Information Systems Review (경영정보학연구)

The Korea Society of Management Information Systems (한국경영정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ambidextrous Use of Information Systems in an Organization

조직 내 정보시스템의 양면적 사용

  • Hyunjeong Kang (College of Business Administration, Hongik University) ;
  • Mihee Kim (Korea Institute for Defense Analyses)
  • Received : 2020.01.16
  • Accepted : 2020.02.12
  • Published : 2020.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Ambidexterity in organizations, in general, is interpreted as flexibility that enables organizational innovation, which is important for survival in a competitive market. It applies to individual workers as well since the ambidexterity of explorational and exploitational IS use will enable the flexible transition between dynamic and operational work, and hence, increase the work performance. The current study will therefore investigate the individual levels of exploratory and exploitative IS use, as well as the complementary relationship between exploratory and exploitative IS use. In a third step, the differential influence of IS on work performance will be evaluated. The current study validated that complementary fit of IS use exploration and IS use exploitation increases performance. Polynomial regression and surface analysis are used to validate the incongruence of IS use pattern. They showed that the incongruence of ambidexterity is composed of two types of divergent vs. convergent ambidexterity which depends on the type of work that need dynamic or operational capability.

조직의 양면성은 일반적으로 경쟁적 시장에서 생존하기 위해 중요한 조직적 혁신을 가능하게 하는 유연성으로 해석된다. 정보시스템 사용자의 탐색적 혹은 활용적 사용의 양면성이 역동적 혹은 운영적 작업 간에 유연한 전환을 가능하게 하여 결과적으로 작업성과를 높이는 데 기여하게 된다. 본 연구는 개인 수준에서의 정보시스템 사용 양면성의 보완적 적합성이 업무 성과를 향상시키는지 검증하고자 하였다. 나아가 이 둘이 양면적 사용에서 차지하는 비중에 따라 업무의 유형에 따른 성과에 기여하는지도 알아보았다. 다항적 회귀분석과 표면분석을 통해 정보시스템 사용 패턴의 부조화적 적합성의 효과를 확인하였다. 이를 확산적 양면성과 수렴적 양면성으로 분류하고 각 패턴의 효과는 작업의 역동적 혹은 운영적 유형에 따라 다르게 나타남을 확인하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea, the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5A2A03048360), and the Hongik University Research Fund.

References

  1. Adler, P. S., B. Goldoftas, and D. I. Levine, "Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system", Organization Science, Vol.10, No.1, 1999, pp. 43-68.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.43
  2. Andriopoulos, C. and M. W. Lewis, "Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation", Organization Science, Vol.20, No.4, 2009, pp. 696-717.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
  3. Arvidsson, V., J. Holmstrm, and K. Lyytinen, "Information systems use as strategy practice: A multi-dimensional view of strategic information system implementation and use", The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.23, No.1, 2014, pp. 45-61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2014.01.004
  4. Bala, H. and V. Venkatesh, "Adaptation to information technology: A holistic nomological network from implementation to job outcomes", Management Science, Vol.62, No.1, 2015, pp. 156-179.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2111
  5. Benner, M. J. and M. L. Tushman, "Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited", Academy of Management Review, Vol.28, No.2, 2003, pp. 238-256.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711
  6. Bernstein, I. H. and J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. 
  7. Burgelman, R. A., "Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.47, No.2, 2002, pp. 325-357.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3094808
  8. Cao, Q., E. Gedajlovic, and H. Zhang, "Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects", Organization Science, Vol.20, No.4, 2009, pp. 781-796.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
  9. Csaszar, F. A., "An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation", Organization Science, Vol.24, No.4, 2013, pp. 1083-1101.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0784
  10. Dane, E., "Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective", Academy of Management Review, Vol.35, No.4, 2010, pp. 579-603.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502832
  11. Davis, F. D., "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology", Mis Quarterly, Vol.13, No.3, 1989, pp. 319-340.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  12. De Guinea, A. O. and J. Webster, "An investigation of information systems use patterns: Technological events as triggers, the effect of time, and consequences for performance", Mis Quarterly, Vol.37, No.4, 2013, pp. 1165-1188.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.08
  13. Edwards, J. R. and M. E. Parry, "On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.36, No.6, 1993, pp. 1577-1613.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
  14. Edwards, S. M., J. K. Lee, and C. L. Ferle, "Does place matter when shopping online? Perceptions of similarity and familiarity as indicators of psychological distance", Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol.10, No.1, 2009, pp. 35-50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2009.10722161
  15. Gerow, J. E., J. B. Thatcher, and V. Grover, "Six types of IT-business strategic alignment: An investigation of the constructs and their measurement", European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.24, No.5, 2015, pp. 465-491.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.6
  16. Goodhue, D. L. and R. L. Thompson, "Task-technology fit and individual performance", Mis Quarterly, Vol.19, No.2, 1995, pp. 213-236.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249689
  17. Griffin, M. A., A. Neal, and S. K. Parker, "A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.50, No.2, 2007, pp. 327-347.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
  18. Gupta, A. K., K. G. Smith, and C. E. Shalley, "The interplay between exploration and exploitation", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, No.4, 2006, pp. 693-706.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
  19. Hallen, L., J. Johanson, and N. Seyed-Mohamed, "Interfirm adaptation in business relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol.55, No.2, 1991, pp. 29-37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299105500204
  20. Iyengar, K., J. R. Sweeney, and R. Montealegre, "Information technology use as a learning mechanism: The impact of it use on knowledge transfer effectiveness, absorptive capacity, and franchisee performance", Mis Quarterly, Vol.39, No.3, 2015, pp. 615-642.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.3.05
  21. Kane, G. C. and M. Alavi, "Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes", Organization Science, Vol.18, No.5, 2007, pp. 796-812.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0286
  22. Katila, R. and G. Ahuja, "Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.45, No.6, 2002, pp. 1183-1194.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069433
  23. Lee, O.-K., V. Sambamurthy, K. H. Lim, and K. K. Wei, "How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility?", Information Systems Research, Vol.26, No.2, 2015, pp. 398-417.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0577
  24. Leonardi, P. M., "When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies", Mis Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, 2011, pp. 147-167.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
  25. Leonhardt, D., I. Haffke, J. Kranz, and A. Benlian, "Reinventing the IT function: The role of IT agility and IT ambidexterity in supporting digital business transformation", In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimaraes, Portugal, Research Papers, 2017, pp. 968-984. 
  26. Levinthal, D. A., "Organizational adaptation and environmental selection-interrelated processes of change", Organization Science, Vol.2, No.1, 1991, pp. 140-145.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.140
  27. Lewandowsky, S., D. Little, and M. L. Kalish, "Knowledge and expertise", Handbook of Applied Cognition, 2007, pp. 83-109. 
  28. Liang, H., Z. Peng, Y. Xue, X. Guo, and N. Wang, "Employees' exploration of complex systems: An integrative view", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.32, No.1, 2015, pp. 322-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1029402
  29. Louis, M. R. and R. I. Sutton, "Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking", Human Relations, Vol.44, No.1, 1991, pp. 55-76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400104
  30. March, J. G., "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning", Organization Science, Vol.2, No.1, 1991, pp. 71-87.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  31. Mithas, S. and R. T. Rust, "How information technology strategy and investments influence firm performance: Conjecture and empirical evidence", Mis Quarterly, Vol.40, No.1, 2016, pp. 223-245.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.1.10
  32. Nevo, S., D. Nevo, and A. Pinsonneault, "A temporally situated self-agency theory of information technology reinvention", Mis Quarterly, Vol.40, No.1, 2016, pp. 157-186.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.1.07
  33. Raisch, S. and J. Birkinshaw, "Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators", Journal of Management, Vol.34, No.3, 2008, pp. 375-409.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
  34. Schmitz, K. W., J. T. C. Teng, and K. J. Webb, "Capturing the complexity of malleable IT use: Adaptive structuration theory for individuals", Mis Quarterly, Vol.40, No.3, 2016, pp. 663-686.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.3.07
  35. Serrano, C. and E. Karahanna, "The compensatory interaction between user capabilities and technology capabilities in influencing task performance: An empirical assessment in telemedicine consultations", Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol.40, No.3, 2016, pp. 597-621.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.3.04
  36. Stein, M.-K., S. Newell, E. L. Wagner, and R. D. Galliers, "Coping with information technology: Mixed emotions, vacillation, and nonconforming use patterns", Mis Quarterly, Vol.39, No.2, 2015. 
  37. Sun, H., "Understanding user revisions when using information system features: Adaptive system use and triggers", Mis Quarterly, Vol.36, No.2, 2012, pp. 453-478.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41703463
  38. Taylor, A. and H. R. Greve, "Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams", Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, No.4, 2006, pp. 723-740.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083029
  39. Teece, D. J., "Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.28, No.13, 2007, pp. 1319-1350.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  40. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis, "A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies", Management Science, Vol.46, No.2, 2000, pp. 186-204.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  41. Walsh, I., M. Gettler-Summa, and M. Kalika, "Expectable use: An important facet of IT usage", The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.25, No.3, 2016, pp. 177-210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.01.003
  42. Zhou, K. Z. and F. Wu, "Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.31, No.5, 2010, pp. 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.830