Eleni Lamprou
email: elamprou@alba.edu.gr

Nathalie Mitev
email: n.n.mitev@lse.ac.uk

Bill Doolin
email: bdoolin@aut.ac.nz

Information Systems and Assemblages

Introduction

The theme for the 2014 IFIP WG 8.2 working conference was 'Information Systems and Global Assemblages: (Re)Configuring Actors, Artefacts, Organizations'. The motivation behind the choice of the conference theme has been the increasing appreciation of notions of emergence, heterogeneity and temporality in IS studies. We found that the conference provided an opportune occasion for inviting scholars interested in exploring these notions, their relevance and promise for IS studies. The concept of the 'assemblage' [START_REF] Marcus | Assemblage. Theory[END_REF], already referenced in IS studies, as will be discussed below, and with significant popularity in other fields, such as anthropology, geography and cultural studies, provided the stepping stone for approaching the heterogeneous, emergent and situated nature of information systems and organization. In particular, we opted for highlighting the 'global assemblage' [START_REF] Collier | Global Assemblages, Anthropological Problems[END_REF] as a metaphor to talk about challenging yet often creative tensions that emerge as global imperatives (geographical, intellectual, procedural and others) interact with local arrangements of actors, artefacts and organizations. Here 'global' does not mean universal or everywhere, but mobile, abstractable, and capable of recontextualization across diverse social and cultural situations. This book provides a collection of contributions by scholars who responded to our invitation, adding depth and breadth to our understanding of the concept and its value for IS studies. At the same time, some contributors chose to discuss emergence, heterogeneity and situatedness in different terms, drawing upon alternative theoretical traditions and concepts. The result has been an engaging and stimulating mix of ideas that points towards the 'multiple' trajectories -current and future -of this exciting stream of research.

Information Systems as (Global) Assemblages

Approaches that stress the performative, processual and relational aspects of organizational practice, have received increased attention in recent years. Drawn from diverse philosophical and theoretical traditions, their boundaries are often blurred, intimating the mutability, subversiveness and tentativeness of the very phenomena they study. Discussions of agency and materiality have found a prominent place in the development of these approaches, inviting audiences to reconsider ideas of structure, power and accountability in organizational practice. Emphasis has often been placed on micro-processes of organizing and change, revealing the contribution of interactions at specific localities to the unfolding of the organization as a whole. As such, these approaches problematize the relationship between the social and the technical, the abstract and the specific, the ostensive and the performative, the universal and the particular. The idea of the assemblage appears to originate in the work of Deleuze and Guattari [START_REF] Deleuze | A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia[END_REF], explicated beautifully by DeLanda [START_REF] Delanda | Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy[END_REF][START_REF] Delanda | A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity[END_REF]. At the same time, Anderson and McFarlane identify another potential reference point in what they call an "'after' actor-network theory literature" [6, p. 125]. What appears to be common in both cases, nonetheless, is that the concept offers an opportunity for subverting prevailing notions of structure by emphasizing movement and the temporary, socially, materially and discursively accomplished "coming-together" of heterogeneous entities into social practices. As Marcus and Saka point out, Assemblage is thus a resource with which to address in analysis and writing the modernist problem of the heterogeneous within the ephemeral, while preserving some concept of the structural so embedded in the enterprise of social science research [1, p. 102].

The concept of the assemblage affords insight into the emergence, temporality, spatiality, distributed agency and fragility of social formations [START_REF] Anderson | Assemblage and Geography[END_REF], the implications of which are revealed vividly and intensely when abstract ideas, routines, technologies and classifications travel to different locations. As Collier and Ong suggest, "As global forms are articulated in specific situations -or are territorialized in assemblages -they define new material, collective and discursive relationships" [2, p. 4]. Examples include various forms of technoscience that, as Sassen suggests "can accommodate multiple particularities" [7, p. 457], such as the human genome, standards regimes, and digital networks.

Hence, the concept of the assemblage emerges as particularly relevant to IS studies that explore the design, development and implementation of abstract technological forms instantiated in particular locations and temporalities. It is not surprising then that the concept has found its place in early technology studies grounded in a practice perspective [START_REF] Suchman | Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn[END_REF][START_REF] Pickering | The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science[END_REF]. The practice turn in social sciences is predicated on an interest with the situated, the local and the relational [START_REF]The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory[END_REF] and the idea of the assemblage serves particularly such purposes. Its use in IS studies became even more popular with the development of the sociomaterial perspective [START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work[END_REF][START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization[END_REF] and the ongoing scrutiny of the relation between the social and the material [START_REF]Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artefacts and Practices[END_REF][START_REF]Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World[END_REF]. References to 'sociomaterial assemblages' in IS studies indicate engagement with the perceived heterogeneity, tentativeness and locatedness of the alignment and realignment, configuration and reconfiguration of actors, technological artefacts and organizations. As Orlikowski notes, "The performativity of the sociomaterial assemblage is thus fleeting, fragile, and fragmented, entailing uncertainty and risk, and producing intended and unintended outcomes" [11, p. 1445]. These counterintuitive characteristics appear to consistently attract further attention in IS studies, as demonstrated by the interest in applying the concept of sociomaterial assemblages in both conceptual and empirical studies [START_REF] Doolin | Sociomateriality and Boundary Objects in Information Systems Development[END_REF][START_REF] Wagner | Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective[END_REF]. Even more so, the idea of the 'assemblage' does not remain limited to the sociomaterial perspective. Instead, it also finds ground in alternative theoretical conceptualizations, as evidenced in recent work [START_REF] Volkoff | Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-Associated Organizational Change Processes[END_REF].

Such increasing interest in "assemblages" suggests this may be a timely opportunity to consider the kind of questions that IS scholars can generate through the application of the concept and how an "assemblage theory" may be of value to the field. Relevant questions have already been posed elsewhere [START_REF] Anderson | Assemblage and Geography[END_REF], centered on the difference that assemblage thinking can make to studies of relationality and heterogeneity; the relation of the concept to other seemingly familiar concepts, such as network and apparatus; theorizing order and change; and, implications of such an ontological thesis for politics and ethics. Several of these questions have been addressed by contributors to this book, at the same time accentuating particular themes of relevance to IS studies, such as exploring the subjects, rationalities, techniques and practices that constitute information systems as heterogeneous and situated assemblages; discussing temporality and emergence in information systems and organizational change; and, producing alternative insights on the contribution of digital innovation to industry and organizational practices.

Overview of the Book

We would like to thank the authors for their contributions to the conference. Some of the papers address directly the theme of the conference, while others address topics relevant to IFIP WG 8.2 beyond the specific call, as per our invitation. In our effort to group the papers, we attempted to identify common underlying issues that could steer discussion and generate insight during the conference sessions.

IS/IT Implementation and Appropriation

The first group of papers apply alternative theoretical lenses to the study of IS/IT implementation, adoption and use. Lauterbach and Mueller approach what they perceive as terminological heterogeneity in the literature on IT adoption and use it as a starting point for their contribution. They review the development of the field, including positivist and constructivist accounts, and propose a process model of IT adoption with the aim of integrating the field. The authors argue that such an effort brings to the fore questions regarding conceptual clarity, as well as areas available for further investigation. Plumb and Kautz apply a phenomenological approach to the study of IT appropriation in early childhood and care organizations, drawing upon Heideggerian insights. They approach IT artefacts as objects of reflection that through processes of 'place making' become tools and eventually take the role of 'equipment' in organizational practices. The authors understand such a phenomenological theory of appropriation as contributing to the sociomateriality debate, as it portrays technologies as inextricably entangled in practices. Yeow and Faraj propose an alternative vocabulary for studying IS implementation from a sociomaterial perspective. Drawing upon the notion of 'performation' they shift emphasis to how assemblages are rendered performative in the presence of pre-existing sociomaterial contexts. In this light, they bring to the fore the 'invisible work' that is necessary for assemblages to be made to perform, the relevance of discursive practices in stabilizing the meaning of an assemblage as performative and the principle of 'performative exigency' as driving sociomaterial change.

Ethnographic Accounts of IS Use

A second group of papers offer ethnographic accounts of IS use drawing upon two quite different contexts. Chughtai and Myers present the findings of an ethnographic study of young IT professionals, exploring their 'absorbed' engagement with IT artefacts. The authors propose that the entwinement logic of practices, grounded in Heideggerian insights of 'Being-in-the-World', provides a fruitful, holistic lens for explaining the seemingly comfortable use of IT artefacts by this generation. Such a lens conceptualises practices as sociomaterial and spatiotemporal and technology as entwined in practicemore specifically, as equipment, purposefully used, drawing upon and developing skills. Eades and Zheng wish to contribute to the discussion of Information Systems beyond the realm of business practice and present a study of a commemorative countermapping ritual where systems such as Google Earth were employed. The study draws upon the concept of the assemblage to discuss issues of temporality, spatiality and becoming in mapping practices that draw upon translocal technologies and contexts and have transgenerational effects in identity construction.

Structures and Networks

Another group of papers discuss intra-and inter-organization structures and networks. Aryal, EL Amrani, and Truex employ the concept of the assemblage to approach the development of 'competency centers', namely governance structures and processes that coordinate and facilitate the post-implementation phase of Enterprise Systems. They reach the conclusion that the value of such (fluid and temporary) structures depends on how the constant movement between 'material' and 'expressive' constructs, on the one hand, and forces of 'territorialisation' and 'deterritorialization', on the other, is handled within organizations. Lund dissects the challenges encountered in developing digital innovation drawing upon the case of an e-newspaper initiative. In approaching the subject matter, the author draws the picture of a digital ecosystem as a heterogeneous network of interested parties, with heterogeneous knowledge resources, expectations and requirements that raise political tensions. Concrete ways in which these challenges can been addressed are proposed.

Health Care IS

A number of papers in the conference are located in the health care context, reflecting an enduring interest of the IFIP WG 8.2 community in health care information systems. Two papers offer a critical eye on developments in that field. Robertson, Nicholas, Rosenfeld, and Travaglia discuss the social and political issues that underlie practices of knowledge production through health information systems. Specifically, the authors question the practices of knowledge production touching upon several issues, such as big data, classificatory systems and digital materiality. Further, they argue that health information systems do not adequately engage with the lived experience of patients and discuss the potential contribution of information on space/place in this direction. Cornford and Lichtner use the concept of the assemblage to approach the digitization of drugs, namely, the integration of digital services into the practices of using drugs. They problematize the seemingly prevalent rationale behind this movement -achieving certainty in medical provision. They produce an 'anatomy' of digital drugs, drawing upon three domains in which issues of their value are raised, (in-)use, research and governance, and point towards relevant questions for the IS community.

Social Media

Studies of social media with various applications and objectives also found a place in the conference. Pousti, Urquhart, and Linger engage with the role of social media in chronic care management. They identify an affordances perspective as pertinent for the study of social media in healthcare management, as it acknowledges that the meaning of such media and their respective affordances do not reside in the artefact per se, but emerge through material-discursive practices. They move to discuss particular affordances and constraints related to the use of social media in chronic health care management. Dudezert, Fayard, and Oiry draw upon the myth of Asterix and the organization of the inhabitants in the Gaulish village with regards to knowledge, as to explore the tensions and challenges that may occur during the implementation of Knowledge Management Systems 2.0. The authors comment on the relevance of myths for approaching organizational phenomena and engage with the role played by shared national representations in the implementation of Information Systems. Mirbabaie, Ehnis, Stieglitz, and Bunker set out to study communication roles enacted through social media in the face of extreme events. They argue that due to the pervasiveness of social media in everyday life, 'command and control' systems, including governmental agencies, need to engage with information generated on these platforms by organizations, groups and individuals. The research proposed by the authors aims at facilitating effective communication among these parties during an extreme event.

IS Design

The final group of papers engage with pertinent issues in IS design. Baskerville and Pries-Heje problematize the suitability of criteria such as generalizability and transferability for the evaluation of design theories. They understand design science as different from natural or social studies, as it is materially prescriptive and engages with contexts that may not even presently exist. They propose the criterion of 'projectability' and discuss its relevance, acknowledging two forms of projectability -actual projection into material artefacts or other design theories. Baskerville, Davison, Kaul, and Wong extend an invitation to re-consider the relevance of 'systems' in Information Systems research, a concept which, they argue, has faded in recent studies. Drawing upon the results of a study on system designer roles, they reach the conclusion that engaging with 'Systems of Information' instead of 'Information Systems' may be more pertinent to new challenges facing systems designers. These challenges emerge from the requirement to preserve the systematicity of information practices in the context of transitions from old to new systems.

Conclusion

It is our belief that contributions in this book advance discussions on the notions of emergence, heterogeneity and temporality and mobilise our further engagement with the relevance of (global) assemblages in IS studies. The very heterogeneity of the components of this book; the individual chapters with their distinct objectives, choice of field and conceptual armoury, level of engagement with the theme of the conference; their contingent "coming-together" in this single volume, temporarily stabilizing discussions that have been and instigating discussions that will be; their continuous dispersion, as they seek to develop into different forms and align with further assemblages. These are all valuable mementos of another "coming-together" in beautiful New Zealand, in the forum of the IFIP WG 8.2 working conference, left to remind us of the promise of assemblage theory for IS studies.


Jens Lauterbach
email: lauterbach@es.uni-mannheim.de

Benjamin Mueller
email: b.mueller@rug.nl

Adopt, Adapt, Enact or Use? A Framework and Methodology for Extracting and Integrating Conceptual Mechanisms of IT Adoption and Use

Keywords: IT adoption, information systems, change projects, IT use process, adaptation processes, business value, mechanisms, positivist stance, constructivist stance 1

Information Systems (IS) are omnipresent in today's organizations. While much research has been performed on adoption, implementation, and use of IS, still many practitioners are faced with IS change endeavors in organizations that equal "death march" projects and fail before or directly after go-live. Research with a positivist stance has thoroughly studied factors that describe individuals' intentions to adopt or use technology, while largely ignoring social and organizational contexts. Researchers with a constructivist view, on the other hand, have studied how social processes and structures change or emerge in the light of the new IS. We suggest that there is a need to combine what we know from these two streams in an attempt to clarify terminological bafflement that seems to be caused by the different philosophical stances. Our paper contributes by suggesting a framework and methodology for collecting and re-assembling scattered conceptual pieces of organizational and individual IT adoption and integrating them into a coherent understanding.

Introduction

Information technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS) are omnipresent and indispensable in today's world. Implementation of IS in organizations, such as ERP or CRM, promises a myriad of benefits in terms of standardization of technology-enabled value chains, creation of new business capabilities, efficiency gains, and increased productivity [START_REF] Brynjolfsson | Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance[END_REF][START_REF] Shang | Assessing and Managing the Benefits of Enterprise Systems: The Business Manager's Perspective[END_REF]. Many change projects [START_REF] Andersen | Toward a Project Management Theory for Renewal Projects[END_REF] that deal with the implementation of these Enterprise Systems (ES) 1 and the complementary adjustments to the organization [START_REF] Leonardi | What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing[END_REF] and its work systems [START_REF] Alter | Work System Theory: Overview of Core Concepts, Extensions, and Challenges for the Future[END_REF], however, never realize the intended benefits. As a consequence, practitioners, such as managers or sponsors of these change endeavors, often find themselves in "death march" projects [START_REF] Yourdon | Death March[END_REF] that already fail to deliver prior to go-live [START_REF] Krotov | ERP Implementation Gone Terribly Wrong: The Case of Natural Springs[END_REF][START_REF] Fadel | User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Bulkeley | Technology (A Special Report): Working Together -When Things Go Wrong: FoxMeyer Drug Took a Huge High-Tech Gamble; It Didn't Work[END_REF]. Even if project management can claim success of releasing the new technology in time, scope, and budget, the chance to realize intended benefits often dies slowly after golive; for example, due to organizational or individual resistance to adopt the new technology [START_REF] Burkhardt | Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of a Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power[END_REF][START_REF] Johnston | Customer Relationship Management Implementation Gaps[END_REF][START_REF] Wen | Understanding and Addressing User Resistance to IS Implementation in a Lean Context[END_REF] or unintended use by some of the system's most important key users [START_REF] Bartis | A Multiple Narrative Approach to Information Systems Failure: A Successful System That Failed[END_REF].

Thus, change projects for the introduction of new systems not only require managers' skills with regard to implementation, project, and change management to deliver expected project results. Their awareness and understanding of individuals' adoption, their responses to the new technology [START_REF] Beaudry | Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation[END_REF], and the emergence of actual IT use processes and dynamic patterns [START_REF] Nan | Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model[END_REF] seems equally important. Consequently, it has been suggested that these mechanisms play a vital role in the creation of organizational level benefits [START_REF] Nan | Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model[END_REF] or business value [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Devaraj | Performance Impacts Of Information Technology: Is Actual Usage The Missing Link?[END_REF]. Thus, understanding them is another step towards a better management of technology-related change projects that goes beyond traditional approaches and helps to fully leverage the potential of new technology to add real business value.

By looking at the extant literature, we identified two major streams that rely on a positivist or constructivist paradigm respectively. Both provide deep insights into understanding the phenomenon of technology adoption and use, but have also produced their own idiosyncratic terminology and concepts. Our goal is to reconcile these two camps by suggesting a way of how to resolve their conceptual tension. We argue that both streams do not provide two alternative views, but complementary perspectives on studying adoption and use and respective outcomes of IS in organizations.

With this paper, we want to contribute to building a shared conceptual and terminological foundation for complementing the "traditional" research on technology adoption and use. This can serve as a basis for further empirical investigations.

Our contribution will be to suggest a way of how concepts and terminology can be aligned on a common baseline and to provide an initial synthesis and discussion of our observations and knowledge from the positivist and constructivist paradigms. However, it seems important to highlight that this is a conceptual paper in which we propose a framework, methodology, and initial synthesis of terms and their understanding prevalent in the extant literature. As such, the paper is mainly focused on conceptual reasoning to help piece together the fragmented mosaic of technology adoption and use and advance our understanding (much like, e.g., Ramiller [START_REF] Ramiller | Reconsidering Resistance in the Post-Human Era[END_REF]). Others found that such an analysis is warranted as long as the results are dependable and consistent [START_REF] Lincoln | Naturalistic Inquiry[END_REF]. We suggest that it can inform future empirical research to fill the white spots on the research landscape of one of the most important research streams in the IS field [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF].

The remainder of this paper is structured into four sections: The second section motivates the importance of IT adoption and use in the context of creating beneficial outcomes or value for organizations. It then gives a brief historical background on the two major IS research streams of IT adoption research, building on a positivist or constructivist stance respectively. Based on this knowledge, in section three, we suggest a methodology of how to synthesize and align our understanding on IT adoption and use. We then apply the methodology in two iterations by developing and refining an initial process-theoretical framework that incorporates processes, and mechanisms of organizational and individual IT adoption. In section four we conclude with a short summary and discussion of our limitations and contribution.

2

Related Work

Why Study Adoption and Use of Technology in Organizations?

Probably the most important reason why organizations decide to adopt IT in the first place and create "living" IS [START_REF] Paul | Challenges to Information Systems: Time to Change[END_REF] is to gain benefits that help them sustain or achieve competitive advantage in their markets. However, many of them seem to struggle in this attempt: Many large change projects that deal with IS implementations have proven to be troublesome and have even led to high losses for the respective organizations [START_REF] Krotov | ERP Implementation Gone Terribly Wrong: The Case of Natural Springs[END_REF][START_REF] Fadel | User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Bulkeley | Technology (A Special Report): Working Together -When Things Go Wrong: FoxMeyer Drug Took a Huge High-Tech Gamble; It Didn't Work[END_REF][START_REF] Devadoss | Enterprise Systems Use: Towards a Structurational Analysis of Enterprise Systems Induced Organizational Transformation[END_REF]. Soh and Markus [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] propose a process model that suggests a synthesis of how competitive advantage respectively business value is created from the adoption of IS. Soh and Markus' model shows "how, when, and why IT investment is converted to favorable organizational performance" [16, p. 39]. As an overall outcome, they argue that performance can only emerge if IT supports the business in the competitive process in the market. To do so, a company's business units need to be able to create IT impacts, that is, products and services in which IT is meaningfully embodied in a way that makes a difference in the market. This, in turn, is enabled by an appropriate use process of IT assets provided to the business units by the IT department. Finally, providing such assets is a result of the conversion process in which the IT department converts IT expenditure into assets. Only if a company exhibits the complete process embodying the conversion, use, and competitive processes will it be able to capture value from its IT expenditure [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF]. In this model, the importance of time in the different processes and that intermediary results like IT assets are necessary in order to generate performance are major elements or ingredients of Soh and Markus' "recipe" that added explanatory power above and beyond existing models.

For our work, the model's explicit account of the use process as the central stage and necessary condition within the value creation sequence between the IT investment and the organizational performance is important. Since the introduction of the model, actual usage has been described as the "missing link" in the creation of beneficial outcomes for organizations [START_REF] Kohli | Measuring Information Technology Payoff: A Meta-Analysis of Structural Variables in Firm-Level Empirical Research[END_REF]. The importance of the use process has made research on use of IT one of the most intensively studied areas in the IS field [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF]. To that end, research dealing with the organizations' and individuals' decision to adopt [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF] and use IT in organizations has been focused to two main research streams that have each intensified and detailed what we know about adoption and use. Empirical research on individual adoption -such as technology acceptance [START_REF] Davis | Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology[END_REF][START_REF] Venkatesh | A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies[END_REF][START_REF] Venkatesh | Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions[END_REF] or IS success [START_REF] Delone | Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable[END_REF][START_REF] Delone | The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update[END_REF] -has shed light on individuals' intentions to adopt and use technology and its presumed individual and organizational outcomes [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF]. Many studies in this area, most of which followed a positivist stance, have provided valuable and rich insights. Research has dealt with and conceptualized usage differently, for example IS success, IS acceptance, IS implementation, and IS for decision-making [START_REF] Fadel | User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Burton-Jones | Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test[END_REF]. Empirical studies in the tradition of IS success [START_REF] Delone | The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update[END_REF][START_REF] Goodhue | Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance[END_REF], for example, specifically deal with the relationship between individuals' beliefs, intention to use or actual usage, and net benefits. Here, usage is treated as an independent or mediating variable leading to downstream impacts [START_REF] Burton-Jones | Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach and Empirical Test[END_REF].

However, others suggest that studies in this "traditional" and "static" line of adoption research also have limitations. For example, the examination of the IT usage construct as snapshots of discrete elements [START_REF] Nan | Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model[END_REF] with predominantly variance-theoretical and quantitative methods only gives limited attention to the organizational context or the dynamics and emergent nature of technology adoption and its influence on the creation of organizational benefits [e.g., [START_REF] Fadel | User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Pare | Re-examining the Causal Structure of Information Technology Impact Research[END_REF][START_REF] Legris | Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model[END_REF][START_REF] Orlikowski | Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Desanctis | Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory[END_REF]. This suggests being particularly difficult when we look at change projects that necessarily take place within complex organizational contexts and are spread across time. As a response, researchers with a constructivist view -in a stream that we call "IT-induced organizational change"rather understand technology as part of a complex process through which organizing is accomplished by focusing on dynamic interactions between technology and people over time [START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization[END_REF]. They study the emergence of technology adoption with qualitative methods as a stream of social action in which people interact and respond to a technology's affordances and constraints [e.g., [START_REF] Leonardi | What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing[END_REF][START_REF] Orlikowski | CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development[END_REF]. But, in the attempt to overcome technological determinism, constructivist research is criticized for not sufficiently conceptualizing technology and for not differentiating between technologies [START_REF] Leonardi | What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing[END_REF]. This suggests being particularly difficult, when we want to understand the adoption and use of complex technologies such as ES. However, both these streams also seem limited to the view and terminology of their respective philosophical paradigm. Even though, this has produced in-depth and valuable insights, it has left us (e.g., researchers dealing with questions of value creation and practitioners in change projects) with no common guideline for identifying and performing empirical research as well as practical work. In order to help overcome this divide, the following two sections shortly discuss the historical evolution and basic paradigms of these streams on adoption and use of technology. This then serves as a basis for proposing an analytical synthesis of the two streams and the suggestion and example of how to build a common understanding necessary to conduct future work in research and practice.

Evolution of the Positivist Paradigm

Work in this stream looks back at about four decades of research. Lucas et al. [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF] describe this research stream as mainly focused on "implementation, innovation, and related themes." Table 1 provides a brief overview of this theme's historical evolution. For more thorough discussions, we point to Lucas et al. [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF], Gallivan [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF], Fichman [START_REF] Fichman | Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods[END_REF], or Orlikowski [START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization[END_REF] as well as the respective exemplary sources listed in Table 1. Prescott and Conger [START_REF] Prescott | Information Technology Innovations: A Classification by IT Locus of Impact and Research Approach[END_REF], Fichman [START_REF] Fichman | The Diffusion and Assimilation of Information Technology Innovations[END_REF], Fichman [START_REF] Fichman | Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods[END_REF], Gallivan [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF] Responses to (disruptive) IT innovations and richer conceptualizations of usage behavior since early 2000s

Jasperson et al. [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF], Beaudry and Pinsonneault [START_REF] Beaudry | Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation[END_REF], Hsieh and Wang [START_REF] Hsieh | Explaining Employees' Extended Use of Complex Information Systems[END_REF], Elie-Dit-Cosaque and Straub [START_REF] Elie-Dit-Cosaque | Opening the Black Box of System Usage: User Adaptation to Disruptive IT[END_REF], Hsieh and Rai [START_REF] Hsieh | Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-Adoptive Use[END_REF], Sykes et al. [START_REF] Sykes | Model of Acceptance with Peer Support: A Social Network Perspective to Understand Employees' System Use[END_REF] Research on IT implementation in the early 1970s dealt with problems that organizations face when introducing and implementing new IT and how they might be handled [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF]. In a sense, the implementation process was seen as a bridge between design and utilization of a system. Until the early 1990s, many popular models were developed based on this work that addressed the issues of adoption, diffusion, or infusion of IT with structural and stage models on the individual or organizational level [START_REF] Kwon | Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information Systems Implementation[END_REF][START_REF] Cooper | Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach[END_REF]. Organizational research mainly focused on stage models [e.g., 51] as sub-type of process research models [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF]. Rogers defined the first five-stage-model of innovation adoption and implementation in organizations, trying to unify the hitherto fragmented views. Other stage models of information technology innovation and diffusion followed in this line of research [e.g., [START_REF] Cooper | Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Saga | The Nature and Determinants of IT Acceptance, Routinization, and Infusion[END_REF].

At the end of the 1980s, research on individual IT adoption and use started to be centered on theories and applications of theories from socio-psychological models to the IT context [START_REF] Chin | The Future of Diffusion Research[END_REF]. Among these are the theory of reasoned action [START_REF] Ajzen | Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour[END_REF], the diffusion of innovation theory2 [START_REF] Rogers | Diffusion of Innovations[END_REF][START_REF] Rogers | Diffusion of Innovations[END_REF], the theory of planned behavior [START_REF] Ajzen | From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior[END_REF], the technology acceptance model [START_REF] Davis | Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology[END_REF], and task-technology-fit [START_REF] Goodhue | Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance[END_REF]. These models vary in their conceptual structures, constructs, and relationships. However, they all address the usage of technology [START_REF] Chin | The Future of Diffusion Research[END_REF]. What these models have in common is that they limit their view on predictors of individuals' beliefs and intentions to adopt and use an IT innovation.

Starting from the 1990s, we saw further diversification of research on innovation in the IT context that developed typologies for IT innovations [e.g., 49] and complemented concepts of diffusion with infusion, finally merging it under the umbrella of assimilation research. Important goals were to understand concepts of IT innovativeness and organizational learning processes and how the depth and breadth of organizations' use of technology alters processes, structures, and organizational culture [START_REF] Fichman | The Diffusion and Assimilation of Information Technology Innovations[END_REF][START_REF] Apple | Measuring Technology Infusion/Incorporation[END_REF]. Also attempts were made to create integrated models of individual and organizational adoption processes [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF].

In the 2000s, research on adoption and use of technology in the positivist stream has become even more diverse with the intention to overcome early issues such as the lack of sufficiently rich technological, institutional, and historical conceptualizations and contexts. Working with and in real organizations, organizational level studies further analyzed the breadth and depth of IT innovation adoption. These were extended by mixed-level analyses as well as by context-rich and multiple methods [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF]. This acknowledged that research ought to fully address the wide range of impacts of IT on multiple, complementary levels of analysis across individuals, organizations, and industries with the goal to better describe and explain IT-induced transformations [START_REF] Lucas | Implementation, Innovation, and Related Themes Over the Years in Information Systems Research[END_REF]. In this line, criticism has been raised regarding the use of measures limited to behavioral intentions, self-reported use, and a lack of considering organizational dynamics [START_REF] Legris | Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model[END_REF]. Arguments have been made that usage as a construct is still rather weakly conceptualized and operationalized [START_REF] Barki | Information System Use-Related Activity: An Expanded Behavioral Conceptualization of Individual-Level Information System Use[END_REF]. Others claim that usage is a behavior, appropriate for inclusion in a process model but not in a causal model, implicating that usage must precede impacts and benefits [START_REF] Seddon | A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success[END_REF]. More recent research suggests that the traditional methodological focus on variance theoretical models, quantitative measures, and single levels of analysis [START_REF] Fadel | User Adaptation and Infusion of Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Pare | Re-examining the Causal Structure of Information Technology Impact Research[END_REF] only shows one side of the coin. Dealing with the topic in a "greater IT Use leads to greater IT impacts" fashion seems not sufficient [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] and "increased use quantity does not necessarily imply increased individual or organizational benefit" [8, p. 1].

Thus, the "growing complexity of today's organizational IS has resulted in greater user discretion over how -as opposed to whether or how often -an IS is used" [8, p. 1]. Actions, choices, and cognitions of individuals are important elements of the use process [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Hsieh | Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-Adoptive Use[END_REF][START_REF] Jeyaraj | Adoption of Information Systems Innovations by Individuals: A Study of Processes Involving Contextual, Adopter, and Influencer Actions[END_REF]. Beyond the rather deterministic and static conceptualization of the relationship between intention to use, usage, and benefits, there is a growing awareness that organizational and individual dynamics (i.e., changes over time) need researchers' attention. It has been suggested that understanding these dynamics can help to further open the "black box of use" [START_REF] Beaudry | Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation[END_REF][START_REF] Elie-Dit-Cosaque | Opening the Black Box of System Usage: User Adaptation to Disruptive IT[END_REF][START_REF] Lee | Conceptualizing Time, Space And Computing for Work and Organizing[END_REF].

Despite these recent developments in this research stream, the underlying research paradigm can be summarized as depicted in Figure 2. Researchers largely assume that, given certain conditions, whenever X (independent variable) occurs, Y (dependent variable) will follow [START_REF] Langley | Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data[END_REF]. That is, quantities of facilitating and inhibiting factors will influence quantities of adoption (identified through joint variation), implementation and use, which in turn will determine quantities of certain outcomes [START_REF] Fichman | Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods[END_REF]. This understanding is complemented by the idea that respective factors and outcomes can be examined for distinct stages of adoption and use. This empiricist stance is perhaps the dominant form of research in the positivist stream. It leads to studies that primarily focus on observation and measurement, classification, experiment, and statistical analysis. The results of such studies are intended to confirm or falsify pre-specified hypotheses about an objectively observable, independent reality [START_REF] Mingers | Real-izing Information Systems: Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for Information Systems[END_REF].

Evolution of the Constructivist Paradigm

Comprehensive summaries of this research stream have just recently been provided by Leonardi and Barley [START_REF] Leonardi | What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing[END_REF] or Orlikowski and Scott [START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization[END_REF]. They argue that researchers studying adoption and use of technology with this stance "generally hold that organizational change emerges from an ongoing stream of social action in which people respond to a technology's constraints and affordances, as well as to each other" [4, p. 1]. Table 2 provides a brief historical overview. view [START_REF] Mueller | On the Methodological and Philosophical Challenges of Sociomaterial Theorizing: An Overview of Competing Conceptualizations[END_REF], early contributions following a constructivist paradigm aimed at overcoming the one-sided influence of technology on organizations and rather tried to understand organizational change as something that emerges from an ongoing stream of social action [e.g., 68]. Once foundations were laid out, research in this stream started to turn towards the structural properties of technologies and how they interact with established organizational structures. Thus, research posited that structure can be embedded or embodied in technology and individuals such as designers or managers define and shape these structures. Users in turn are influenced by these structures in their actions. Therefore, "once complete, the technology presents an array of social structures for use […]" that as they are brought into interaction are instantiated in social life [START_REF] Desanctis | Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory[END_REF]. These interactions are defined as appropriations of the technology, that is, "immediate, visible actions that evidence deeper structuration processes" [36, p. 128]. Organizational change, in turn, emerges from social structuring processes that are formed by actors' appropriations of structures embedded in technology.

As a response, a contrasting stream of research soon highlighted that organizational change emerges from social structuring processes in which actors produce, reproduce, and change structures through ongoing situated action (recursive relationship between action and structure as in practice theory). This turn towards practices argued against structures embedded in technology and highlighted that what people do and what their doing so does matters most in our analysis of how technology shapes organizations. For example, Orlikowski [START_REF] Orlikowski | Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations[END_REF] theorizes and proposes empirical examples for the introduction of Notes mail technology to different organizations where structuring processes (i.e., specific sets of rules and resources) are enacted in practice and serve to guide future technology use. Structures as "technologies-in-practice" then are integrated in other structures, relevant for guiding individuals' action in the organizational context [START_REF] Orlikowski | Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations[END_REF].

However, this understanding seems limited in conceptualizing technology [ cf., 4]. More recently, then, the literature started turning towards sociomateriality in an attempt to equally emphasize both technology and structure. It assumes the existence of both material and human agency and suggests that they are interwoven in a way that one cannot exist without the other. They are "constitutively entangled in everyday life" [37, p. 1437], indicating that they only emerge and exist in relation to a practice they are both mangled into or imbricated with. While working with a sociomaterial ontology still seems challenging for many authors [START_REF] Mueller | On the Methodological and Philosophical Challenges of Sociomaterial Theorizing: An Overview of Competing Conceptualizations[END_REF], the field has seen a number studies in this area. For example, Wagner and Newell [START_REF] Wagner | Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective[END_REF] study how technological change leads to the need to renegotiate stable work practices across communities of practice. Introna and Hayes [START_REF] Introna | On Sociomaterial Imbrications: What Plagiarism Detection Systems Reveal and Why It Matters[END_REF] or Lewis and Mathiassen [START_REF] Lewis | Scalable Growth in IT-Enabled Service Provisioning: a Sensemaking Perspective[END_REF] are other examples of how a sociomaterial stance is used to inform the study of IT-induced organizational change. They all highlight that, in addition to studying social processes, researchers need to pay attention to what a technology lets users do, what it does not let them do, and the workarounds they develop.

Complementary to sociomateriality, more and more attention seems to be dedicated to the potential role of critical realism. Both special sections in journals (e.g., Information and Organization's January issue in 2013) as well as conference workshops (AIS SIG-Philosophy workshop at ICIS 2013) are currently promoting the debate on the role of this stream of research for studies of technology adoption and use. In it, IT-induced organizational change is described by separation of structure and agency where pre-existing structures enable and constrain agency in social interaction to create new or reinforced structures. Despite its recency, this stream has already produced a number of interesting studies that illustrate its tenets [e.g., 76].

The above illustrates that the constructivist research stream has been equally active and prominent in studying adoption and use of IT. For a more elaborate discussion, we point to the articles mentioned in the introduction of this section. Summarizing the above, and to provide context for the analysis of the various concepts that emerge from the constructivist stream of research, Figure 3 depicts our understanding.

Synthesis -Towards a Common Understanding

The summaries of research in the positivist and constructivist paradigms mainly provide the historical context and a rough overview of the evolution of our understanding of the key phenomenon of IT adoption and use. Building on this foundation, we now turn towards our suggestion of how to reconcile the various terms that have been proposed across these two streams. In doing so, we first suggest a methodology and based on it develop a process-theoretical framework. We then show further examples of how to apply the methodology to iteratively refine the framework. Although we do not want to emphasize the philosophical discussion here, we admit our subjectivity while applying our methodology; however, we assume that the mechanisms we extract with it are part of an objective reality. This suggests closeness to the epistemological and ontological views of critical realism [START_REF] Mutch | Actors and Networks or Agents and Structures: Towards a Realist View of Information Systems[END_REF].

Foundations and Methodology for a Conceptual Synthesis

As indicated above, we suggest that the process model of how IT creates business value introduced by Soh and Markus [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] provides us with an important frame for our proposed analysis and synthesis. As suggested before it can serve as an overall motivation and frame i.e. a "true north" for the study of adoption and use of IT. Following this orientation, all the various terms the literature uses to describe adoption and use of technology should be analyzed in terms of their contribution to the creation Social Processes

Presence or Change of Technology

Structure Social Outcomes

Emergence or Change

Examination of processes and interactions between organization, individual and technology of benefits or value for the organization. In this sense, our analysis aims at understanding how these terms relate to one another as necessary antecedents or preconditions for the overall emergence of benefits, such as competitive advantage, in the context of adopting and using IS in an organization. Following this assumption, our primary interest is in understanding the mechanisms of adoption and use (across both philosophical paradigms) that antecede beneficial outcomes or value, and how they relate to and build upon each other.

This understanding suggests that a process-theoretical stance lends itself as a basis for an integration of the various terms. For this, we see two main reasons. First, as indicated above, we are interested in fundamental mechanisms of adoption and use and their relations and suggest that business value as ultimate outcome (necessary but not sufficient) to be the adequate framework for studying them. This conceptual structure is an inherent property of process theories [START_REF] Mohr | Explaining Organizational Behavior: The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research[END_REF]. Second, our key focus is to better understand the conceptual and particularly temporal sequence of these mechanisms. Their focus on time, in turn, is a property of process theories that makes them a suitable lens for our work [START_REF] Markus | Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research[END_REF]. These meta-theoretical aspects [in the sense of 83] are complemented by the fact that we build on the model proposed by Soh and Markus [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] since their work also follows a process-theoretical stance.

While process theories are well defined and established in the IS literature [START_REF] Langley | Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data[END_REF][START_REF] Markus | Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research[END_REF], we draw on Machamer [START_REF] Machamer | Thinking About Mechanisms[END_REF] for a definition of mechanisms. Thus, mechanisms "are sought to explain how a phenomenon comes about or how some significant process works[; that is, they] are entities and activities organized such that they are productive of regular changes from start or set-up to finish or termination conditions" [85, p. 2]. Mechanisms are needed in many fields of science such as molecular biology to give satisfactory explanations of what holds the world together in its core.

Mechanisms are thus concepts that serve the purpose of explaining the reasons why a phenomenon emerges [START_REF] Mingers | Real-izing Information Systems: Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for Information Systems[END_REF]. According to the definition they can be characterized by ending/termination conditions or outcomes, activities, that are performed by entities (such as the individual or groups or the organization or individuals' cognitions) and a starting point or starting conditions [85, p. 2].

With this conceptual foundation, we suggest that it is possible to go through the literature and build a conceptual map in which terms (i.e., mechanisms) can be put in relation to one another. This can be done based on the four characterizing questions for a mechanism depicted in Figure 4 that we derived from the definition of mechanisms suggested by Machamer [85].

This enables us to put concepts on a common ground and relate them to another, more specifically (1) some of the terms that are conceptually close enough can be blended into one overarching term and (2) or concepts can be mapped to each other in terms of their temporal or hierarchical (organizational vs. individual) sequence. This corresponds to our basic process-theoretical stance reported in this paper and allows for arrangement of mechanisms into phases/processes that have similar mechanisms within, and distinct mechanisms across. The methodology we are suggesting is iterative, thus, the resulting conceptual map is in flux, and might have to be revised as new concept is identified. This also applies to the framework that we present in the next paragraph which can be seen as a first step towards conceptual alignment. For exemplifying our methodology and deriving our framework, we started a literature analysis with seminal papers and reviews in each of the research streams (such as, e.g., the JAIS 2007 special issue on TAM or the reviews by Orlikowski and Scott [START_REF] Orlikowski | Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization[END_REF] and Leonardi and Barley [START_REF] Leonardi | What's Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing[END_REF]. Then we performed a backward and forward search based on the papers' references. We complemented this by selective database searches via Google Scholar. The mechanisms extracted in a thorough and careful analysis through selective coding [START_REF] Glaser | The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research[END_REF] from each of the resultant papers were documented in an excel file. We then reviewed and discussed the descriptions and definitions and went back and forth between the original papers and our understanding of their terminology to produce an account of the mechanisms. Since the purpose of this paper is not to show a comprehensive account, but to demonstrate the ability of our approach to foster conceptual alignment, we will only provide and discuss an excerpt of the total mechanisms we extracted. 3

Towards a Comprehensive Process-Theoretical Framework

To exemplify the suggested methodology in the last section, we derived a preliminary process-theoretical framework depicted in Figure 5 that we explain in the following. Processes in the framework are high-level representations of the mechanism concept (in italic in the following) that we have introduced above. Using the model provided by Soh and Markus [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] as a starting point, we can assume that increased organizational performance leading to a competitive advantage for an organization is created in the competitive process that builds on impacts that are created in the IT use process. The use process involves all actions of individuals in an organization that deal with using and changing the technology or the respective work system to realize the intended impacts and business value. With work system, we refer 3 A table containing a more comprehensive account of mechanisms, their definitions, and a mapping to our preliminary framework can be provided by the authors on request. Taken altogether, our review identified 92 mechanisms across the positivist and constructivist stream. to the organizational context in which individuals perform their work [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF]. The use process as such has no defined end. However, it can be assumed that when we turn to the individual level of IT adoption, users need to appropriately use the technology [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF].

Q1
In this structuring process of appropriations [START_REF] Desanctis | Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Orlikowski | The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations[END_REF] starting with what is often called initial usage, users, when they decide for continued usage [START_REF] Hsieh | Explaining Employees' Extended Use of Complex Information Systems[END_REF][START_REF] Bhattacherjee | Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model[END_REF], run through several stages of individual usage (we used usage here to differentiate individuals' use from the organizational level use), ending with what is often called extension, a behavior where users explore and apply more of the technology's features in order to be able to handle a more comprehensive set of work tasks [START_REF] Hsieh | Understanding Post-Adoptive Usage Behaviors: A Two-Dimensional View[END_REF]. Extension occurs when users have already reached a stage of infusion, which is commonly defined as the IT application being deeply and comprehensively embedded within an individual's (or organization's) work system [START_REF] Apple | Measuring Technology Infusion/Incorporation[END_REF]. Infusion has routinization as a prerequisite, where the IT use is no longer perceived as out-of-ordinary but becomes part of an individual's behavioral routine [START_REF] Hsieh | Understanding Post-Adoptive Usage Behaviors: A Two-Dimensional View[END_REF]. All these individual level mechanisms are often referred to as postadoptive behavior [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF]. Before any of these mechanisms can commence, prospective users first need to make an adoption decision on whether they will use the new technology or not. The decision can be in the context of a mandatory adoption (e.g., ES adoption), where the organization forces the individual to use the technology, or it can be voluntary (e.g., use of an Enterprise Wiki). This decision is made some time after the adoption decision [START_REF] Jasperson | A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated With Information Technology Enabled Work Systems[END_REF] of the organization in or latest at the end of the conversion process when the technology is released or rolled out to the organization and its users. Variations of technology acceptance cf. [cf., 89] have dealt with the cognitive processes (e.g., resulting in cognitions regarding a technology's usefulness and ease of use) associated with individuals' pre-adoption activities and the adoption decision.

We found some concepts in the literature for the individual level that start before actual adoption and acceptance of the individual takes place. For example user resistance [START_REF] Lapointe | A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation[END_REF]: it is often argued that resistance takes place during the use process, when users start interacting with the technology. However, we can also think of cases in which prospective users already resisted the technology by not supporting the respective implementation endeavors (e.g., lack of support for requirements analysis in the conversion process). Another example are coping mechanisms that users employ to handle the consequences of a technology event. Coping deals with acts that individuals perform in response to disruptive events that occur in their environment. These cognitive or behavioral efforts can already start before the technology has been delivered to the individual user [START_REF] Beaudry | Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation[END_REF]. To account for these concepts, we added the mechanism adaptation to our model. Concepts of adaptation referring to users responses to an IT event are often more generally defined as adaptation behavior [START_REF] Beaudry | The Other Side of Acceptance: Studying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Emotions on Information Technology Use[END_REF].

From an organizational perspective the conversion process ends with the release or delivery of the IT assets to the host organization (i.e., business users as opposed to members of the IT department [START_REF] Swanson | Information Systems Innovation Among Organizations[END_REF]). The conversion process involves all activities of individuals (in an organization or across organizations) that deal with developing and implementing the new technology. The IT department gets a business mandate to implement the technology; the outcome of the adoption process. From an organizational perspective, literature distinguishes the three-high level phases of pre-adoption, adoption, and post-adoption [START_REF] Damanpour | Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers[END_REF]. All activities of pre-adoption and adoption can be assigned to a generic adoption process that involves all actions of individuals in an organization that deal with creating awareness, selecting, evaluating, initiating, and deciding for the implementation of the new technology. This process ends with the adoption decision and allocation of resources performed by top managers of the host organization. The adoption decision refers to the evaluation of proposed ideas from technical, financial and strategic perspectives [START_REF] Damanpour | Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers[END_REF].

The process commences with the organizations' awareness of the IT innovation [START_REF] Fichman | The Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective[END_REF] or another trigger that drives IT-induced organizational change.

Iterative Refinement of the Model by Applying Our Methodology

As stated before, our iterative approach suggests that the proposed model is in flux and just a first step towards aligning our understanding on adoption and use between the two philosophical paradigms. For detailing our preliminary model, we further extracted and analyzed terms of adoption and use from the literature as mechanisms and tried to map them to the initially developed phases and/or refined the model. Due to space restrictions, we focus on a few examples (an explicit application of our methodology to several terms is visible in Table 3) to further show the applicability of our approach. We will focus on concepts that relate to the use process of our initial framework.

After individual users have made their decision to adopt respectively accept, we find that the positivist research stream applies variations of the usage construct to describe how users employ or change the technology in actual usage to perform their work tasks. As opposed to cognitive mechanisms such as intentions to adopt or use a technology, here cognitive or behavioral mechanisms that rather want to capture initial or continued usage are important. For repeated usage conceptualizing interactions between the technology and the user over time are of essence [START_REF] Chin | The Future of Diffusion Research[END_REF], by describing technology as the independent variable or driving force. Here, researchers with a constructivist stance describe mechanisms such as patterns of use where not the technology is the independent variable. Rather the way how a group or individual adapts to a technology is the driving force in the causal effects of technology on human behavior and outcome [START_REF] Poole | Use of Group Decision Support Systems as an Appropriation Process[END_REF] We particularly found that the mechanisms that refer to the term adaptation in the two streams require explanation. Positivists recently started to use the term adaptive usage or adaptive system use behaviors to describe individual's behavior to selectively use and extend features offered by the technology [e.g., [START_REF] Sun | Understanding User Revisions When Using Information System Features: Adaptive System Use and Triggers[END_REF].

Others have also used the term to describe the more generic mechanism of user adaptation that can have several foci for example change the individuals' work system, the technology or the individuals' self -which constructivists refer to as appropriation -and from this understanding developed the idea that users can apply different adaptation strategies in response to the technology [START_REF] Beaudry | Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaptation[END_REF]. Kwon and Zmud [45] used adaptation to describe the process or phase in which an IT application is developed, installed, and maintained (in our model: conversion process).

When researchers with a constructivist view talk about users' adaptations in response to a technology they also describe it as enactment to emphasize human actions that create (enact) emergent structures through recurrent interaction with the technology at hand. These structures then guide future use and interaction with the technology in practice. In this structuring process users might come across periods of resistance where they try to work around certain functionalities that are then overcome by accommodations where individuals deeply deploy the technology in their everyday practice [START_REF] Wagner | Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective[END_REF]. Then users will be able to use the technology for some parts of their practices up to its full potential (infusion) [START_REF] Hsieh | Understanding Post-Adoptive Usage Behaviors: A Two-Dimensional View[END_REF]. For other parts of their practices they still or engage in improvised learning [START_REF] Boudreau | Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective[END_REF]. Learning might then again lead to emergent [START_REF] Gallivan | Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of A New Framework[END_REF] or unintended uses (also reinventions or unfaithful appropriations) of technology in workarounds that are negotiated as response to technology affordances and constraints [START_REF] Desanctis | Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Wagner | Understanding Project Survival in an ES Environment: A Sociomaterial Practice Perspective[END_REF].

Taken together, these individual efforts in the organizational context, aim at achieving the goal to complete ones work or task with the technology. Research in the positivist stream has lately defined this as effective use [START_REF] Burton-Jones | From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective[END_REF].

Discussion and Conclusion

As indicated earlier, the paragraphs above only scratch the surface of the discussion and analysis needed to integrate the knowledge from the two philosophical streams. However we wanted to show the need and applicability of our methodology for an integration of positivist and interpretive concepts used in the context of IT adoption and use. Taken altogether, for our review that consisted of two iterations of applying our methodology, we identified more than 90 mechanisms across the positivist and constructivist stream.

The application of our methodology and the resulting conceptual synthesis provides several contributions to research. First and foremost, our approach helps to integrate concepts into a comprehensive nomological net, that at first sight due to their entirely different philosophical foundations seem incommensurable. Here we want to emphasize that we do not attempt to reconcile the philosophical paradigms (which some might find neither possible nor desirable), but suggest a pragmatic approach of how to create a common ground for understanding IT adoption and use, by putting aside the philosophical differences and discussion. Second, we suggest the value creation framework brought forward by Soh and Markus [START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF] as valuable starting point for analyzing and integrating concepts of IT adoption and use. Third, we borrow the mechanism concept that has been recognized in other scientific disciplines [START_REF] Machamer | Thinking About Mechanisms[END_REF] to use it as a meta-theoretical construct for reconciling terminology on IT adoption and use. Fourth, in a first iteration, we provide an initial process-theoretical framework and show in a second iteration how it can be enhanced by applying our methodology that is based on the mechanism concept. In the course of our analysis, we were able to provide a discussion (although limited due to the format of the paper) of concepts and terms on IT adoption and use. This enabled us for example to confirm our initial feeling that there are several concepts or terms used in the context of IT adoption and use (used relatively synonymously, e.g. emergent use and reinvention) to describe similar mechanisms or the same terms are used to describe completely different mechanisms (homonyms, e.g. adaptation as implementing the technology or as changes in individuals' behavior).

In sum, we were motivated by the terminological heterogeneity in the field that often troubled us in our ongoing research work in the context of IS implementation projects in several organizations. So, we tried to start building a common understanding across the two major streams of IT adoption and use that rely on a positivist and constructivist research paradigm respectively. As a frame we suggest the value creation process and the meta-theoretical construct of mechanism for integrating concepts of IT adoption and use.

We are aware that the rather conceptual and methodological nature of our paper deserves discussion. We propose a synthesis of terms and their understanding prevalent in the extant literature and are thus limited to conceptual reasoning. Therefore, we tried to thoroughly build our arguments and construct a solid understanding and history of the extant literature. We were committed to guide the reader through our own sensemaking process and tried to argue and convince why our analysis and synthesis are warranted. However, this paper is only able to provide a snapshot of our complete analysis, understanding, and results. Thus, we focused on showing the suitability and initial results stemming from the application of our suggested methodology.

Keeping these limitations in mind, we provide a contribution by starting a discussion on aligning our understanding on one of the critical phenomena of IS research. We developed a process-theoretical methodology and "meta model" of technology adoption and use in organizations and started to integrate scattered conceptual pieces and terms. Of course, the results we present might be interpreted quite differently by researchers from the paradigms we tapped into. This effect might even be compounded by the rising interest in other paradigms such as realist or pragmatist ones. Nonetheless, we believe that this analysis is not only warranted, but needed, and can be the starting point for future empirical work that, besides all philosophical differences and discussions, can focus on the core phenomenon: What do individuals in organizations actually (need to) do (when and how) to create value when adopting and using IS?

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1.IT business value process model[START_REF] Soh | How IT Creates Business Value: A Process Theory Synthesis[END_REF]

Fig. 2 .

 2 Fig. 2. Positivist research paradigm

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Constructivist research paradigm

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Questions for characterizing mechanisms

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Process framework of IT adoption and use

Table 1 .

 1 Historical development of positivist paradigm

	Research Theme	Timeframe	Exemplary References
	IT/IS implementation success and	early 1970s	Lucas [40], Zmud and Cox [41],
	failures	through 1980s	Swanson [42]
	Innovation and its diffusion in the IT	1980s	Rogers [43, 44], Kwon and Zmud [45]
	context
	Individual adoption, acceptance and	late 1980s	Ajzen and Fishbein [46], Davis [25],
	usage of technology (IT innovations)	through early	Delone and McLean [28], Goodhue and
		1990s	Thomson [32]
	IT innovation diffusion and infusion 1990s	Cooper and Zmud [47], Zmud and
			Apple [48], Swanson [49], Kambil et al.
			[50]
	Assimilation of IT innovations	mid 1990s
		through mid
		2000s

Table 2 .

 2 Historical development of constructivist paradigm

	Research Theme	Timeframe	Exemplary References
	"Overcoming" technological	Late 1980s or early	Barley [68], Orlikowski and Gash
	determinism	1990s	[69], Markus [70]
	Structures embedded in technology	Early 1990s	Poole and DeSanctis [71],
	shape social processes		DeSanctis and Poole [36],
			Orlikowski [72]
	Technologies in practice and	Mid 1990s till mid	Orlikowski [73], Boudreau and
	enactment and alignment shape social	2000s	Robey [74]
	processes and orders
	Sociomateriality and inseparability of	Since mid 2000s	Orlikowski and Scott [37],
	the material and social		Wagner and Newell [75],
			Ramiller [18]
	Critical realist perspective	Late 2000s, early	Volkoff et al. [76], Mutch [77],
		2010s	Wynn and Williams [78]
	Much of the constructivist research tradition we look at today is rooted in criticism
	towards early positivist studies. As these were often criticized for a techno-determinist

Table 3 .

 3 Examples of extracted and categorized conceptual mechanisms of technology adoption and use

	Term/ Stream	Starting Conditions	Involved Entities	Activities	Ending Conditions (Outcome)	References
	Adoption/	Awareness of the	Several	Activities such as discussions or	Start of implementation ac-	Kwon and Zmud [45],
	Acceptance	need or opportunity	organizational	negotiations of decision makers	tivities (conversion process)	Cooper and Zmud [47],
	(positivist)	to implement a new	members/	necessary to come to a decision for or		Rogers [43, 44]
		technology	individuals	against the implementation of a new
				technology
	Enactment	Acceptance and	Individual in an	Interactions of an individual with the	Ongoing until the	Leonardi and Barley [4],
	(construct.)	initial use	organization	technology. These actions are guided	technology's	Orlikowski and Yates
				by virtual structures that emerge from	decommissioning or exit to	[95], Yates and
				these interactions	non-use	Orlikowski [96],
						Orlikowski [73]
	Appropriation	Acceptance and	Individual in an	Activities towards deeply	The technology has been ap-	Poole and DeSanctis [97],
	(construct.)	initial use	organization	incorporating (and using) technology	propriated and use has be-	Leonardi and Barley [4],
				(material affordances and constraints)	come routinized or the indi-	DeSanctis and Poole [36],
				in an individuals' work practices and	vidual decides for non-use	Orlikowski and Yates [98]
				behavior at the work place
	Infusion	The technology has	Individual in an	Activities towards using the	The individual explores new	Hsieh and Zmud [88],
	(positivist)	been appropriated	organization	technology up to its full potential	features and extends his use	Fichman [52]
		and use has become			of the technology or decides
		routinized			for non-use
	Emergent Use	Routinized use	Individual in an	Using technology to perform tasks not	Technology's decommis-	Gallivan [24], Hsieh and
	(positivist)		organization	previously considered possible	sioning or exit to non-use	Zmud [88]
	Improvised	Acceptance and	Individual in an	Activities towards learning how to use	Routinization of use or	Boudreau and Robey [74]
	Learning	initial use	organization	the system that are user-initiated and	reinvention (finding
	(construct.)			do not follow method or structure	workarounds)

In our paper, we address utilitarian IT and even if not explicitly mentioned in later parts of the paper our understanding fits very well to ES due their complexity, impact and importance for organizations.

[START_REF] Rogers | Diffusion of Innovations[END_REF] five-stage model of innovation differs from his model of individual adoption, the stages here are: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation.