Top 10 IS Theories 2014

The information systems fields focus on theory is well established, and the IS Theory Wiki serves the need
for quick review and understanding. The popularity of theories on the site may serve as an early indicator of
the future prevalence of these theories, or at least the share of researcher attention during day-to-day
research activities. While some theories, such as 2014s most popular theoryInstitutional Theorylikely
benefits from visitors from other disciplines, some of the changes may reflect a move away from the
individual level of analysis in IS. In fact, none of the top five theories are at the individual level, although
2014s strongest climberSocial Network Theorycertainly incorporates the individual perspective. Only
two pure-play individual level theories breached the top 10the Technology Acceptance Model and
Diffusion of Innovations theory, and whereas the former maintained its 2013 spot, the latter lost several
spots.

IS Theory Wiki Ranking Changes from 2013 to 2014

The top 10 theory pages visited for 2014 (with across-site percentages):[1]

1. Institutional theory (9.4%)

2. Social network theory (6.7%)
3. Contingency theory (6.6%)
4. Organizational culture theory (5.8%)
5. Transaction cost economics (5.6%)
6. DeLone and McLean IS success model (5.1%)
7. Technology acceptance model (5.1%)
8. Socio-technical theory (4.8%)
9. Garbage can theory (4.0%)
10.Diffusion of innovations theory (3.7%)
As expected, the same handful of theories played around the top between the two years. For example, we
note that institutional theory was the top visited theory for both 2014 and 2013, and contingency theory,
organizational culture theory, diffusions of innovations theory, the DeLone and McLean IS success model,
and the diffusions of innovations theory all were within the top 10 both time periods. Social network theory
experienced a significant jump from 14th to 2nd, and socio-technical theory jumped almost the same
interval, going from 17th to 8th. Transaction cost economics and garbage can theory also felt modest
boosts of 5 and 2 respectively. Six out of the 2013 top ten dropped a few intervals in 2014 (contingency
theory, DeLone and McLean IS success model, diffusion of innovations theory, organizational learning
theory, technology-organization-environment framework, and the theory of planned behavior).
The IS Theories Wiki is a resource for the whole field and requires constant updates to stay relevant. We
are therefore looking for volunteers to update references and add new theories. Please contact Dave for
details.
Institutional theory
Acronym
INT

Alternate name(s)
Institutionalism, New Institutional Theory

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Institutional emergence, conformity, conflict, change, isomorphism

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Processes which establish schemas, rules, norms and routines

Concise description of theory

Institutional theory attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the
processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as
authoritative guidelines for social behavior. It inquires into how these elements are created, diffused,
adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although the
ostensible subject is stability and order in social life, students of institutions must perforce attend not just to
consensus and conformity but to conflict and change in social structures.
Source: Scott, W. Richard 2004. Institutional theory P408-14 in Encyclopedia of Social Theory, George
Ritzer, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A. Defining institutions there is no single and universally agreed definition of an institution in the
institutional school of thought... Scott (1995:33, 2001:48) asserts that Institutions are social structures that
have attained a high degree of resilience. [They] are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and
regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to
social life. Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers, including symbolic systems, relational
systems, routines, and artifacts. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from the world system
to localized interpersonal relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change
processes, both incremental and discontinuous Powell and DiMaggio (1991:8) shed light on the
meaning of institutions by offering a definition of the (neo-)institutional field: The new institutionalism in
organization theory and sociology comprises a rejection of rational-actor models, an interest in institutions
as independent variables, a turn toward cognitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties of
supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of
individuals attributes or motives.
B. Enactment and (re-)production of institutions These social structures (mentioned above) are both
imposed on and upheld by the actors (e.g. an individual, an organisation, etc.) behaviour.... One cognitively
oriented view is that a given institution is encoded into an actor through a socialization process. When
internalized, it transforms to a script (patterned behavior). When (or if) the actor behaves according to the
script, the institution is enacted. In this manner, institutions are continuously (re-)produced. The enactment
of an institution externalizes or objectifies it - other actors can see that the institution is in play, and a new
round of socialization starts. After some time, the institution (and the resulting patterned behaviour)
becomes sedimented and taken for-granted. Then, it might be difficult for the actors even to realize that
their behaviour is in fact partly controlled by an institution. Acting in accordance with the institution is
viewed as rational by those who share the institution.
Source: Fredrik Bjorck. "Institutional Theory: A New Perspective for Research into IS/IT Security in
Organisations," HICSS, p. 70186b, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 7, 2004

Diagram/schematic of theory

Theory element Regulative Normative Cognitive

 Basis of
Expedience Social Obligation Taken for granted
compliance

Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic

Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy

Rules, laws, Certification,

Indicators Prevalence, isomorphism
sanctions accreditation

Culturally supported, conceptually

Basis of legitimacy Legally sanctioned Morally governed
correct

Three Pillars of Institutions

Source: Source: Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

Seminal articles
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of Organizations. American Sociological Review 13: 25-35
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. University of California Press, Berkley, CA.
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration, A Sociological Interpretation New York: Harper & Row.
Selznick, P. (1969) Law, Society and Industrial justice, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol.
16, 191: pp.145-179.
Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493
Scott, W. R. (1995 and 2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage

Originating area
Sociology, Industrial Psychology, Organizational Theory, Organizational Behavior

Level of analysis
Group, firm, industry
Social network theory
Acronym
SNT

Alternate name(s)
Network theory, network analysis

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Node size, density, link strength

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Nodes, links

Concise description of theory

Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual actors
within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors. There can be many kinds of ties
between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the
nodes being studied. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors.
These concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are
the lines.
The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological studies, which
assume that it is the attributes of individual actors -- whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb,
etc. -- that matter. Social network theory produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are
less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has
turned out to be useful for explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual
agency, the ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of their
network.
Social networks have also been used to examine how companies interact with each other, characterizing
the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as associations and connections
between individual employees at different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to
gather information, deter competition, and even collude in setting prices or policies.
Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking
Social network theory, however, is not to be confused with Social networking. The correct source for
independent and dependent constructs is: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Biehl. M., Kim, H. and Wade, M., Relations Among the Business Management Disciplines: A
Citation Analysis using the Financial Times Journals, OMEGA, 34, pp. 359-371, 2006.

Originating author(s)
Stanley Milgram: small worlds problem, six degrees of separation
Mark Granovetter: the strength of weak ties
John Barnes, J. Clyde Mitchell: first to study social networks in the field

Seminal articles
Barnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, 7, 39-58.
Burkhardt, M.E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: a longitudinal
investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869-898.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Feeley, T.H., & Barnett, G.A. (1996). Predicting employee turnover from communication networks. Human
Communication Research, 23, 370-387.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks,1, 215-239.
Freeman, L.C., White, D.R., & Romney, A.K. (1992). Research methods in social network analysis. New
Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.
Granovetter, Mark;(1973)"The strength of weak ties"; The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6.,
May 1973, pp 1360-1380
M.S. Granovetter., "The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited," Social Structure and Network
Analysis (P.V. Marsden and N. Lin, Eds.). Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1982, pp. 105-130.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of
information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342.
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network
centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303.
Meyer, G.W. (1994). Social information processing and social networks: A test of social influence
mechanisms. Human Relations, 47, 1013-1048.
Milgram, S. (1967) "The Small World Problem," Psychology Today, (May), pp. 60-67.
Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). "Social Cohesion and Embeddedness," American Sociological Review,
68, 103-127.
Pollock, T.G., Whitbred, R.C., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and job
characteristics: A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human
Communication Research, 26, 292-330.
Rice, R.E., & Richards, W.D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and programs. In: B. Dervin
& M.J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 105-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Co.
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A handbook. Second edition. London: Sage.
Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Watts, D. Small Worlds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.
Watts, D., Strogatz, S. H. "Collective Dynamics of Small-World Networks," Nature (393), 1998, pp. 440-442.

Originating area
Social psychology, Social anthropology, Mathematical sociology, Psychometrics,

Level of analysis
Individual, group, network
Contingency theory
Acronym
N/A

Alternate name(s)
N/A

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Efficiency, organizational performance

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Strategy, technology, task, organizational size, structure, and culture

Concise description of theory

There are many forms of contingency theory. In a general sense, contingency theories are a class of
behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of organizing / leading and that an
organizational / leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others (Fiedler,
1964). In other words: The optimal organization / leadership style is contingent upon various internal and
external constraints.
Four important ideas of Contingency Theory are: 1. There is no universal or one best way to manage 2.
The design of an organization and its subsystems must 'fit' with the environment 3. Effective organizations
not only have a proper 'fit' with the environment but also between its subsystems 4. The needs of an
organization are better satisfied when it is properly designed and the management style is appropriate both
to the tasks undertaken and the nature of the work group.
There are also contingency theories that relate to decision making (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). According to
these models, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the
situation: the importance of the decision quality and acceptance; the amount of relevant information
possessed by the leader and subordinates; the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic
decision or cooperate in trying to make a good decision if allowed to participate; the amount of
disagreement among subordinates with respect to their preferred alternatives.
It is worth noting that since the mid 1980s contingency theory has been fairly dead within the originating
field of organization theory. Apart from Lex Donaldson, professor at Australian Graduate School of
Management, and a few other people, nobody within the field attempt to contribute to a further development
of contingency theory, foremost because of what can be perceived as the lacking explanatory power of the
theory.
Sources: http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html and http://www.tcw.ut
wente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/Contingency_Theories.
doc/
Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Weill, Peter; Olson, Marorethe H. (1989). An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of
Management Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 63.

Originating author(s)
Fred Fiedler (contingency theory of leadership)

Seminal articles
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol.1). 149-190. New York: Academic Press.
Kast, F., Rosenzweig, J. (1973). Contingency Views of Organization and Management. Chicago: Science
Research Associates.
Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch, J. W. (1967) . Organization and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Otley, D. T. 1980. The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 5(4): 413-428.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press

Originating area
Organization theory, psychology, strategy

Level of analysis
Firm, individual
Organizational Culture Theory
Acronym
N/A

Alternative Name
Corporate culture

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Performance, organizational effectiveness, employee commitment, employee satisfaction.

Main independent construct(s)/factors(s)

Organizational culture type, organization culture strength, and culture congruence.

Concise description of theory

Different concepts of culture, stemming from two distinct disciplines (anthropology and sociology), have
been applied to organizational studies since the early 1980s. These two underlying disciplines represent
different paradigms in Burrell and Morgans (1979) framework, and have contributed to the emergence of
the different theories and frameworks of organizational culture in the academic literature. Anthropology
takes the interpretivist view and sees culture as a metaphor for organizations, defining organizations as
being cultures. On the other hand, sociology takes on the functionalist view and defines culture, as
something an organization possesses. Despite the separate definitions of organizational culture, there
seems to be a movement towards a general consensus.
The most widely used organizational culture framework is that of Edgar Schein (1988), who adopts the
functionalist view and described culture as a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or
developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore is to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
In Scheins (1988) model, culture exists on three levels:
1. Artifacts Artifacts are difficult to measure and they deal with organizational attributes that can be
observed, felt and heard as an individual enters a new culture. 2. Values This level deals with the
espoused goals, ideals, norms, standards, and moral principles and is usually the level that is usually
measured through survey questionnaires. 3. Underlying assumptions This level deals with phenomena
that remain unexplained when insiders are asked about the values of the organizational culture. Information
is gathered in this level by observing behavior carefully to gather underlying assumptions because they are
sometimes taken for granted and not recognized. According to Schein, the essence of organizational
culture lies in this level.
Source: Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture. WP 2088-88. Sloan School of Management Working Papers,
Massachussets Institute of Technology, 1988.
Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992, Figure 9.

Originating authors(s)
Edgar Schein, Andrew Pettigrew

Seminal articles
Pettigrew, A.M. On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly (24:4), 1979, pp.
570-581.
Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.
Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992.
Smircich, L. Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly (28:3),
1983, pp. 339-358.

Originating area
Social anthropolgy, Social psychology, Organizational psychology

Level of analysis
Organization, group, individual
Transaction cost economics
Acronym
TCE

Alternate name(s)
Transaction cost theory, theory of the firm, markets and hierarchies / electronic hierarchies and electronic
markets /

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Governance structure, degree of outsourcing, outsourcing success, inter-organizational coordination and
collaboration

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Coordination costs, transaction risk (opportunity costs), coordination costs, operational risk, opportunism
risk, asset specificity , uncertainty, trust

Concise description of theory

In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost incurred in making an economic
exchange. A number of different kinds of transaction costs exist. Search and information costs are costs
such as those incurred in determining that the required good is available on the market, who has the lowest
price, etc. Bargaining costs are the costs required to come to an acceptable agreement with the other party
to the transaction, drawing up an appropriate contract, etc.. Policing and enforcement costs are the costs of
making sure the other party sticks to the terms of the contract, and taking appropriate action (often through
the legal system) if this turns out not to be the case.
Transaction costs consist of costs incurred in searching for the best supplier/partner/customer, the cost of
establishing a supposedly "tamper-proof" contract, and the costs of monitoring and enforcing the
implementation of the contract. Transaction cost theorists assert that the total cost incurred by a firm can be
grouped largely into two componentstransaction costs and production costs. Transaction costs, often
known as coordination costs, are well defined as the costs of "all the information processing necessary to
coordinate the work of people and machines that perform the primary processes," whereas production
costs include the costs incurred from "the physical or other primary processes necessary to create and
distribute the goods or services being produced"
Transaction cost economics suggests that the costs and difficulties associated with market transactions
sometimes favor hierarchies (or in-house production) and sometimes markets as an economic governance
structure. An intermediate mechanism, called hybrid or relational, between these two extremes has recently
emerged as a new governance structure .
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost
Kumar, Kuldeep, Van Dissel, Han G., Bielli, Paola, "The Merchant of Prato--Revisited: Toward a Third
Rationality of Information Systems", MIS Quarterly, Jun98, Vol. 22, Issue 2.
Malone, T.W.; Yates, J.; and Benjamin, R.I., "Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies:,
Communications of the ACM, 30, 6 (1987),p. 485.
Diagram/schematic of theory

Originating author(s)
Ronald Coase (1937, 1960), Oliver Williamson (1981, 1985), Klein, Crawford, Alchian (1978)

Seminal articles
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386.
Coase, Ronald H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 1-44.
Klein, Crawford, RA Alchian, AA. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive
contracting process.
Oliver, W. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal
of Law and Economics, 22(2): 233-261.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American
journal of sociology, 87(2): 233.
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism : Firms, markets, relational contracting. New
York, NY: Free Press.

Originating area
Micro-economics

Level of analysis
Firm
Delone and McLean IS success model
Acronym
n/a

Alternate name(s)
DeLone & McLean Information Systems Success Model, DeLone & McLean IS Success Model, D&M IS
Success Model

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Net Benefits, (Intention to) Use, User Satisfaction

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

System Quality, Information Quality, Service Quality

Concise description of theory

In order to provide a general and comprehensive definition of IS success that covers different perspectives
of evaluating information systems, DeLone and McLean reviewed the existing definitions of IS success and
their corresponding measures, and classified them into six major categories. Thus, they created a
multidimensional measuring model with interdependencies between the different success categories
(DeLone & McLean 1992).

Motivated by DeLone and McLeans call for further development and validation of their model, many
researchers have attempted to extend or respecify the original model. Ten years after the publication of
their first model and based on the evaluation of the many contributions to it, DeLone and McLean proposed
an updated IS success model (DeLone & McLean 2002, 2003).

The updated model consists of six interrelated dimensions of IS success: information, system and service
quality, (intention to) use, user satisfaction, and net benefits. The arrows demonstrate proposed
associations between the success dimensions. The model can be interpreted as follows: A system can be
evaluated in terms of information, system, and service quality; these characteristics affect the subsequent
use or intention to use and user satisfaction. As a result of using the system, certain benefits will be
achieved. The net benefits will (positively or negatively) influence user satisfaction and the further use of
the information system.
Diagram/schematic of theory

Information Systems Success Model (DeLone & McLean 1992)

Updated Information Systems Success Model (DeLone & McLean 2002, 2003)

Originating author(s)
DeLone & McLean (1992); DeLone & McLean (2002); DeLone & McLean (2003)

Seminal articles
DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent
Variable," Information Systems Research (3:1), pp 60-95.
DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. 2002. "Information Systems Success Revisited," in: Proceedings of the
35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 02). Big Island, Hawaii: pp. 238-249.
DeLone, W.H., and McLean, E.R. 2003. "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:
A Ten-Year Update," Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4), Spring, pp 9-30.

Originating area
Information Systems

Level of analysis
Individual, Organization
Technology acceptance model
Acronym
TAM

Alternate name(s)
N/A

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Behavioral intention to use, System usage

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Perceived usefulness, Perceived ease of use

Concise description of theory

TAM is an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to the field of IS. TAM posits that perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use determine an individual's intention to use a system with intention to
use serving as a mediator of actual system use. Perceived usefulness is also seen as being directly
impacted by perceived ease of use. Researchers have simplified TAM by removing the attitude construct
found in TRA from the current specification (Venkatesh et. al., 2003). Attempts to extend TAM have
generally taken one of three approaches: by introducing factors from related models, by introducing
additional or alternative belief factors, and by examining antecedents and moderators of perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use (Wixom and Todd, 2005). In a recent paper, Gefen and Larsen
(2017) demonstrated that TAM's construct relationships primarily emerge from semantic relationships
between its questionnaire items.
TRA and TAM, both of which have strong behavioural elements, assume that when someone forms an
intention to act, that they will be free to act without limitation. In practice constraints such as limited ability,
time, environmental or organisational limits, and unconscious habits will limit the freedom to act.

Diagram/schematic of theory

Originating author(s)
Davis (1986); Davis (1989)

Seminal articles
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information
systems: Theory and results. (Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology).
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Originating area
Information Systems, Technology Adoption

Level of analysis
Individual
Socio-technical theory
Acronym
STS, STT

Alternate name(s)
Socio-technical systems

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

N/A

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

People, technology, tasks

Concise description of theory

In the middle of the 20th century some of the optimistic predictions of the impact of technology on business
efficiency and productivity were being confounded. There were many examples of the introduction of
technology being associated with implementation problems often linked to resistance by the work force and
a failure to achieve the expected benefits. Researchers, notably at the Tavistock Institute in London, with a
background in the behavioural sciences (Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology) suggested that what was
needed was a fit between the technical sub-system and the social subsystem which together made up an
organization.
The technical subsystem comprises the devices, tools and techniques needed to transform inputs into
outputs in a way which enhances the economic performance of the organization. The social system
comprises the employees (at all levels) and the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and needs they bring to
the work environment as well as the reward system and authority structures that exist in the organization.
Later some authorities broadened the definitions to encompass the wider reach of the organization by
including customers, suppliers, and the rules and regulations, formal and informal, which govern the
relations of the organization to society at large. This became known as the environmental subsystem. The
cornerstone of the sociotechnical approach, as the work of these researchers became named, was that the
fit was achieved by a design process aiming at the joint optimization of the subsystems: any organizational
systems will maximise performance only if the interdependency of these subsystems is explicitly
recognised. Hence any design or redesign must seek out the impact each subsystem has on the other and
design must aim to achieve superior results by ensuring that all the subsystems are working in harmony.
A number of authorities have outlined the way sociotechnical principles can be implemented. Albert Cherns
enunciated a set of sociotechnical design principles in 1976 (Cherns, 1976) and these were updated in
2000 by Chris Clegg to encompass the new Internet based ICT (Clegg, 2000). Enid Mumford based an IS
development methodology called ETHICS on sociotechnical principles (Mumford, 1995. Mumford 2003).
She has published many detailed case studies involving the use of ETHICS.
Two sometimes conflicting set of values underlie much sociotechnical thinking (Land, 2000). The first is a
belief in the importance of humanistic principles. The main task of the designer is to enhance the quality of
working life and the job satisfaction of the employee. In turn the achievement of these objectives will
enhance productivity and yield added value to the organization. The second set reflects managerial values.
Sociotechnical principles are merely instruments for achieving primarily economic objectives. Humanistic
objectives have no value in themselves but if their achievement produces a better performance from
employees leading to the fulfilment of the economic objectives well and good. This conflict has led to
suspicion of sociotechnical ideas by managers and employees as represented, for example, by trade
unions. Nevertheless, sociotechnical ideas permeate much IS thinking even if not always referred to as
such (Avgerou et al, 2004).
Sources:
Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. and Land, F.F., editors, (2004), The Social Study of Information and
Communications Technology: Innovation, Actors and Context, Oxford, OUP
Bostrom, R., Heinen, J. S., (1977), MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3
Cherns, A., (1976), The Principles of Sociotechnical Design, Human Relations, Vol.2, No. 9, pp 783-792
Clegg, C.W., (2000), Sociotechnical Principles for Systems Design, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 31, pp 463-
477
Land, F.F., (2000), Evaluation in a Socio-Technical Context, in Basskerville, R., Stage, J., and DeGross,
J.I., Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, pp.115- 126, Boston, Kluwer
Academic Publishers
Mumford, E., (1995), Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach,
London, Macmillan
Mumford, E., (2003), Redesigning Human Systems, Hershey, IRM Press
Sawyer, S., and Jarrahi, M. H. 2014. Sociotechnical Approaches to the Study of Information Systems. In A.
Tucker, & H. Topi (Eds.), Computing Handbook: Information systems and information technology, 3rd
Edition. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Diagram/schematic of theory

Originating author(s)
Eric Trist and Hugh Murray, Albert Cherns, Enid Mumford, Fred Emery, H.J. Leavitt, Frank Heller
See Mumford E., (2003) Redesigning Human Systems, IRM Press for a good summery of the development
of the sociotechnical movement in many countries: Chapter 2, Socio-Technical Design: Its Early History pp
12-32.
In IS: Robert Bostrom and J. Stephen Heinen, Enid Mumford and Mary Weir, Frank Land and John
Hawgood, Lynne Marcus, Rob Kling, Harold Sackman

Seminal articles
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S., (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 17-32
Cherns, A., (1976), The principles of sociotechnical design, Human Relations, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 783-792.
Coakes, E, Willis, D., and Lloyd-Jones, R. (eds.) 2000, The New Sociotech: Graffiti on the Longwall,
London Springer Verlag
Heller, F. (1997) Sociotechnology and the Environment, Human Relations, Vol. 50, No 5, pp. 605-624.
Kling, R., (1980), Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research, ACM
Computing Surveys, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp: 61-110.
Land, F.F., (1987), Social Aspects of Information Systems, in Management Information Systems: The
Technological Challenge, N Piercy (ed.), Croom-Helm, Beckenham, pp 11-57.
Leavitt, H.J., (1965). Applied organization change in industry: Structural, technical, and human approaches;
new perspectives in organizational research, in March, J.G (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, Chicago,
Rand McNally, p55-71.
Lindholm, R., and Norstedt, J.P., (1975), The Volvo Report, Swedish Employers Confederation
Markus, L., (1983), Power, politics, and MIS implementation, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 6,
pp. 430-444
Mumford, E., and Banks, O., (1967), The Computer and the Clerk, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul
Mumford, E., Land, F.F., Hawgood, J., (1980), Training the Systems Analyst of the 1980's: Four New
Design Tools to Assist the Design Process, in Lucas, H., Land, F.F., Lincoln, T., and Supper, K., (eds.), The
Information Systems Environment, North Holland.
Mumford, E. and Weir, M., (1979), Computer Systems and work Design: The ETHICS Method, New York,
Wiley & Sons.
Passmore, W.A., Social Science Transformer: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Human Relations, Vol. 48,
No. 1, pp. 1-22
Trist, E., & Murray, H., (1993), The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology (vol. II), ,
Philadelphia , University of Pennsylvania Press.

Originating area
Sociology, Human Relations, Management of Change, Systems Theory, Information Systems Design and
Implementation

Level of analysis
The Organization, its employees and its environment
Garbage can theory
Acronym
N/A

Alternate name(s)
Garbage Can Model, Garbage Can Process

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Net energy load, energy distribution, decision structure, problem access structure

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Net energy load, energy distribution, decision structure, problem access structure

Concise description of theory

The Garbage Can theory, or model, attempts to explain some organizational decision-making anomalies-in
particular, decision making by "organized anarchies" where preferences are not clear, technology is not
clear, or participation is fluid.
Problems, solutions, and decision makers move from one choice to another depending on the mix of
recognized problems, the choices available, the mix of solutions available for problems, and outside
influences on the decision makers. In short, problems are uncoupled from choices giving an image of
"rummaging around" inside a garbage can. Problems are addressed based on a solution choice, but
choices are made based on shifting combinations of problems, solutions, and decision makers. In this
sense, decision-making appears "pathological" instead of rational.
The Garbage Can theory allows problems to be addressed and choices to be made, but does not
necessarily following a rational process. Poorly understood and addressed problems can drift into and out
of the garbage can process, depending on the situation and factors.

Diagram/schematic of theory
N/A

Originating author(s)
Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, Johan P. Olsen

Seminal articles
Cohen, M., March, J., and Olsen, J. "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice," Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (March, 1972), pp. 1-25.

Originating area
Organizational theory, Administrative sciences

Level of analysis
Firm
Diffusion of innovations
Acronym
DOI

Alternate name(s)
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Implementation Success or Technology Adoption

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Compatibility of Technology, Complexity of Technology, Relative Advantage (Perceived Need for
Technology)

Concise description of theory

DOI theory sees innovations as being communicated through certain channels over time and within a
particular social system (Rogers, 1995). Individuals are seen as possessing different degrees of willingness
to adopt innovations and thus it is generally observed that the portion of the population adopting an
innovation is approximately normally distributed over time (Rogers, 1995). Breaking this normal distribution
into segments leads to the segregation of individuals into the following five categories of individual
innovativeness (from earliest to latest adopters): innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority,
laggards (Rogers, 1995). Members of each category typically possess certain distinguishing characteristics
as shown below:

innovators - venturesome, educated, multiple info sources

early adopters - social leaders, popular, educated
early majority - deliberate, many informal social contacts
late majority - skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status
laggards - neighbours and friends are main info sources, fear of debt
When the adoption curve is converted to a cumulative percent curve a characteristic S curve (as shown in
the first figure below) is generated that represents the rate of adoption of the innovation within the
population (Rogers, 1995). The rate of adoption of innovations is impacted by five factors: relative
advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity (Rogers, 1995). The first four factors are
generally positively correlated with rate of adoption while the last factor, complexity, is generally negatively
correlated with rate of adoption (Rogers, 1995). The actual rate of adoption is governed by both the rate at
which an innovation takes off and the rate of later growth. Low cost innovations may have a rapid take-off
while innovations whose value increases with widespread adoption (network effects) may have faster late
stage growth. Innovation adoption rates can, however, be impacted by other phenomena. For instance, the
adaptation of technology to individual needs can change the nature of the innovation over time. In addition,
a new innovation can impact the adoption rate of an existing innovation and path dependence may lock
potentially inferior technologies in place.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovation
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 4thed. New York: Free Press,1995
Diffusion of Innovation Theory in IS
Moore and Benbasat (1991), working in an IS context, expanded upon the five factors impacting the
adoption of innovations presented by Rogers, generating eight factors (voluntariness, relative advantage,
compatibility, image, ease of use, result demonstrability, visibility, and trialability) that impact the adoption
of IT. Scales used to operationalize these factors were also validated in the study.
Since the early applications of DOI to IS research the theory has been applied and adapted in numerous
ways. Research has, however, consistently found that technical compatibility, technical complexity, and
relative advantage (perceived need) are important antecedents to the adoption of innovations (Bradford
and Florin, 2003; Crum et. al., 1996) leading to the generalized model presented below (see second figure
below).
Diagram/schematic of theory

IS diffusion variance model:

Originating author(s)
Lazarsfeld et. al. (1949); Rogers (1962); Rogers and Shoemaker (1971); Rogers (1995)

Seminal articles
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1949). The peoples choice: How the voter makes up his mind
in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rogers, Everett M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press. New York.
Rogers, Everett M & Shoemaker, Floyd F (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 4thed. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5thed. New York: Free Press, 2003.
Originating area
Anthropology/Sociology/Education/Communication/Marketing and Management/Geography/Economics

Level of analysis
Group, Firm, Industry, Society