The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation

The ability to integrate dispersed pockets of expertise and institute an organizational repository of knowledge is considered to be vital for sustained effectiveness in contemporary business environments. Information technologies provide cost-effective functionalities for building knowledge platforms through systematic acquisition, storage, and dissemination of organizational knowledge. However, in order to gain the value-adding potential of organizational knowledge, it is not sufficient to simply adopt and deploy IT-enabled knowledge platforms. These platforms must be assimilated into the ongoing work processes in organizations. Yet, theories of technology innovation and use suggest that a variety of institutional, social, and political factors blend together in influencing the extent to which complex information technologies are actually assimilated into organizational practice. Therefore, this research addresses a significant question: What forces influence the assimilation of knowledge platforms in organization? Given the significant gap between the adoption and actual assimilation of complex technologies into organizations, this is an important question. Empirical evidence is generated by examining the forces influencing the assimilation of CASE technologies in systems development projects in organizations. CASE is considered to be one of the most mature knowledge platforms in contemporary organizations. The empirical evidence sheds light on the role of institutional forces that influence the rate of assimilation of the technology. The findings have significant implications for further research and practice. (Knowledge Management; Technology Assimilation; Institutional Theories) Introduction Contemporary perspectives on organizations increasingly frame organizations as architectures for integrating knowledge such that it can be deployed in ongoing work activities for delivering business value (March 1991, Spender 1992, Grant 1996a). These perspectives acknowledge that ‘‘pockets’’ of specialized knowledge exist, but they tend to be spatially and temporally dispersed across firms because they are constituted and generated in the course of practice and reflection by individuals working on specific projects, products, or processes in different locations at different times. Therefore, organizational effectiveness is linked with a firm’s ability to integrate these dispersed pockets of knowledge such that they become generally available for ongoing work throughout the firm (Kogut and Zander 1996). Knowledge platforms, built largely through the cost-effective functionalities of advanced information technologies, are seen as an important organizational mechanism for enabling the systematic acquisition, storage, and dissemination of organizational knowledge (Huber 1990). They are expected to play a significant role in enhancing the combinative capacity of firms (Kogut and Zander 1992). However, in order to gain the value-adding potential of organizational knowledge, it is not sufficient to simply adopt and deploy IT-enabled knowledge platforms. Significant business value will only be derived from these knowledge platforms when their implicit functionality is assimilated within the ongoing actions of individuals and teams. However, the assimilation of complex technologies is never easy. Theories of technological innovation make it quite clear that potential adopters are likely to experience considerable ambiguity about the value of such technologies for their work (Weick 1990). This becomes particularly vexing with more generic and intrusive technologies, ultimately producing doubts or even misgivings among potential adopters regarding the technology’s perceived benefits and costs. As a consequence, RUSSELL L. PURVIS, V. SAMBAMURTHY, AND ROBERT W. ZMUD Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations 118 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/Vol. 12, No. 2, March–April 2001 a myriad of institutional, social, and political forces blend together to influence how potential adopters make sense out of the technology and, accordingly, assimilate its use (Rogers 1983, Tornatzky and Fleischer 1990). As but one example, Cooper and Zmud (1990) and Leonard-Barton and Deschamps (1988) found that senior management serves a crucial role in influencing how users perceive the potential value of a technology being introduced into their work domains. This research examines how institutional factors influence the assimilation of IT-enabled knowledge platforms in organizations. Specifically, we examine factors that affect the use of CASE technologies as a knowledge platform for systems development work activities in organizations. We regard CASE technologies to be among the most mature knowledge-platform technologies in use. Though generally acknowledged to possess a significant potential for accelerating the productivity of systems development activities in organizations (Dixon 1992, Feuche 1989, Forte and Norman 1992, Martin 1989), empirical research suggests that CASE technology has experienced low rates of organizational assimilation (Martin 1995, Rai 1995, Rai and Howard 1993). For example, Kemerer (1992) observed that, within a year of CASE being adopted, 70% of the adopting organizations did not use the technology and 25% used it only on a limited basis. One explanation for this low rate of organizational assimilation might be the realization that the primary value of CASE technology lies in its role as a knowledge platform, not as a means for automating systems development activities. The CASE repository is a database where relevant systems development knowledge can be stored, manipulated, and retrieved, so that this knowledge can be integrated and used in an organization’s ongoing stream of systems development activities across different locations and over time (Martin 1990a; 1990b; McClure 1989). Yourdon (1992) calls the repository the ‘‘single most important technological development in the CASE industry . . . today’s CASE environment could be regarded as a number of tools clustered around the repository’’ (p. 137). The value of the repository in facilitating the knowledge-platform-enabling role of CASE becomes clear since ‘‘. . . knowledge is the raw material of software design teams’’ (Walz et al. 1993, p. 63). The CASE repository provides a means for codifying and storing relevant systems development knowledge and acts as an organizational memory. In doing so, the repository is expected to enhance the value of CASE technologies for ongoing systems development activities (McClure 1992). Therefore, this research examines the role of institutional influences in the organizational assimilation of CASE technology, specifically from the perspective of the CASE as an IT-enabled knowledge platform. The next section of this paper presents the conceptual background for this research. Next, the conceptual model for this research is introduced and different hypotheses are presented to explain the relationships depicted within this model. The subsequent section describes the research methodology. Next, we describe the analysis strategy and the results of the hypothesis testing. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of this research for further research and practice. Conceptual Background Three streams of literature yield key insights regarding the assimilation of IT-enabled knowledge platforms: knowledge-based views of the firm, the role of institutional forces on individual technology use, and the assimilation of IT within organizations. Each of these literature streams is discussed in the following sections. Knowledge-Based Views of the Firm Knowledge-based theories of the firm advocate that firms are organized to accomplish two distinct goals: the generation of knowledge and the application of knowledge (Demsetz 1991, Spender 1996, Grant 1996a). Individuals, teams, and departments generate knowledge within a firm as they process information, make decisions, and act on existing knowledge. Knowledge is created in two distinct forms: explicit and tacit (Polanyi 1962, Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Nelson and Winter 1982, Spender 1992). Explicit knowledge is easy to communicate and transfer because it can be codified. On the contrary, tacit knowledge is more difficult to transfer and communicate because it is inextricably woven with the experiences and situational contexts within which it was generated. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) utilize this distinction to propose ‘‘organizational knowledge is created and expanded through social interaction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge’’ (p. 61). Their theory of organizational knowledge creation revolves around an interaction between two dimensions: conversions from tacit to explicit knowledge and vice versa; and transfers between individual, group, organizational, and interorganizational levels. One of the significant characteristics of the knowledge creation process is that it occurs most efficiently and effectively through specialization and differentiation, i.e., individuals or teams with specific expertise generate distinct slices of organizational knowledge. Firms provide not only forums for the generation of knowledge but also for the integration and application of RUSSELL L. PURVIS, V. SAMBAMURTHY, AND ROBERT W. ZMUD Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/Vol. 12, No. 2, March–April 2001 119 existing knowledge in ongoing business activities and work processes. As Grant (1996a) states: Integration of specialist knowledge to perform a discrete productive task is the essence of organizational capability, defined as a firm’s ability to perform repeatedly a productive task which relates either directly or indirectly to a firm’s capacity for creating value through effecting the transformation of inputs into