Organisational routines embed and are increasingly embedded within IT artefacts. In this paper, I challenge the conventional notion that warrants the primacy of human activities in the study of routines and bring artefacts in general and IT artefacts in particular to the very centre of my theorising. Through an in-depth case study of crown prosecutors’ work, I endeavour to explain the way legislative and IT artefacts are implicated in the transformation of police-prosecutor routines. I show that legislative artefacts play a constitutive role that generates a new role position and a new system of social practices while IT artefacts serve a regulative function that enforces a newly programmed sequence of steps onto pre-existing practices. I argue for the benefits of foregrounding legislative and IT artefacts to develop a nuanced account of organisational routines that responds to recent calls for research that contextualises the IT artefact outside single settings. I draw on the Transformational Model of Social Activity to unpack the causal linkages between legislative and IT artefacts. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AaltonenA., and TempiniN. (2014). Everything Counts in Large Amounts: A critical-realist case study on data-based production, Journal of Information Technology29(1): 97–110.
2.
AkhlaghpourS., WuJ., LapointeL., and PinsonneaultA. (2013). The Ongoing Quest for the IT Artifact: Looking back, moving forward, Journal of Information Technology28(2): 150–166.
3.
ArcherM.S. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The morphogenetic approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BaldwinC.Y., and ClarkK.B. (2000). Design rules, Volume I: The power of modularity, Cambridge: MIT Press.
5.
BallM., and CallaghanV. (2012). Explorations of Autonomy: an investigation of adjustable autonomy in intelligent environments. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (Guanajuato, Mexico, 2012);London (UK): Curran Associates; IEEE Xplore, 114–121.
6.
BeckerM.C. (2005). The Concept of Routines: Some clarifications, Cambridge Journal of Economics29(2): 249–262.
7.
BeckerM.C., LazaricN., NelsonR.R., and WinterS.G. (2005). Applying Organizational Routines in Understanding Organizational Change, Industrial and Corporate Change14(5): 775–791.
8.
BergerP., and LuckmannT. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, New York: Doubleday Anchor.
9.
BhaskarR. (1989). Reclaiming Reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy, London: Verso.
10.
BhaskarR., and DanermarkB. (2006). Metatheory, Interdisciplinary and Disability Research: A critical realist perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research8(4): 278–297.
11.
BirnholtzJ.P., CohenD.M., and HochS.V. (2007). Organizational Character: On the regeneration of Camp Poplar Grove, Organization Science18(2): 315–332.
12.
BrownleeI.D. (2004). The Statutory Charging Scheme in England and Wales: Towards a unified prosecution system, Criminal Law Review50(11): 896–907.
13.
CacciatoriE. (2012). Resolving Conflict in Problem-solving: Systems of artefacts in the development of new routines, Journal of Management Studies49(8): 1559–1584.
14.
CohenM.D., and BacdayanP. (1994). Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a laboratory study, Organization Science5(4): 554–568.
15.
CordellaA., and IannacciF. (2010). Information Systems in the Public Sector: The e-government enactment framework, Journal of Strategic Information Systems19(1): 52–66.
CurrieW.L. (2012). Institutional Isomorphism and Change: The national programme for IT - 10 years on, Journal of Information Technology27(3): 236–248.
19.
D'AdderioL. (2008). The Performativity of Routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics, Research Policy37(5): 769–789.
20.
D'AdderioL. (2011). Artefacts at the Centre of Routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory, Journal of Institutional Economics7(2): 197–230.
21.
DanermarkB., EkstromM., JakobsenL., and KarlssonJ. (2002). Explaining Society: Critical realism in the social sciences, London: Routledge.
22.
Elder-VassD. (2010). The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, structure and agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
EvansP., and WursterT.S. (2000). Blown To Bits: How the new economics of information transforms strategy, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
24.
FaulknerP., and RundeJ. (2009). On the Identity of Technological Objects and User Innovations in Function, Academy of Management Review34(3): 442–462.
25.
FaulknerP., and RundeJ. (2011). The Social, the Material and the Ontology of Non-material Technological Artefacts, in the 27th EGOS Colloquium (Gothenburg, 6-9th July).
26.
FaulknerP., and RundeJ. (2012). On Sociomateriality, in LeonardiP.M., NardiB., and KallinikosJ. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–66.
27.
FaulknerP., and RundeJ. (2013). Technological Objects, Social Positions, and the Transformational Model of Social Activity, MIS Quarterly37(3): 803–818.
28.
FeldmanS.M., and RafaeliA. (2002). Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings, Journal of Management Studies39(3): 309–331.
29.
FeldmanS.M., and PentlandB.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change, Administrative Science Quarterly47(4): 94–118.
30.
FielderK.D., GroverD., and TengJ.T.C. (1994). Information Technology-enabled Change: The risks and rewards of business process redesign and automation, Journal of Information Technology9(4): 267–275.
31.
GiddensA. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
32.
HansethO., and LyytinenK. (2010). Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The case of building Internet, Journal of Information Technology25(1): 1–19.
33.
HartwigM. (2007). Dictionary of Critical Realism, Oxon: Routledge.
34.
HenfridssonO., MathiassenL., and SvahnF. (2014). Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The role of architectural frames, Journal of Information Technology29(1): 27–43.
35.
HodgsonG.M. (2012). The Mirage of Microfoundations, Journal of Management Studies49(8): 1389–1394.
36.
IannacciF. (2008). Steps Towards Joined-up Management: ICT for crown prosecutors’ offices, in FabriM. (ed.) ICT for the Public Prosecutor's Office, Bologna: Clueb.
37.
IannacciF. (2010). When Is an Information Infrastructure? Investigating the Emergence of Public Sector Information Infrastructures, European Journal of Information Systems19(1): 35–48.
38.
IannacciF., and HatzarasK.S. (2012). Unpacking Ostensive and Performative Aspects of Organizational Routines in the Context of Monitoring Systems: A critical realist approach, Information and Organization22(1): 1–22.
39.
KallinikosJ. (2006). The Consequences of Information: Institutional implications of technological change, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
40.
KallinikosJ. (2011). Governing through Technology: Information artefacts and social practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
KallinikosJ. (2012). Form, Function and Matter: Crossing the border of materiality, in LeonardiP.M., NardiB., and KallinikosJ. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing: Social interaction in a technological world, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
KallinikosJ., AaltonenA., and MartonA. (2013a). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts, MIS Quarterly37(2): 357–370.
43.
KallinikosJ., HasselbladhH., and MartonA. (2013b). Governing Social Practice: Technology and institutional change, Theory and Society42(4): 395–421.
44.
KroesP., and MeijersA. (2006). The Dual Nature of Technical Artefacts, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science37(1): 1–4.
45.
LyytinenK., NewmanM., and Al-MuharfiA.R.A. (2009). Institutionalising Enterprise Resource Planning in the Saudi Steel Industry: A punctuated socio-technical analysis, Journal of Information Technology24(4): 286–304.
46.
MarchJ.G., and SimonH.A. (1958). Organizations, New York: Wiley.
47.
MutchA. (2010). Technology, Organization, and Structure - A morphogenetic approach, Organization Science21(2): 507–520.
48.
MutchA. (2013). All routine and repetition: the routinization of organizational life? Proceedings of the International Association of Critical Realism, 16th Annual Conference, 29th-31st July (University of Nottingham, United Kingdom).
49.
MilesM.B., and HubermanM.A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
50.
NjihiaJ.M., and MeraliY. (2013). The Broader Context for ICT4D Projects: A morphogenetic analysis, MIS Quarterly37(3): 881–905.
51.
ParasuramanR., SheridanT.B., and WickensC.D. (2000). A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part A: Systems and Humans30(3): 286–297.
52.
PentlandB.T., and ReuterH. (1994). Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action, Administrative Science Quarterly39(3): 484–510.
53.
PentlandB.T., and FeldmanM.S. (2005). Organizational Routines as a Unit of Analysis, Industrial and Corporate Change14(5): 793–815.
54.
PentlandB.T., and FeldmanM.S. (2007). Narrative Networks: Patterns of technology and organization, Organization Science18(5): 781–795.
55.
PentlandB.T., and FeldmanM.S. (2008). Designing Routines: On the folly of designing artefacts, while hoping for patterns of action, Information and Organisation18(4): 235–250.
56.
PentlandB.T., FeldmanM.S., BeckerM.C., and LiuP. (2012). Dynamics of Organizational Routines: A generative model, Journal of Management Studies49(8): 1484–1508.
57.
PettigrewA. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and practice, Organization Science1(3): 267–292.
58.
PorporaD.V. (2007). Social Structure, in HartwigM. (ed.) Dictionary of Critical Realism, London: Routledge, pp. 422–425.
59.
RaymondB. (2010). Investigating the Relationship between IT and Organizations: A Research Trilogy, Computer Information Systems Dissertations. Paper 43 [www document] http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cis_diss/43 (accessed 20 June 2012).
60.
RoseJ., and JonesM. (2005). The Double Dance of Agency: A socio-theoretic account of how machines and human interact, Systems, Signs and Actions1(1): 19–37.
RundeJ., JonesM., MunirK., and NikolychukL. (2009). On Technological Objects and the Adoption of Technological Product Innovations: Rules, routines and the transition from analogue photography to digital imaging, Cambridge Journal of Economics33(1): 1–24.
63.
SalvatoC., and RerupC. (2011). Beyond Collective Entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities, Journal of Management37(2): 468–490.
64.
SauerC., and WillcocksL. (2007). Unreasonable Expectations - NHS IT, Greek choruses and the games institutions play around mega-programmes, Journal of Information Technology22(3): 195–201.
65.
SchulzM. (2008). Staying on Track: A voyage to the internal mechanisms of routine reproduction, in BeckerM.C. (ed.) Handbook of Organizational Routines, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 228–255.
66.
SearleJ.R. (1980). Minds, Brains, and Programs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences3(3): 417–424.
67.
SearleJ.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality, London: Allen Lane.
ThompsonJ.D. (1967). Organizations in Action, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company.
70.
TurnerS.F., and RindovaV. (2012). A Balancing Act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change, Organization Science23(1): 24–46.
71.
UlrichK. (1995). The Role of Product Architecture in Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy24(3): 419–440.
72.
VolkoffO., StrongD.M., and ElmesM.B. (2007). Technological Embeddedness and Organizational Change, Organization Science18(5): 832–848.
73.
WeickK.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
74.
WinterS.G. (2012). Capabilities: Their origins and ancestry, Journal of Management Studies49(8): 1402–1406.
75.
YinR.K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
76.
YooY., HenfridssonO., and LyytinenK. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An agenda for information systems research, Information Systems Research21(4): 724–735.
