| Some scholars suggest that the best way to organize work with computing is to enable workers discovery of new uses for computing. This requires reorganization to new organizational structures. Little research to date has focussed on how organizational structures either facilitate or constrain the way workers use computing systems or their ability to develop new uses for computing. The purpose of this research was to address the question: Do, and if so, how do organizational structures promote or inhibit clerical workers innovation with computing?; To study how organizational structures influence innovation with computing, both qualitative (case study) and quantitative (natural experiment) methods were employed. The natural experiment portion consisted of selecting organizational departments based on whether they fit the criteria for control (organizations that rely on controlling workers behavior through such means as extensive supervision) or commitment (organizations that provide workers greater autonomy and participation in decision making) organizational structures. Questionnaires assessed structures, computing innovation and other variables of interest. The case study data focused on developing an in-depth understanding of the kinds of computing innovations initiated and the process of innovating. Finally, the simultaneous use of the two methods provided a basis for the triangulation for the understanding of supporting bottom-up computing innovations.; The results of this study indicate that clerks primary motivation for computing innovation is to make work "easier." Four different types of proactive computing innovations were identified. Clerks in control oriented departments were as frequently involved in initiating computing innovations as were clerks in commitment oriented departments. However, in commitment departments, clerks identified problems and solutions that resulted in computing innovations that affected more people than innovations in control departments for which clerks identified solutions to problems identified by managers. Explanations for the differences in scope of computing innovations include homogeneity of work, formalization, organizational goals, social organization of computing and computing infrastructure. Finally, in commitment departments individuals who frequently generated and discussed ideas were most likely to initiate computing innovations. In contrast, in control departments, these individual differences did not influence initiation of computing innovations. |
