What Is Technology and Organization Structure?
The physical objects used in a manufacturing process, the actions or processes involved in producing goods or services, the knowledge of how to use tools and equipment, and/or the organizational framework used in manufacturing operations are all examples of technology.
Historical context and definition:
When technology is applied to the field of organizational studies, it is described as a means of achieving the desired goal. Consider the open systems model of the firm (see Systems Theory, Figure 3), in which all organizations must transform inputs from the environment by adding value so that the outputs can be sold in the marketplace or used by the general public.
In order to produce the output of goods or services, some form of technology must be applied during the transformation process. On the other hand, we can discuss technology from an environmental standpoint, in which case organizations are seen to be manufacturing technologies in order to produce commodities and services. Furthermore, technology is discussed in terms of core versus secondary technology: core technology refers to technology that is directly involved in the manufacturing process and adds value, whereas secondary technology refers to technology that aids in the maintenance and management of the manufacturing process.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Perrow (1967), Thompson (1967), Woodward (1958), and others began investigating the effects of technology on organizational structure (e.g. Hickson, Pugh and Pheysey, 1969; Perrow, 1967; Thompson, 1967; and others). These studies sought to forecast the impact of technology on organizational structure. The following scholars and organizations credit the work of three organization theorists in particular (Perrow, Thompson, and Woodward) with having had a significant impact on the discipline:
the advancement of organizational theory and practice; the development of the concept of technological determinism – the idea that technology determines the structure and effectiveness of an organization (see Materiality and Orlikowski’s exogenous force); and the advancement of organizational theory and practice.
arguing for contingency models as a method of determining the best combination of social structure and technological mix (this work led to the development of contingency theories of organizations).
Joan Woodward, a British sociologist who worked in the 1960s, discovered that not all firms with the same type of social structure were equally effective in their operations through her research into small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. She argued (1965) that a firm’s choice of technology and organizational structure was critical to its effectiveness. She created a classification scheme that connected the type of technology and the degree of technological complexity to organizational design factors like hierarchy levels, a span of control, and organizational structure type.
There was little technical complexity, fewer levels in the hierarchy, and a flat and organic organizational structure in the first group of technologies. The second group of technologies focused on small-batch or single-unit production, while the third focused on large-batch or multi-unit production. It was a group two technology that involved large-scale and mass production with moderate technical complexity; levels in the hierarchy were medium (4–6 levels); the span of control was broad; the structure was tall and mechanistic. The Group Three technological approach included continuous-process production with high technical complexity, several layers in the hierarchy, and a towering but organic structure.
James Thompson (1967) contributed to the advancement of Woodward’s work through his research on the types of technologies used in service organizations. Long-linked technologies (assembly and continuous processing where there is a linear process, such as in fast food operations), mediating technologies (exchanging by bringing the producer and client together, such as in banking services), and intensive technologies (as in pharmaceutical manufacturing) are all examples of long-linked technologies (coordinating of highly skilled, specialized workers, such as with emergency rooms). Thompson’s method took into account whether or not inputs and outputs were standardized (for example, cars, and hamburgers) or not (for example, doctors’ patients).
Thompson (1967) recognized the importance of task interdependence, defined as the degree to which work processes and the required relationships around the work are interdependent with one another. Pooled task interdependence refers to work in which people do not need to interact in order to complete their tasks. Checkout lines at supermarkets are an example. Sequential task interdependence is similar to an assembly line process in which one person’s outputs become the inputs for the next person, whereas reciprocal task interdependence is similar to a matrix structure in which everyone must collaborate to complete a task or project.
According to Thompson’s theory, different degrees of dependency necessitated the use of different coordinating (integration) mechanisms. Pooled jobs, which were frequently performed using mediating technology, required a heavy reliance on rules and standard operating procedures. Sequential tasks, which were frequently performed over long distances, necessitated extensive planning and scheduling. Furthermore, reciprocal duties that frequently required the use of advanced technology necessitated a high level of mutual adjustment and coordination.
Finally, Charles Perrow (1967, 1986) focused his research on the task level by developing a two-dimensional model. One of the dimensions used in the study was task variability, which is used to measure the number of exceptions to a typical procedure that occurs when using technology. The third dimension was task analyzability, which was represented by the well-known exception-handling methods. Based on these two dimensions, the following four types of technology were identified: Routine has a small number of exceptions with known methods for handling them; Craft has a small number of exceptions with unknown methods for handling them; Engineering has a large number of exceptions with known methods for handling them, and Non-Routine has a large number of exceptions with unknown methods for handling them.
We grouped the concepts of technology and organizational structure together because there is a technical imperative, according to organizational theory. The imperative is the notion that the type of organizational structure that a company should have is determined by the technology that it uses. When Woodward’s complexity scheme is combined with Perrow’s routineness scheme, the following can be seen:
According to Woodward’s findings, unit and continuous processing technologies are both associated with low routineness, whereas mass production technologies are associated with high routineness. This inverted U shape represents the connection between the routineness of one’s work and the level of technical sophistication required.
An organic social structure (defined as small spans of control, limited levels of hierarchy, low amounts of formalization, decentralized decision making, and highly skilled workers) is typically best suited for situations of low complexity and low routineness, as well as situations of high complexity and low routineness. In contrast, a mechanistic structure (the polar opposite of an organic structure) would be best suited for high routineness combined with moderate complexity.
Academics and theorists have made the following comments:
When developing work transformation systems, today’s organizations can choose from a number of technological models (Meredith and Shafer, 2010: 55–76). The four major types of manufacturing that we will discuss briefly are a continuous process, flow shop, job shop, and cellular production. The continuous process deals with highly standardized products, with activities typically taking place on a continuous basis and in large volumes to spread out high fixed costs.
Despite the fact that the process is typically highly automated, follows a predetermined sequence of processing stages, and requires little personnel input, the setup is complex and costly. Consider electricity generation and distribution, or the operation of an oil refinery. A flow shop is similar to a continuous process, except that discrete goods are manufactured. The process is typically highly automated, produces large quantities of identical items with little variation across product categories, and has low unit costs per unit of output. As an example, consider a standard production line or even a fast-food restaurant. A workshop differs from the other two processes in that it can produce a wider range of items or services.
Because the outputs are processed in a variety of ways, the volume of production is kept to a minimum. Despite the fact that job shop production has high labor costs and is difficult to supervise, it provides greater flexibility and a sense of pride in workmanship, resulting in a higher-quality product delivered to the consumer.
Consider the work of a software development team or an artisan group. Cellular production combines the flexibility of a job shop with the low costs of a flow shop in a single package. This hybrid form combines technology and employees, who work in a flow shop environment. The method generates small economies of scale in order to keep unit costs low, while also allowing for variation and customization to meet specific market demands. Consider the following scenario: a group of children working together on a single-vehicle as part of a fundraising car wash.
Two other modern fields of technology studies are technoscience (for more information, see Materiality) and actor-network theory (ANT). The social world, according to actor-network theorists, is materially heterogeneous because objects and subjects are intertwined in the organization and construction of a network, and they can only acquire significance in their relationships with one another, which is known as relationality.
As Bruno Latour puts it, “it’s as if we could refer to technology as the point at which social assemblages achieve stability by aligning actors and observers.” In reality, society and technology are not two distinct ontological entities, but rather two stages of the same fundamental process (in Law, 1991: 129).
As a result, technology should be researched and controlled as a networked system because it only becomes visible (and thus has meaning) in relation to people, work, artifacts, and so on. Latour (1987) refers to immutable mobiles when he says that something (a piece of equipment, a computer, a work procedure, an operating manual, or a collection of activities) keeps its shape while moving around. Because mobiles are stable and immutable, we can maintain control over both the physical and relational components of a network.
Furthermore, contemporary and post-ANTs imply that a great deal of unseen work occurs in networks, and that network objects are becoming more fluid as people adapt technology and activities to the specific circumstances surrounding the technology (e.g. De Laet and Mol, 2000).
It is widely recognized that the rate of technological change and innovation will continue to accelerate and that businesses must plan for and prepare for the inevitable transition to this new reality. ‘The innate nature of human curiosity; the cumulative, sticky character of human knowledge; the unique culture of science and technology (a culture that, despite many aberrations, still places a high value on openness and free exchange); and the competitive drive of private, for-profit organizations,’ claims Harold Leavitt (2002: 127).
The author emphasizes his concern that this desire may put society, or even humanity, in jeopardy. ‘Technology-in-practice’ structures, according to Wanda Orlikowski, are produced and reconstructed through every day, situational practices of individual users employing specific technologies in specific contexts,’ she writes (2000: 425).
Organizational structures are instead implemented by technology users as they go about their daily work lives, rather than being determined by the technologies that are in use at the time. As a result, even if technological advancement and innovation propel humanity into an unknown future, humans in their organizations will build new social structures that, in theory, will be able to mitigate the negative consequences of this technological acceleration.
A number of criticisms have been leveled at conventional and contingency approaches to technology, including that technology is viewed unproblematically and uncritically, that these studies do not take into account new technologies such as social media and virtual worlds, and that the relationship between technology and social practices is ignored. According to Orlikowski and Iacono (2001: 132):
There are significant differences in people’s experiences of ‘being on the Internet’ in China, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, let alone in different microcontexts of use. System configurations, infrastructures, bandwidth, interfaces, accessibility, standards, training, business models, and citizens’ rights and responsibilities are all examples of differences.
SOURCE:
- (1970) Technology, Management and Society: Essays. Harper & Row New York.
- ; (1990) Technology and Organizations. Jossey-Bass San Francisco CA
