The Coevolution of Routines and IT Systems in IT-enabled Organizational Transformation as an Instance of Digital Transformation: A Social Constructivist Perspective


  • Faqir Taj
  • Karlheinz Kautz
  • Vince Bruno



IT-enabled OT, Organisational routines, Coevolution, Appropriation, Enactment


This paper proposes a conceptual framework to study the phenomenon of IT-enabled Organizational Transformation (IT-enabled OT) as a coevolution process of organizational routines and a new IT system. The framework’s objective is to understand IT-enabled OT in a holistic and integrated manner by investigating how actors perceive, interpret, appropriate, and enact, the new IT system in their work routines as well as how they align the new system and these routines with the social order and structures of the organization. It allows the examination of the reciprocal interactions between different aspects of organizational routines and a new IT system to enhance the understanding of how change unfolds in an organization during the implementation, the adoption, use, and adaptation of a new IT system. We illustrate the scope, the analytic and conceptual strength of the framework with a number of examples from the literature and, lastly, discuss its ontological positioning. The paper concludes with a call for further research to empirically validate and refine the proposed framework.


Agarwal, R., Gao, G., DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. K. (2010). Research commentary—The digital transformation of healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 796-809.

Aime, F., Johnson, S., Ridge, J. W., & Hill, A. D. (2010). The routine may be stable but the advantage is not: Competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 75-87.

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, 78-108.

Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61-103.

Berente, N., Yoo, Y., & Lyytinen, K. (2008). Alignment or drift? Loose coupling over time in NASA's ERP implementation. ICIS 2008 Proceedings, 180.

Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: Integration, control, and NASA’s enterprise information system. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572.

Besson, P., & Rowe, F. (2012). Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 103-124.

Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 12.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1), 3-18.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Collins, R. (1981). On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 984-1014.

D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769-789.

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197-230.

Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., & Lauche, K. (2016). Generating novelty through interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science, 27(3), 659-677.

Dosi, G., Faillo, M., & Marengo, L. (2008). Organizational Capabilities, Patterns of Knowledge Accumulation And Governance Structures In Business Firms: An Introduction. Organizational Studies, 28(8-9), 1165-1185.

Dunphy, D. C., & Stace, D. A. (1988). Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the OD model. Organization Studies, 9(3), 317-334.

Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 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(1), 94-118.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240-1253.

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351-1374.

Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921–951.

Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Goh, J. M., Gao, G., & Agarwal, R. (2011). Evolving work routines: Adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 565-585.

Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, Work and Organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2).

Hsiao, R. L., Wu, S. H., & Hou, S. T. (2008). Sensitive cabbies: Ongoing sense-making within technology structuring. Information and Organization, 18(4), 251-279.

Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 47-71.

Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), 14-39.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MA: MIT Press.

Introna, L.D. (2013). Epilogue: Performativity and the Becoming of Sociomaterial Assemblages, in F.-X. de Vaujany and N. Mitev (eds.), Materiality and Space, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 330-342.

Jones, M. (2014). A Matter of Life and Death: Exploring Conceptualizations of Sociomateriality in the Context of Critical Care. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 895-925.

Latour, B. (1992). Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts, in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 225–258.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lehrig, T., Krancher, O., & Dibbern, J. (2015). The Evolution of Routines under Flexible Information Technology. ECIS Proceedings, Research in Progress, 14.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation and mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17 (5), 603-631.

Leonardi, P. M. (2007). Activating the informational capabilities of information technology for organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 813-831.

Leonardi, P. M. (2009). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19(3), 278-310.

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159-176.

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.

Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147-167.

Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-technical Systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them, in P.M. Leonardi, B A. Nardi and J. Kallinikos (eds.), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25-48.

Lyytinen, K., Newman, M., & Al-Muharfi, A. R. A. (2009). Institutionalizing enterprise resource planning in the Saudi steel industry: a punctuated socio-technical analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 286-304.

Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240-259.

Mingers, J., Mutch, A., & Willcocks, L. (2013). Critical Realism in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 795-802.

Misa, T.J. (1994). Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism, in M.R. Smith and L. Marx (eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 115-141.

Müller, S. D., Mathiassen, L., Saunders, C., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2017). Political Manoeuvring During Business Process Transformation: A Pluralist Approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(3), 3.

Müller, S. D., Mathiassen, L., & Saunders, C. (2020). Pluralist Theory Building: A Methodology for Generalizing from Data to Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 9.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

Noble, D. F. (1978). Social Choice in Machine Design: The Case of Automatically Controlled Machine Tools, and a Challenge for Labor. Politics & Society, 8(3-4), 313-347.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.

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., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249-273.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.

Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413-453.

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., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235-250.

Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the Use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration, in J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (eds.), Organizations and communication technology, Sage Publications, pp. 173-193.

Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse–materiality relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 706-716.

Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577-610.

Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 219-244.

Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M.L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141-1166.

Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: Insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12(2), 179-197.

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.

Seidel, S., Recker, J., & Vom Brocke, J. (2013). Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 1275-1299.

Vaast, E., & Walsham, G. (2005). Representations and Actions: the Transformation of Work Practices with IT Use. Information and Organization, 15(1), 65-89.

Verhulst, M., & Rutkowski, A. F. (2017). Catch me if you can: Technological constraints/affordances and mindfulness during collaborative police emergency response. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144.

Vishwanath, A. (2006). The effect of the number of opinion seekers and leaders on technology attitudes and choices. Human Communication Research, 32(3), 322-350.

Watson, R. T., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 463-478.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation, in G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick, (eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, , 379. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 346- 379.

Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Jensen, T. (2020). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of Association of Information Systems, 22(1), 6.

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991-995.

Zuboff, S. (1988). The Future of Work and Power. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.




How to Cite

Taj, F., Kautz, K., & Bruno, V. (2021). The Coevolution of Routines and IT Systems in IT-enabled Organizational Transformation as an Instance of Digital Transformation: A Social Constructivist Perspective. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25.



Selected Papers from the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)