual Adaptation to IT-Induced Change: The Role of Social Networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3): 177-206.Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spinoff companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 529-555.Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovation dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Cohen, W. L., & Levinthal, D. M. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5: 554-568.Cyert, R. M., & March, J. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Davis, F. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and use acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340.DeSantics, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2): 121-147.Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685-716.Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6): 611-629.Feldman, M. S. 2003. A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4): 727-752.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(March): 94-118.Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65-97.Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 1993. Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4: 595–616.Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organization goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3): 366-376.Hermanowicz, J. C., & Morgan, H. P. 1999. Ritualizing the routine: Collective identity affirmation. Sociological Forum, 14(2): 197-214.Heron, J., & Reason, P. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3): 274-294.Hutchins, E. 1991. Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1): 14-39.Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. 2005. A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 525-557.Joe, M. 2001. Not for the faint hearted: Social and organizational challenges in IT-enabled change. Organization Development Journal, 19(1): 11.Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 67-93.Kling, R. 1980. Social analyses of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computer Survey, 12(1): 61-110.Kumar, R. L., & Crook, C. W. 1999. A multi-disciplinary framework for the management of interorganizational systems. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30(1): 22-37.Kuczmarski, T. D. 1992. managing new product: the power of innovation. N. J.: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs.Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment; managing differentiation and integration. Boston,: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard UniversityLeonard-Barton, D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy., 17(5): 251-267.Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Summer special issue): 111-125.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. 1987. Information system failures: A survey and classification of the empirical literatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Majchrzak, A. 1992. Management of technological and organizational CHenryge. in Henrydbook of Industrial Engineering, G. Salvendy(ed.), Wiley & Sons, New York, pp:767-797Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. 2000. Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4): 569-601.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizaton Science, 2: 71-87.Markus, M. L., Keil, Mark. 1994. If We Build It, They Will Come: Designing Information Systems that People Want to Use. Sloan Management Review, 35(2): 11-25.Markus, M. L., & Cornelis, T. 2000. Enterprise Systems Experience - From Adoption to Success. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domain of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past: 173-207. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.Markus, M. L., Manville, B., & Agres, C. E. 2000. What makes a virtual organization work? . Sloan Management Review, 42(1): 13-26.Markus, C. B. 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4): 643-667.Moynihan, M. J., Ronald S. 1993. Leveraging Technology in the New Global Company. London, UK: Economist Intelligence Unit.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3): 398-427Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. 1995. Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6: 423-444.Paul, C., Izak, B., & Albert, S. D. 2001. Research report: Empirical test of an EDI adoption model. Information Systems Research, 12(3): 304Pentland, B. 1992. Organizing moves in software support lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 527-548.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2005. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 793-815.Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 484-510.Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Saunders, C. S. 2005. Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1): 257-294.Reason, P. 1994. Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 324-339. London: Sage.Reason, P., & Rowan, J. 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. Chichester: Wiley.Robert, B. H., Gary, L. R., Kenneth, J. P., & Robert, M. M. 1999. Involving suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1): 59.Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Sauer, C. 1999. Deciding the future for IS failures: Not the choice you might think. In W. Currie, & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective: 279-309. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2004. A Practice Perspective on Technology-Mediated Network Relations: The Use of Internet-Based Self-Serve Technologies. Information Systems Research, 15(1): 87-106.Soh, C., & Sia, S. 2004. An institutional perspective on sources of ERP package: Organization misalignment. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4): 375-397.Song, X. M., & Montoya-weiss, M. M. 1998. Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2): 124-135.Soh, C., Sia, S. L., Boh, W. F., & Tang, M. 2003. Misalignments in ERP implementation: A dialectic perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16: 81-100.Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 9-27.Twigg, D. 1998. Managing product development within a design chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(5): 508-524.Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. 2007. Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change. Organization Science, 18(5): 832-848.Walsham, G. 1995. Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and Method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4: 74-81.Weick, K. 1993. Sensemaking in Organizations: Small Structures with Large Consequences. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology of Organizations 描述 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
89359504
98資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0893595042 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Rueylin en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 廖啟旭 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Liao, Chihsu en_US dc.creator (作者) 廖啟旭 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Liao, Chihsu en_US dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2013 11:56:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2013 11:56:30 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2013 11:56:30 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0893595042 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60004 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 89359504 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 企業常藉由採納新科技的作法提升本身的競爭力，科技因此成為創造企業核心競爭力的關鍵。但是要讓科技在組織中發揮其功能，並不是一件容易的事，科技的導入常伴隨著新工作方式的產生，而團隊成員不一定能馬上轉換工作方式，或接受新的工作方式，因此需要經歷過一段調適的過程，使得科技能融入到組織的工作例規當中，成為組織例規的一部份。過去的文獻從例規的觀點談科技採納並不多，本研究從組織例規的觀點著手，探究科技採納的過程中科技與組織的調適行為。本研究以質性研究的方法進行，長期觀察與分析一家台灣知名的電腦代工廠商，研究其導入產品生命週期管理系統以提升其設計鏈績效的歷程。透過分析優品公司採納產品生命週期管理系統的前後時期，工作例規與審核變化的變化；以及分析內嵌在產品生命週期管理系統中的組織例規，以瞭解組織中的工作例規與審核例規變化的情形。最後，本研究發現有一種例規衝突的現象，我稱之為「例規越界」，這是過去文獻所未曾提及的情況，但是卻對科技採納產生重大的影響。這是科技中的組織例規與採納科技後組織的新例規之間的衝突，我將在研究中呈現不同例規間的衝突對於科技採納的影響。本研究在學理上的貢獻有三：首先，反思在科技調適的文獻中，是否忽略了科技精神的重要性？調適不能只重視功能面的調適，更需要注重精神面的調適。其次是，透過反思審核例規背後的精神，去凸顯出當使用者在與科技進行調適時，是如何產生學習上的失靈。當使用者能有效的解讀科技的精神時，調適才有可能更有效。最後，回應Feldman的單一例規變化的主張，進行延展性解釋，本研究發現例規是否成為變動的來源取決於例規間互動的關係，其中例規變動的方向，不僅取決於例規間變動的關係，還取決於使用者是否能反思例規的內涵。因此，本研究認為組織例規不只是像Feldman所主張的「例規是變革的來源」，而且還是「例規的反思是變革的路徑」。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The organization always promotes its competitive ability by adopting new technology. Therefore, technology has been a key element to build core competitive for organization. However, it is a hard work for technology to develop its performance in organization. When organization adopts a new technology, organization will accompany to develop a new work routine. But a lot of organization members could not switch or accept their work routines to new routines. Therefore, organization needs a period of time to adapted technology, then the technology will embed in organizational routine to be a part of organizational routines. In past literatures, there are seldom use “organizational routine” to explore technology adoption. The study will take the “organizational routine” view to understand adoptive process in technology and organizational adaption.The study is an qualitative research that reviews and analysis a famous computer OEM ( Original Equipment Manufacturer) in Taiwan. The study explore the process of a company adopted the PLM（product Lifecycle Management） to improve the performance of design-chain management. In the study , I analysis the organizational routines and the organizational routines embedded in PLM that before and after adopt PLM. And, the study find a routines conflict phenomenon that I call “routine crossover”. It is a important phenomenon in technology adoption that never discuss in prior research.The theoretical contribution as followings: First, the study reflected whether those prior literatures ignore the important of the “Technology Spirit” ? The technology adaption could not only focus on functional level but also spirit level. Second, by to reflect the spirit that embedded in technology, the study illustrate that the “learning disfunction” and argued that the effective technology adaption was come from effective interpret the technology spirit. Third, the study respond Feldman’s argument that “Organizational routines as a source of continuous change”, extend to “The reflect of organizational routines is a path of change.” en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄 I表目錄 III圖目錄 IV摘要 V第一章 緒論 1第二章 文獻探討 7第一節 科技採納文獻 7第二節 組織例規理論 12第三節 設計鏈文獻與產品生命週期管理系統 20第四節 研究缺口與理論架構 23第三章 研究方法 27第一節 研究方法的選擇 27第二節 資料蒐集 28第三節 資料分析 36第一節 設計製造代工（ODM）產業的全球競爭 39第二節 優品公司的背景與營業範疇 41第三節 產品生命週期系統的採納 43第五章 研究發現 49第一節 產品生命週期管理系統採納之前的設計鏈管理 50第二節 內嵌在產品生命週期管理系統中的設計鏈管理 80第三節 產品生命週期管理系統採納之後的設計鏈管理 86 第六章 討論 115第一節 理論意涵 117第二節 實務的意涵 128第三節 未來研究方向 132第七章 結論 135參考文獻 137 zh_TW dc.format.extent 874128 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0893595042 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 科技採納 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 組織例規 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 變革 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 調適 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) technology adoption en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) organizational routine en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) change en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) adaption en_US dc.title (題名) 例規越界：解讀產品生命週期管理系統於設計鏈的科技內涵 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Routines crossover: interpreting product lifecycle management systems in design chain en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分：吳建明, 林尚平, 湯大緯, & 李純誼. 2008. 資訊系統「後採納階段」使用慣例之個案研究. 台大管理論叢, 19(1): 213-240.吳學修. 2003. PDM 對研發管理之影響----以A 公司為例. 國立政治大學. 碩士論文.林尚平, 吳建明, & 陳怜秀. 2006. 資訊系統使用階段變革歷程之研究－以動態觀點，檢視“使用慣例”與介入措施交互調適的影響效應. 管理學報(23卷5期): 22.林芬慧, 曾智義, & 郭峰淵. 2006. 資訊科技啟動組織變革的歷程模式研究. 資訊管理學報, 13(1): 26.劉思慧. 2005. 企業設計鏈之型態研究. 成功大學. 碩士論文 英文部分：Agre, P. E. 1985. Routines. AI Memo: MIT Press.Attewell, P. 1992. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1): 1-19.Barley, S. R. 1986. Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1): 78-109.Barley, S. R. 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 61-104.Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. 2005. Understanding user response to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 493-526.Becker, M. C. 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4): 643-677.Becker, M. C. (Ed.). 2008. Handbook of Organizational Routines: Edward Elgar Publishing.Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winder, S. 2005. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 775-791.Bruque, S., Moyano, J., & Eisenberg, J., 2008. Individual Adaptation to IT-Induced Change: The Role of Social Networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3): 177-206.Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spinoff companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 529-555.Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovation dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Cohen, W. L., & Levinthal, D. M. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152.Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5: 554-568.Cyert, R. M., & March, J. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Davis, F. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and use acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340.DeSantics, G., & Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2): 121-147.Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685-716.Feldman, M. S. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6): 611-629.Feldman, M. S. 2003. A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4): 727-752.Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(March): 94-118.Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 47: 65-97.Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 1993. Appealing work: an investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4: 595–616.Hage, J., & Aiken, M. 1969. Routine technology, social structure, and organization goals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(3): 366-376.Hermanowicz, J. C., & Morgan, H. P. 1999. Ritualizing the routine: Collective identity affirmation. Sociological Forum, 14(2): 197-214.Heron, J., & Reason, P. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3): 274-294.Hutchins, E. 1991. Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1): 14-39.Jasperson, J., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. 2005. A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 525-557.Joe, M. 2001. Not for the faint hearted: Social and organizational challenges in IT-enabled change. Organization Development Journal, 19(1): 11.Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1): 67-93.Kling, R. 1980. Social analyses of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computer Survey, 12(1): 61-110.Kumar, R. L., & Crook, C. W. 1999. A multi-disciplinary framework for the management of interorganizational systems. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30(1): 22-37.Kuczmarski, T. D. 1992. managing new product: the power of innovation. N. J.: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs.Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment; managing differentiation and integration. Boston,: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard UniversityLeonard-Barton, D. 1988. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy., 17(5): 251-267.Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Summer special issue): 111-125.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. 1987. Information system failures: A survey and classification of the empirical literatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Majchrzak, A. 1992. Management of technological and organizational CHenryge. in Henrydbook of Industrial Engineering, G. Salvendy(ed.), Wiley & Sons, New York, pp:767-797Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. 2000. Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4): 569-601.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizaton Science, 2: 71-87.Markus, M. L., Keil, Mark. 1994. If We Build It, They Will Come: Designing Information Systems that People Want to Use. Sloan Management Review, 35(2): 11-25.Markus, M. L., & Cornelis, T. 2000. Enterprise Systems Experience - From Adoption to Success. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domain of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past: 173-207. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources.Markus, M. L., Manville, B., & Agres, C. E. 2000. What makes a virtual organization work? . Sloan Management Review, 42(1): 13-26.Markus, C. B. 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4): 643-667.Moynihan, M. J., Ronald S. 1993. Leveraging Technology in the New Global Company. London, UK: Economist Intelligence Unit.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3): 398-427Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. 1995. Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6: 423-444.Paul, C., Izak, B., & Albert, S. D. 2001. Research report: Empirical test of an EDI adoption model. Information Systems Research, 12(3): 304Pentland, B. 1992. Organizing moves in software support lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 527-548.Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. 2005. Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5): 793-815.Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 484-510.Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Saunders, C. S. 2005. Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1): 257-294.Reason, P. 1994. Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 324-339. London: Sage.Reason, P., & Rowan, J. 1981. Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. Chichester: Wiley.Robert, B. H., Gary, L. R., Kenneth, J. P., & Robert, M. M. 1999. Involving suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1): 59.Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Sauer, C. 1999. Deciding the future for IS failures: Not the choice you might think. In W. Currie, & B. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective: 279-309. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2004. A Practice Perspective on Technology-Mediated Network Relations: The Use of Internet-Based Self-Serve Technologies. Information Systems Research, 15(1): 87-106.Soh, C., & Sia, S. 2004. An institutional perspective on sources of ERP package: Organization misalignment. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4): 375-397.Song, X. M., & Montoya-weiss, M. M. 1998. Critical Development Activities for Really New versus Incremental Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2): 124-135.Soh, C., Sia, S. L., Boh, W. F., & Tang, M. 2003. Misalignments in ERP implementation: A dialectic perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16: 81-100.Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 9-27.Twigg, D. 1998. Managing product development within a design chain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(5): 508-524.Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. 2007. Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change. Organization Science, 18(5): 832-848.Walsham, G. 1995. Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and Method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4: 74-81.Weick, K. 1993. Sensemaking in Organizations: Small Structures with Large Consequences. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology of Organizations zh_TW
