過去研究科技對組織影響研究眾多，從早期工業時期開始的科技決定論，它主張科技本身的物質性決定了結果，例如：有打字機就一定回提高組織效率，之後有建構主義強調科技所產生的影響是透過科技與人互動下所產生的結果，然而，機構理論主張人並不是完全的自由意識，人受到機構力量的影響。

各家學派各自論述主張不同，本研究以建構學派的觀點為主，並且整合決定論所說的物質性與機構論所說的機構力量，綜觀科技對組織的影響全貌，並認為科技對組織的影響不是決定性，而是在與組織間的互動根據不同的人而會浮現不同的結構。

本研究的觀點與批判實證主義這個哲學觀點相呼應，因此，本文最後以批判實證論做總結，試圖整理使用者、決策者與設計者這三種不同角色的人對科技這個人造物的影響，並整理出影響這三種不同角色與科技之間的力量。

本文最終的結論是科技對組織的影響本質上是互動當下才會浮現的結構，所以從本質上不是受什麼物質或者力量所決定，也因如此，科技對組織的影響無法僅採用變數模型這種方法論來證明。

In the past, there are numerous researches about the effect of technology for organization. A nascent of the study, technological determinism advocates materiality itself determines the outcome from industrial era. Then Constructivism emphasizes the impact of organization emerges from the interaction between technology and agency, however, the institutional theory proposes that agency is not entirely free, agency will be affected by the institution of pressures.

Each school has their own tenet, this study base on Constructivism, and then integrating with determinism and institutionalism to pursue the complete understanding of the effect of technology. This article believes the effect of technology won’t be determine by materiality and institutional pressures, but those will influence agency, and the effect will be emerged from the interaction between technology, agency, and institution.

This article reflects a philosophical view, Critical Realism, so this article concludes by Critical Realism. It identifies the different role of agency, users, managers, and designers, and conceptually portray the interaction between those roles and technology.

The final conclusion of this article is the structure will emerge from the technology and agency under the moment of action. Because of the conclusion, this article announces that materiality and institutional forces won’t determine the result, therefore, the methodology of variable model is hard to prove the effect of technology.

1. Aldrich, H.E. (1972). Technology and organizational structure: A reexamination of the findings of the Aston group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 26–43.
2. Blau, P. M. 1955. The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relationships in two government agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Blau, P.M., Falbe, C.M., McKinley, W., & Tracy, P.K. (1976). Technology and organization in manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 20–40.
4. Carter, B., and New, C. (Eds.). 2004. Making Realism Work: Realist Social Theory and Empirical Research, London: Routledge.
5. Cousins, K.C. and Robey, D. (2005). The Social Shaping of Electronic Metals Exchanges: An institutional theory perspective, Information Technology & People 18(3): 212.
6. Currie, W.L. (2004). The Organizing Vision of Application Service Provision: A process-oriented analysis, Information and Organization 14: 237–267.
7. DeLanda, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity, London: Continuum.
8. DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M.S. (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
9. Devereaux Jennings, P. and Greenwood, R. (2003). Constructing the Iron Cage:Institutional theory and enactment, in R. Westwood and S. Clegg (eds.)
10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
11. Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921–951.
12. Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17(2), 407–447.
13. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Ryu, D. (1995). Cognitive elements in the social construction of technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 259–288.
14. Fulk, J., Steinfield, C.W., Schmitz, J., & Power, G.J. (1987). A social influence model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5), 529–552.
15. Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C.R. (2002). Theorizing Change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields, Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 58–80.
17. Hedstrom, P., and Swedberg, R. 1998. “Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay,” in Social Mechanisms, P. Hedstrom, and R. Swedberg (eds.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-31.
18. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 61-85.
19. Leonardi PM, Barley SR. (2010) What's under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad. Management Ann.4(1) :1–51. CrossRef
20. Lucas, H.C. (1975). Performance and the use of an information system. Management Science, 29(8), 908–919.
21. Mark, A.L. (2007). Modernising healthcare – Is the NPfIT for purpose? Journal of Information Technology 22(3): 248–257.
22. Merton, R. K. 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18: 560–568.
23. Mignerat M and Rivard S (2009) Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology 24(4), 369–391.
24. Norman, D. A. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things, New York: Basic Books.
25. Norman, D. A. 1999. “Affordance, Conventions, and Design,” Interactions (6:3), pp. 38-43.
26. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
27. Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
28. Orlikowski, W.J., & Gash, D.C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207.
29. Parsons, T. 1956. Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
30. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.
31. Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32. Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5–49.
33. Ramiller, N.C. and Swanson, E.B. (2003). Organizing Visions for Information Technology and the Information Systems Executive Response, Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1): 13–50.
34. rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.
35. Reichers, A. E. (1987), "An Interactionist Perspective on Newcomer Socialization Rates," Academy of Management Review, 12, 2, 278-287.
36. Rice, R.E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 219–244.
37. Swanson, E.B. and Ramiller, N.C. (1997). The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation, Organization Science 8(5): 458–474.
38. Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: theorizing it-associated organizational change process. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.
39. Wang, P. and Swanson, E.B. (2008). Customer Relationship Management as Advertised, Information Technology & People 21(4): 323.
40. Wang, P. Chasing the hottest IT: Effects of information technology fashion on organizations. MIS Quarterly, 34, 1 (2010), 63–85.
41. Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: HSMO.