注意差距:理解知识工作中的技术相互依赖与协调

D. Bailey, P. Leonardi, Jan Chong
{"title":"注意差距:理解知识工作中的技术相互依赖与协调","authors":"D. Bailey, P. Leonardi, Jan Chong","doi":"10.1287/ORSC.1090.0473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we broaden the concept of interdependence beyond its focus on task to include technology, defining technology interdependence as technologies' interaction with and dependence on one another in the course of carrying out work. With technologies increasingly aiding knowledge work, understanding technology interdependence may be as important as understanding task interdependence for theories of organizing, but the literature has yet to develop ways of thinking about technology interdependence or its impact on the social dynamics of work. We define a technology gap as the space in a workflow between two technologies wherein the output of the first technology is meant to be the input to the second one. Using data from an inductive study of two engineering occupations (hardware engineering and structural engineering), we analyzed engineers' gap encounters (episodes in which a technology gap appeared in the course of action) and found striking differences in how engineers minded the gaps. Hardware engineers minded the gaps by coordinating technologies via “bridges” that automated data transfers between technologies. Structural engineers, in contrast, allowed technology gaps to persist even though traversing gaps consumed significant time and effort. Our findings highlight a difference between task and technology in the degree of coordination necessary for success. Managers in our study designed policies around technology interdependence and coordination not to manage technology most efficiently, but to manage work and workers in a manner consistent with occupational structures and industry constraints. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of organizing work.","PeriodicalId":193943,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems: Behavioral & Social Methods","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"129","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work\",\"authors\":\"D. Bailey, P. Leonardi, Jan Chong\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/ORSC.1090.0473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we broaden the concept of interdependence beyond its focus on task to include technology, defining technology interdependence as technologies' interaction with and dependence on one another in the course of carrying out work. With technologies increasingly aiding knowledge work, understanding technology interdependence may be as important as understanding task interdependence for theories of organizing, but the literature has yet to develop ways of thinking about technology interdependence or its impact on the social dynamics of work. We define a technology gap as the space in a workflow between two technologies wherein the output of the first technology is meant to be the input to the second one. Using data from an inductive study of two engineering occupations (hardware engineering and structural engineering), we analyzed engineers' gap encounters (episodes in which a technology gap appeared in the course of action) and found striking differences in how engineers minded the gaps. Hardware engineers minded the gaps by coordinating technologies via “bridges” that automated data transfers between technologies. Structural engineers, in contrast, allowed technology gaps to persist even though traversing gaps consumed significant time and effort. Our findings highlight a difference between task and technology in the degree of coordination necessary for success. Managers in our study designed policies around technology interdependence and coordination not to manage technology most efficiently, but to manage work and workers in a manner consistent with occupational structures and industry constraints. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of organizing work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":193943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Systems: Behavioral & Social Methods\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"129\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Systems: Behavioral & Social Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.1090.0473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems: Behavioral & Social Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.1090.0473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 129

摘要

在本文中,我们将相互依赖的概念从任务扩展到技术,将技术相互依赖定义为技术在开展工作的过程中相互作用和相互依赖。随着技术越来越多地帮助知识工作,理解技术相互依赖可能与理解组织理论中的任务相互依赖一样重要,但文献尚未发展出思考技术相互依赖或其对工作的社会动态影响的方法。我们将技术差距定义为工作流程中两种技术之间的空间,其中第一种技术的输出意味着第二种技术的输入。利用对两种工程职业(硬件工程和结构工程)的归纳研究数据,我们分析了工程师的差距遭遇(在行动过程中出现技术差距的情况),发现工程师在如何看待差距方面存在显著差异。硬件工程师通过“桥梁”来协调技术,在技术之间自动传输数据,从而弥补了技术差距。相比之下,结构工程师允许技术差距持续存在,即使跨越这些差距需要花费大量的时间和精力。我们的发现强调了任务和技术在成功所需的协调程度上的差异。在我们的研究中,管理人员围绕技术相互依赖和协调设计政策,不是为了最有效地管理技术,而是为了以与职业结构和行业约束一致的方式管理工作和工人。我们讨论了我们的发现对组织工作理论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work
In this paper, we broaden the concept of interdependence beyond its focus on task to include technology, defining technology interdependence as technologies' interaction with and dependence on one another in the course of carrying out work. With technologies increasingly aiding knowledge work, understanding technology interdependence may be as important as understanding task interdependence for theories of organizing, but the literature has yet to develop ways of thinking about technology interdependence or its impact on the social dynamics of work. We define a technology gap as the space in a workflow between two technologies wherein the output of the first technology is meant to be the input to the second one. Using data from an inductive study of two engineering occupations (hardware engineering and structural engineering), we analyzed engineers' gap encounters (episodes in which a technology gap appeared in the course of action) and found striking differences in how engineers minded the gaps. Hardware engineers minded the gaps by coordinating technologies via “bridges” that automated data transfers between technologies. Structural engineers, in contrast, allowed technology gaps to persist even though traversing gaps consumed significant time and effort. Our findings highlight a difference between task and technology in the degree of coordination necessary for success. Managers in our study designed policies around technology interdependence and coordination not to manage technology most efficiently, but to manage work and workers in a manner consistent with occupational structures and industry constraints. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of organizing work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信