{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017553793884484713, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016987542468856172, 'mean_word_length': 5.593283582089552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two perspectives on Information System Adaptation: Using Institutional Theory with Sensemaking

Institutional theory has proven to be a central analytical perspective for investigating the role of larger social and historical structures of Information System (IS) adaptation. However, it does not explicitly account for how organizational actors make sense of and enact IS in their local context. We address this limitation by showing how sensemaking theory can be combined with institutional theory to understand IS adaptation in organizations. Based on a literature review, we present the main assumptions behind institutional and sensemaking theory when used as analytical lenses for investigating the phenomenon of IS adaptation. Furthermore, we explore a combination of the two theories with a case study in a health care setting where an Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system was introduced and used by a group of doctors. The empirical case provides evidence of how existing institutional structures influenced the doctors’ sensemaking of the EPR system. Additionally, it illustrates how the doctors made sense of the EPR system in practice. The paper outlines that: 1) institutional theory has its explanatory power at the organizational field and organizational/group level of analysis focusing on the role that larger institutional structures play in organizational actors’ sensemaking of IS adaptation, 2) sensemaking theory has its explanatory power at the organizational/group and individual/socio-cognitive level focusing on organizational actors’ cognition and situated actions of IS adaptation, and 3) a combined view of the two theories helps us oscillate between levels of analysis, which facilitates a much richer interpretation of IS adaptation.