國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
第七章 結論
科技採納的過程常常不是一帆風順。就算是採納組織之後，也還有各種調 適問題有待克服。本研究從例規的觀點出發，探究科技採納的問題。
我們發現，科技的採納需要兼顧組織既有工作例規和科技內嵌的組織例 規，特別是兩種例規的調適。不過，這兩種例規並不容易觀察，組織中的工作 例規(包括設計例規以及審核例規)雖然比較容易透過研發活動中，觀察重複出 現的行為模式、參與者的行為以及活動的前後關係加以區分；而科技內嵌的組 織例規，我除了透過科技主要功能分析其工作例規之外，再進一步分析背後的 精神。
在田野的觀察中，我們發現了科技採納後出現的特殊現象，稱之為「例規越 界」。例規越界發生的原因，正是來自於科技中內嵌的審核例規影響到組織工作 例規的運作。這種現象在日常生活中也處處可見類似邯鄲學步，學了新的走路 技巧(技術)，最後卻忘了應如何走路(既有的工作目的)。
因此，例規越界對於科技採納議題的重要性，在於說明科技內嵌的組織例 規的重要性，以及提醒我們運用科技內嵌的組織例規時，需要瞭解科技內嵌的 組織例規的特性，若是一味因著「為使用科技而使用」，則很容易忽略了使用科 技的目的。
值得持續討論的議題是：「科技採納與組織績效間的關係」，在本研究中尚 未多做討論。主要是此部分的資料涉及公司的業務機密，受訪者基於公司營業 秘密保護的規定，無法提供完整資訊給學術研究。所以我只能透過公開說明書 等可取得的公眾性資料，分析科技採納時間點的前後，財務報表中所呈現受影 響的績效指標。然而，影響整體營業績效的因素很多，包括環境、策略、行銷
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
等等皆是，科技採納雖然有影響，但是不容易從公開的財務資料中分離出來。
因此受限於資料的可取得性，並無法提供足夠的數據說明，這是本研究在資料 蒐集上的限制。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
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
‧
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 University
Leonard-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:767-797
Majchrzak, 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): 398-427
Orlikowski, 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): 304
Pentland, 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
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
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
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University