1. Main question: Select an article from the attached MIS Quarterly. Post a summary of the theory, research design, analysis, and conclusions regarding the article you selected.
APA format.
2. Reply for below post(50-100 words)
Burton, E. (2019, September). Technology as a Routine Capability. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 1007-1024.
TECHNOLOGY AS ROUTINE CAPABILITY
Recent years have yielded significant advances in computing and communication technologies, with profound impacts on society. Technology is transforming the way we work, play, and interact with others. From these technological capabilities, new industries, organizational forms, and business models are emerging (Adderio, 2008). Technology is also associated as a concept with routines, patterns of action that provide capabilities. Different authors have struggled to bring these interpretations together. The author is overarching perspective that ties tools as devices to routines in a broader social context, yielding insights into what is termed technology as routine capability in the advancement of practices (Feldman, 2016). The authors argue that technology develops largely as means to advance human practices. They continue and explain that this provides for a rather different interpretation than offered by Arthur (2009), who ties technological change to economic development. Through a practice perspective that brings routines to the foreground, it is possible to address social change both within the economic system and elsewhere.
Research Design
The author of this paper examined how change in technology occurs both within and among practices from this perspective. Four principal modes of change are identified: (1) design, in creating new devices and routines; (2) execution, in operating devices and performing routines; (3) diffusion, in spreading devices and routines to a population’s members; and (4) shift, in adapting devices and routines to change among a world’s practices.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having relied on Schatzki’s practice theory, the authors have developed an overarching perspective that incorporates devices with routines, routines with practices, and practices with worlds. In their elaborated technology story, the affordances of devices are seen as manifested in routines, while the capabilities of routines are manifested in human practices, which thrive or not in their respective worlds.
The paper found that the four change modes are linked with each other. Change by design is interwoven with change by execution much as described by Leonardi (2011), who applies the notion of imbrication to human and material agencies. The paper describes a new technology as a capability forged from introducing new devices and routines to a human population and its practices.
Change is seen to be closely intertwined among the modes, suggesting that future research examine cross-modal change, in particular, to gain a better understanding of how new technology advances practices. Overall, the new perspective provides a lens that ties together previous strands of research, allowing insights from multiple studies to accumulate in a way that both illuminates and motivates further work. Enlarging on current interpretations, it suggests that routines are integral to the technology itself.
References:
Adderio, L. (2008). “The Performativity of Routines: Theorising the Influence of Artifacts and Distributed Agencies on Routines Dynamics,â€Research Policy, 37(8):769-789.
Arthur, B. (2009). The Nature of Technology, New York: Free Press.
Feldman, M. (2016). “Routines as Process: Past, Present, and Future,†in Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed, J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas (eds), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 23-46.
Leonardi, P. M. (2013). “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality,†Information and Organization 23(2):59-76.
