1、 外文翻译 外文 Community learning in information technology innovation Material Source:MIS34,4,2009 Author:Wang Ping and NeilC Ramiller Learning Perspective Over the past two decades, IT innovation research has increasingly examined learning as an integral aspect of organizations efforts to innovate with
2、IT (see the review by Robey et al. 2000). In this section, we revisit the theoretical basis for the learning perspective in IT innovation research and highlight the main emphases in that perspective. We discuss how those emphases may be broadened and complemented by recent innovation theories. This
3、will set the stage for us to introduce the concepts of learning-about and community learning. Learning to Innovate with IT An IT innovation is an information technology perceived as new by the adopting organization (Rogers 2003; Swanson 1994). Our perspective on innovation hence is oriented toward a
4、dopters.2 Organizations innovate with IT by applying new IT to their business processes. Innovating with IT, according to Swanson and Ramiller (2004), is a journey that involves four core processes: comprehension, adoption, implementation, and assimilation. First, organizations collect and interpret
5、 information from their environments about the existence and basic idea of an IT innovation. Second, this comprehension effort informs organizations decisions on whether to adopt the innovation, plus the articulation of supporting rationales. Third, where adoption is actually pursued, the innovation
6、 is deployedhardware and software are installed, business processes are changed, users are trained, and so on. Finally, in due course the innovation becomes assimilated into the routines of organizational work systems. Adopters of IT innovations often face significant challenges in acquiring the kno
7、wledge needed to understand and utilize the innovations effectively (Attewell 1992; Fichman and Kemerer 1997), not least of which because learning is needed across all four processes in the innovation journey. In comprehension, organizations must make sense of the information about an innovation in
8、order to achieve some basic understanding (e.g., what the innovation is, why organizations should adopt it, and how it might be implemented and used). In adoption, organizations must assess the innovations purpose, benefits, and technical features, and identify the organizational problems and/or opp
9、ortunities to which the innovation might be applied. In implementation, organizations must identify the capabilities required for deploying the innovation in the specific context of their work processes and structures. Various individuals and groups interacting with the innovation need to learn, acc
10、ept, and/or modify it. Organizational changes are often necessary. Lastly, in assimilation, routine use and a thorough understanding make the innovation a part of organizational memory, that is, the institutionalized bundle of knowledge pertinent to an organizations operation and management (Nelson
11、and Winter 1982). In sum, organizations innovating with IT undertake learning to bridge the gap between what they already know and what the new technology requires them to know (Fichman and Kemerer 1997). Therefore, the learning process is crucial to the outcome of IT innovations (Ke and Wei 2006).
12、Indeed, empirical studies have found that organizational learning processes help to facilitate the development of IT innovations (Salaway 1987), lower the knowledge barriers to the adoption and assimilation of the innovations (Attewell 1992; Fichman and Kemerer 1997), overcome difficulties in implem
13、enting the innovations (Argyris 1977), and enhance organizations overall performance outcomes from innovating (Tippins and Sohi 2003). This vibrant literature on learning in IT innovation research has two dominant emphases. First, most studies in this stream have examined learning at the work group
14、or organizational level (e.g., Bondarouk 2006; Lyytinen and Robey 1999). Second, the literature on learning is dominated by the learning-by-doing perspective (Salaway 1987), which posits that the learner (e.g., an individual, group, division, or organization) learns from the experience of materially
15、 engaging with the innovation during implementation and assimilation. Despite their theoretical and practical utilities, we assert that the emphases on group or organizational learning and learning-by-doing do not fully address other important dimensions of learning where serious challenges exist fo
16、r organizations innovating with IT. Entertaining these additional dimensions will carry us toward a more comprehensive definition of learning. Various definitions have guided scholarly inquiry into organizational and group learning (Nicolini and Meznar 1995). One is that “an entity learns if, throug
17、h its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed” (Huber 1991, p. 89). This definition was in part inspired by Friedlanders (1983) observation that “learning may result in new and significant insights and awareness that dictate no behavioral change.The choice may be n
18、ot to reconstruct behavior but, rather, to change ones cognitive maps or understandings” (p. 194). Friedlanders and Hubers perspective reminds us that learning may not always lead to changes in what organizations do. Where IT innovation is concerned, learning can change an organizations cognitive ma
19、ps about new IT without invoking any action. This happens especially where the organization rejects certain technologies and continues using existing ones. If an effect on doing does not fully encompass or signal all learning, then why should doing be the only focus of research on learning? There ar
20、e many ways to change “ones cognitive maps or understandings.” Indeed, Hubers broad definition fits with numerous types of learning proposed in the literature: learning-by-doing (Arrow 1962), learning-by-using (Rosenberg 1976), single- and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schn 1978), higher and low
21、er level learning (Fiol and Lyles1983), exploration and exploitation (March 1991), and environmental scanning (Choo 2001). Inadvertently buried in these many types, however, is the distinction between learning-by-doing and learning without doing. We call the latter learning about. Consider, for inst
22、ance, what Attewell (1992) called signaling, the communication about an innovation as an instance of initial learning-about and an early element in what we have labeled the comprehension process. Attewell argued that signaling is no longer a limiting factor for innovation because “information about
23、the existence of new production technologies and their benefits is widely broadcast by manufacturers advertisements, by specialized business journals, and by trade associations” (p. 5). He held that signaling is, therefore, relatively unproblematic. However, we believe this conclusion should be revi
24、sited. The availability of information does not imply an easy uptake of an innovation. The truth is that the very proliferation of information about new technologies poses a cognitive load on organizations, as they try to comprehend the innovation prior to material engagement. The challenge is compo
25、unded by the absence of direct experience with the innovation. The learning-by-doing perspective in research has developed in a reciprocal way with organization or group level analyses of learning. After all, it is the organization or group (along with its constituent individual members) that learns
26、 by doing. However, as we add learning-about to our scope of concerns, we move toward a more expansive, multilevel view of learning than the one present in the current IT innovation literature. The recognition of signaling points to this shift in perspective. Innovation signals come from many source
27、s, as mentioned earlier. These entities constitute a supra-organizational infrastructure that supports the comprehension of technological innovations (Van de Ven and Garud 1993). An organization innovating with IT not only learns through its own learning-by-doing experience, but also from others int
28、erpretations of the innovation that become available through information channels and repositories that reach across and beyond the organizations boundaries. In short, the field has much to gain from exploring the types of learning that complement learning-by-doing and that take place beyond the org
29、anizational level. Two recently developed theories provide useful foundations for such an exploration. One is the theory of management fashions, and the other is theory on organizing visions for IT innovations. These theories lay out key dimensions of learning that previous literature on IT innovati
30、on learning has largely overlooked: namely, learning without doing and learning from multiple sources of discourse across and beyond organizational boundaries. We review the two theories next. Management Fashion Theory Management fashion theory emerged from the work of scholars studying the diffusio
31、n of popular management techniques. Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999) defined a management fashion as a relatively transitory collective belief, “disseminated by the discourse of management knowledge entrepreneurs, that a management technique is at the forefront of rational management progress” (p. 70
32、9). Management fashion theorists conceptualize the supra organizational environment for learning about innovations as a knowledge marketplace, populated by various knowledge entrepreneurs (e.g., consultants, journalists, scholars) and the prospective adopters of management techniques. Learning about
33、 is indeed an important part of this marketplace: Knowledge entrepreneurs sell various ideas about an innovation to organizations eager to obtain the benefits and reduce the uncertainty associated with the innovation. Some types of knowledge entrepreneurs are faster than others in bringing the ideas
34、 to the marketplace. For example, in a longitudinal case study of quality circles (QC), Abrahamson and Fairchild (2001) found that technicians were the first to introduce ideas about QC to the knowledge marketplace, followed by the consultants, journalists, and scholars. This implies that some actor
35、s follow others, and some ideas may be reused by different actors at different times. Such differentiation further suggests that timing and knowledge sources may impact the process and outcomes of learning about innovations. As part of the learning process, the entrepreneurs produce enthralling disc
36、ourse to promote certain innovations as efficient solutions to important problems in organizations (Abrahamson 1996). A fashion emerges, then, where these entrepreneurs discourses converge on a certain technique, and it begins to attract a substantial amount of attention and popularity, often out of
37、 proportion to the benefits from actually using it. This disconnect between actions (adopting a management technique) and outcomes (realizing the benefits as promoted) occasions what Levitt and March (1988) called superstitious learning. Evidence for superstitious learning was found in Abrahamson an
38、d Fairchilds (1999) study of quality circles. As seen in that case, emotionally charged and unreasoned discourse characterizes the upswings of management fashion waves, whereas more reasoned and qualified discourse characterizes their downswings. 社区学习信息技术创新 资料来源：信息管理系统 34， 4， 2009 作者：王平，尼尔莱米勒 信息技术创新
39、研究满足学习的角度看问题 在过去的二十年里，信息技术作为一个完整的组织越来越多的学习怎样进行努力创新。（罗比 2000）。在这一节，在这个观点上，我们重新学习理论基础的角度和突出的创新研究。我们讨论的重点可能变得开阔并且辅以最近创新的理论。这将为我们引入学习的概念和社区学习提供一个良好的舞台。 学习信息技术创新 信息技术创新是信息技术被认为是一个新的组织所采用的。（罗杰斯 2003； 斯旺森 2004）。因此我们在创新上的观点是面向采用。信息技术的组织创新通过给他们的业务流程应用新的信息技术创新。信息技术创新根据 斯旺森和罗米勒（ 2004），就像一场旅行，其中包括四个核心过程：理解，吸收，实
40、施 ，融合。首先从一个信息技术创新的基本思想中，组织收集和解读信息。其次，努力理解信息，决定是否接受创新，加上配套支持的理由。第三，采用实际上是追求，创新是部署硬件和软件安装，业务历程发生变化，用户培训等等。第四，在适当时机同化创新成为组织的日常事务工作系统。信息技术创新的采用者常常在获取必要的知识去 理解和利用创新的有效性时面临严重的挑战 (阿韦尔 1992; 弗去曼和可米勒 1997)，其中最困难的是学习，因为它贯 穿于创新的四个重要过程中。在理解中，组织必须明白这个信息的创新以获得一些基本的了解。（举个例子，创新是什么，为什么组织采用它，它可以如何被执行和使用）。在采用过程中，组织应评估
41、创新的目的、意义，和技术特点，并找出那些创新也许会用到的组织的问题或机会。在实施过程中，组织必须确定有能力部署创新在工作过程和结构的具体情况。不同的个人或团体在创新时需要互相学习、接受或修改它。组织的变革常常是必要的。最后 ，在同化中，日常使用和透彻的理解使创新成为组织记忆的一部分，也就是说，知识的制度化关系到一个组织的经营管理。 (纳尔逊和温特 1982)。总之，组织信息技术创新着手于学习在他们已经知道的和新技术使他们知道的之间建立一座桥梁 (弗去曼和可米勒 1997)。 因此，学习的过程对信息技术创新的结果是至关重要的 (科和韦 2006)。事实上，实证研究发现组织学习过程中可以帮助加快信
42、息技术创新的发展（塞拉维 1987)，降低知识壁垒去引进创新，并吸收和消化它 (阿韦尔 1992; 弗去曼和肯雷尔 1997)，克服困难实施创新 ( 阿基里 斯 1977)，且在创新成果中提高组织的整体性能 (蒂和苏 2003)。在这个充满活力的文献中，学习信息技术创新研究有两个主要的工作重点。首先，大多数这方面的研究已经检查了工作小组的学习或组织的水平。 (举个例子 , 邦德茹科 2006; 利特尼和罗比 1999)。其次文献对学习是边学边做的主导观点 (赛勒为 1987)，它指出在实施和同化过程中，学习者（举个例子：个体，团体，部门或组织）从重大的创新经历中学习。尽管他们的理论和实践具有公
43、共性，但是我们主张强调团队或组织的学习方式和边学边做的方式不能完全解决其他重要的细 节方面的学习，这些对于组织信息技术创新存在严重的挑战。这些额外的细节将带领我们向更广泛的学习定义。不同的定义引导着学术调查进入到组织和团体的学习中去 (尼库林和玛斯内 1995)。一个是 “学习，如果一个尸体通过其信息处理，其潜在行为范围发生变化 ”(胡贝尔 1991, p. 89)。这个定义是弗里德兰德的观察灵感的一部分， “学习可能产生新的重大决定的见解和认识，没有改变行为 .这个选择可能不是重建的行为，而是要改变一个人的认知和理解 ”(p. 194)。弗里德兰德和胡贝尔的角度提醒我们，学习可能并不总是引起
44、改变组织。就信息技术创新方面而言，在没有调动任何行动时对新的信息技术的学习能改变组织的认知地图。这些尤其发生在组织拒绝某些技术并且持续利用现有的时候。如果在做一个不完全包含所有学习或信号的事，那么在学习上你为什么要做它将成为唯一研究的焦点？有很多方法可以改变 “一个人 ”的认知地图和理解。 ”事实上，胡贝尔的广义的定义符合文献中提出的许多类型的学习：边学边做 (艾儿 1962)，边学边用 (罗僧伯格 1976)，单双循环学习 (阿基里斯和斯崇 1978)，较高和脚底层 次的学习 (菲儿和莱尔斯1983)，勘探开发 (玛曲 1991)，还有环境扫描 (楚 2001)。无意间被埋在许多类型中间，然
45、而，这是边学边做与学而不做之间的区别。我们称后者为学习。 考虑到，例如，被阿韦尔（ 1992）称为信号，创新交流作为学习的初始实例和早期元素已经被我们标注了理解过程。阿韦尔认为，信号不再是一个创新的限制因素，因为 “通过制造商的广告，通过专业的商业刊物和行业协会，信息存在的新的生产技术和他们的利益已经被广泛的传播 ”(p. 5)。他认为，信号，因此相对不成问题。然而，我们认为这个结论应该重新审查 。信息的可用性并不意味着创新是容易被吸收的。事实的真相是，有关新信息技术许多的信息扩散导致组织对信息认知负荷，比如他们试图在接触资料之前完成创新。现在面临的挑战是没有直接的创新经验。在研究的角度来说，
46、边学边做在互惠的方式中已经促进组织或团队水平的学习。毕竟这是组织或团队（连同其他成员组成）边学边做的成果。然而，正如我们增加我们对学习范围的考量，我们朝着一个比个人在目前信息技术创新理论的学习更广更多层次的观点前进。信令点的认识这个观点的改变。创新信号来源很广，比如前面提到的。这些实体构成的超组织的基础设施，支 持基础创新的理论 (万德文和格鲁德 1993)。一个信息技术创新不仅从自己边学边做中获得经验，还通过信息渠道和信息库从他人对创新的解释中提取可用的东西，这种行为远远超出了组织的边界。简而言之，这个领域的研究已经获得更多类型的学习探究，以边学边做来补充组织层次以为的东西。对于这种探索，两
47、个最近开发的理论提供了有用的基础。一个是管理的时尚理论，另一个是组织对信息技术理论创新的愿景。这些理论对于信息技术创新的学习已经在很大程度上忽略了以往文献的主要方面：即学而不做和从多种来源学习以及跨组织的学习。我们回顾下这两种理论 。 管理时尚理论 管理时尚理论出现在学者学习流行的管理方法的过程中。亚伯拉罕和费尔柴尔德（ 1999）定义管理时尚为一个相对短暂的集体信念， “用企业家的管理知识话语来说，管理技术是站在最前列的合理的管理进步 ” (p. 709)。管理时尚理论家将有关人口的各种知识作为知识创新，学习超组织环境（例如，顾问，新闻记者，学者）和管理技术的准领养。学习确实是这个市场的重要
48、组成部分。企业家出售各种想法给组织，渴望获得好处和减少与创新相关的不确定性。某些知识型的企业家以比别人更快的速度将自己的想法投入到市场中。例如 ，在纵向的质量圈个案的研究（ QC）中 ,亚伯拉罕和菲尔查尔德（ 2001）发现，技术人员是第一个向市场介绍有关 QC的知识，接着是顾问，记者，学者。这意味着一些人跟随着另一些人，而一些想法可能被重复使用于不同的人在不同的时间。这种不同进一步说明，时间安排和知识来源可能影响过程和创新学习的成果。作为学习过程的一部分，企业家诉说一些迷人的话语来促进某些创新，以此作为解决组织重要问题的方案 (亚伯拉罕 1996)。一个时尚出现，那么，这些企业家的话语加上一定的技术，它就开始吸引了大量的关注并且流行起来，这些收到的效益常常 超出它实际使用效益。这种脱节存在于行动和结果之间，被莱维特和玛区 (1998)称它为迷信的学习。这种迷信的学习被发现于亚伯拉罕对飞兆半导体的研究质量圈的学习中。曾经出现在这种情况下，充满感情的话语特征和管理时尚波高涨，更多的理性和合理的话语转弱。
