Asia pacific journal of information systems

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

DOI QR Code

Lessons Learned from Institutionalization of ML (Machine Learning) Supported HR Services in the Existence of Multiple Institutional Logics

  • Received : 2023.08.31
  • Accepted : 2023.12.07
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explores how an organization has successfully implemented ML-supported HR services to resolve high employee turnover problems in the IT sector. The empirical setting of the research is where contradicting institutional logics exist among technical, HR, and business groups regarding the ML model development and use of the model predictions in HR services. Institutional framework is used to identify the roles of organizational actors and the legitimacy structures in the organizational environments that can shape or constrain the ML led organizational changes. In institutional theories, technology adoption and organizational change are not only constrained by organizational context, but also fostered through organizational actors' roles and efforts to increase the legitimacy for the change. This research found that when multiple contradicting institutional logics exist, legitimizing the establishment of an enabling environment for multiple logics to reconcile and for the project to move forward is critical. Industry-wide conditions, previous experiences with the pilot ML project, forming a TFT with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and relevant KPIs are found to legitimize the HR team and the business division to collaborate with the technical personnel to launch ML-supported HR services.

Keywords

References

  1. Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21, 565-568.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2075528
  2. Ajer, A., and Vassilakopoulou, P. (2021). Enterprise architecture operationalization and institutional pluralism: The case of the Norwegian Hospital sector. Information Systems Journal, 31, 610-645. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12324 
  3. Avgerou, C. (2013). Social mechanisms for causal explanation in social theory based IS research. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 14(8), 399-419.  https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00341
  4. Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 519-531.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893
  5. Bygstad, B. (2010). Generative mechanisms for innovation in information infrastructures. Information and Organization, 20(3/4), 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.07.001 
  6. Castells, M. (2011). The Rise of the Network Society. Wiley-Blackwell. 
  7. Daugherty, P., and Wilson, J. (2018) Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI. Harvard Business Review Press. 
  8. Davenport, T., and Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial Intelligence for the Real World. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/01/09/hbr-artificial-intelligence-for-the-real-world.html 
  9. Deephouse, D., Bundy, J., Tost, L., and Suchman, M. (2017). Organizational Legitimacy: Six Key Questions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, and R. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 27-54). London: Sage. 
  10. Dimaggio, P., and Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  11. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-555.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
  12. Gartner. (2022). Gartner survey finds only 29% of IT workers have high intent to say with current employer. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-03-09-gartner-survey-finds-only-29-percent-of-tech-workers-havehigh-intent-to-stay-with-current-employer. 
  13. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. 
  14. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1999). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. 
  15. Hall. R. (1991). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. New Jersey.: Prentice Hall. 
  16. Hoogervorst, J. (2004). Enterprise architecture: enabling integration, agility and change. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(3), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021884300400095X 
  17. Kelly, R. (2020). Harvy Nash/KPMG CIO survey 2020: Everything changed. Or did it? Retrieved from https://kpmg.com/dp/en/home/insights/2020/11/harvey-nash-kpmg-cio-survey-2020.html 
  18. Kieser, A. (1994). Why organization theory needs historical analyses: How this should be performed. Organization Science, 5(4), 608-620. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.4.608 
  19. Kim, G. (2010). Knowledge-driven dynamic capability and organizational alignment: A revelatory historical case. Asia pacific Journal of IS, 20(1), 33-56. 
  20. Kim, G., and Kim, H. (2022). How organizations legitimize AI led organizational change?. Asia pacific Journal of IS, 32(3), 461-476.  https://doi.org/10.14329/apjis.2022.32.3.461
  21. Kohansal, M., and Haki, K. (2021). How enterprise architecture loses momentum: A case of delegitimization, 2021 ICIS Proceedings. 
  22. Kretschmer, T., and Khashabi, P. (2020). Digital transformation and organization design: An integrated approach. California Management Review, 62(4), 86-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620940296. 
  23. Lamb, R., and Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197-235.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036529
  24. Leigh, P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgements. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686-710. 
  25. McGrath, K. (2013). The Potential of Generative Mechanisms for IS Research. In Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013 (pp. 1-17). 
  26. Orlikowski, W., and Barley, S. (2001). Technology and Institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145-165.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3250927
  27. Sah, R., and Stiglitz, J. (1986). The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 716. 
  28. Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications. 
  29. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
  30. Smith, C. (2001). Organizational architecture and corporate finance. The Journal of financial Research, 24(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6803.2001.tb00814.x 
  31. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
  32. Thornton, P., and Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics, In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 99-129). London: Sage. 
  33. Volkoff, O., and Strong, D. (2013). Critical realism and affordance: Theorizing IT associated organizational change process. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819-834.  https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.07
  34. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. New York, CA: Sage Publications Inc.