Information systems development as emergent socio ... - CiteSeerX

15 downloads 26889 Views 179KB Size Report
Mar 22, 2005 - NYSFIRM presentation at the 2001–2002 best practices award winners: technical ..... regional officers asked for the help desk functionalities.
European Journal of Information Systems (2005) 14, 93–105 & 2005 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/05 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis

Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: a practice approach Luis F. Luna-Reyes1, Jing Zhang2, J. Ramo´n Gil-Garcı´a3 and Anthony M. Cresswell3 1

Business School, Universidad de las Ame´ricasPuebla, Sta. Catarina Ma´rtir, Cholula, Puebla, Mexico; 2Graduate School of Management, Clark University, Worcester, MA, U.S.A.; 3Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, U.S.A. Correspondence: Luis F. Luna-Reyes, Business School, Universidad de las Ame´ricas-Puebla, Sta. Catarina Ma´rtir, Cholula, Puebla 72820, Mexico. Tel: þ 52-222-229-2000 ext. 4536; Fax: þ 52-222-229-2726 E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 30 March 2004 Revised: 30 September 2004 2nd Revision: 1 December 2004 Accepted: 8 February 2005 Online publication date: 22 March 2005

Abstract Many information systems development (ISD) initiatives fail to deliver the expected benefits. An important percentage of these are the result of social and organizational factors, not simply technical failures. This paper explores the dynamics of these social and organizational factors to better understand the causes of success and failure. Based on data from a detailed case analysis of an ISD project, the paper depicts the ISD process as an emergent and dynamic one, characterized by continuous local adaptations. The paper ends with a proposal of a feedback-rich framework, based on a practice view of sociotechnical change that offers theoretical insights and practical heuristics to system developers and project managers. European Journal of Information Systems (2005) 14, 93–105. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000524 Keywords: Socio-technical systems; process models; practice approaches; information systems development; organizational change

Introduction The overall importance of social and organizational factors in the success or failure of information systems development (ISD) initiatives has been amply documented. These initiatives are frequently halted because of problems identified during the development or deployment stages (Deephouse et al., 1995; Keil et al., 1998; Cunningham, 1999; Stallinger & ¨ nbacher, 2001). Even when completed, ISD projects often fail to deliver Gru the expected benefits. A 1998 survey showed only 10% of these failures are due to technical issues, with 90% attributed to social and organizational factors (Doherty & King, 1998b). Current trends in the development of highly distributed information systems linking users and databases across functional and organizational boundaries may increase the importance of these organizational factors (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1991; Andersen et al., 1994; Caffrey, 1998; March et al., 2000; Dawes & Pardo, 2002). Risks of failure increase in distributed systems where no participant has a global view or control of the activities (Star, 1989; Tsoukas, 1996). As a result, traditional ISD approaches may be more likely to fail in the future (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1991). Some general ISD approaches have been created to deal with these more complex social and organizational situations (Grundy, 1982; Schuman & Rohrbaugh, 1991; Dawes et al., 1996; Iivari et al., 1998; Baskerville, 1999; Checkland, 2000; Mumford, 2000; Doherty & King, 2003; Gottesdiener, 2003). These newer efforts, however, do not seem to have changed the predominant view of ISD as a technology-driven process (Doherty & King, 1998a; Reeve & Petch, 1999; Schelin, 2003). To focus more directly on the social and organizational dynamics, this paper uses longitudinal case-study research to develop a process-oriented

94

ISD as socio-technical change

view of ISD (Newman & Robey, 1992). The case examines the development of a new information system (the Multipurpose Access for Customer Relations and Operational Support, or MACROS) in a NY State agency. The system was conceived to support the work of the Division of Municipal Affairs (MA) of the New York State Office of the State Comptroller (OSC). The longitudinal case data represent the time from the initiation of the project in 1998 to the end of 2002. The case analysis treats the ISD as a socio-technical phenomenon embedded in an emergent process of change in professional practice. The changes are characterized as an iterative process of sense making and negotiations among stakeholders. This approach yields a feedback-rich framework that offers a theoretical explanation of the ISD process, as well as practical heuristics to aid system developers and project managers.

A practice view of socio-technical change The case data were interpreted from the general perspective of social and technical processes imbedded in practice (Cherns, 1977; Kling & Schacchi, 1982; Anderson, 1994; Berg, 1998; Doherty & King, 1998a, b; Mumford, 2000; Davidson, 2002; Suchman, 2002; Arnold, 2003). The approach reflects what Orlikowski & Iacono (2001) identify as the ‘ensemble view’ of technology. That is, hardware and software are components of a more complex socio-technical ensemble that includes people, work processes, and institutional and cultural factors (Cherns, 1977; Pasmore, 1988; Kraemer et al., 1989; Kling et al., 1998; Kling & Lamb, 2000). In particular, the study was informed by structuration theory, institutional theory, social construction, and theories of organizational change. Each perspective provides some insight into the dynamic interaction among social structures and information technologies. Socio-technical approaches are linked to Gidden’s theory of structuration (1984), particularly the concept of the duality of structure. In this sense, the duality of technology refers to the recursive and dynamic interaction between social structures and information technologies (Walsham & Han, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992, 1996, 2000; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Information technology has the potential to change social and organizational structures and simultaneously be affected by these structures in its design, implementation, and use. Institutional theory (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 2001) provides an alternative, broader socio-technical perspective of ISD. This includes technology enactment theory, which has been used to explain the relationships among organizational forms, institutional arrangements, and the information technology use in government agencies (Fountain, 1995, 2001). Technology use is modified by organizational, inter-organizational, and institutional arrangements in the process of enactment, combining features of the objective technology with the ways users take advantage of them.

European Journal of Information Systems

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

ISD can also be viewed as a process of the social construction of knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Knowledge of how to construct the system is physically and socially distributed, in that it resides not only in the individual minds but also in the objects created and used in their daily work (Star, 1989; Wenger, 1998; Black, 2002; Carlile, 2002a; Bechky, 2003). It is socially distributed in the sense that it is created and embedded in the collective actions found in different communities of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Tsoukas, 1996; Wenger, 1998; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000; Sarker, 2000). Finally, socio-technical processes are seen as instances of organizational change (Cherns, 1977; Pettigrew, 1977; ¨ n, 1978; March, 1981), in which ISD Argyris & Scho constitutes a form of organizational innovation (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1991; Orlikowski, 1992, 1996; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Doherty & King, 2003). This approach stands in contrast to beliefs that technology is a valuefree, powerful tool to standardize performance through traditional organizational structures based on division of labor and control (Cherns, 1977).

A practice-oriented approach to ISD The case analysis follows the practice-oriented approach to ISD proposed by Orlikowski (2000, 2002). Similar orientations have also been recognized as important to understand design activities in areas different from ISD. These include technological design (Suchman, 1987; Black, 2002; Carlile, 2002a; Bechky, 2003), distributed computing (Star, 1989; Star & Ruhleder, 1996), and the sociology of science (Latour, 1987). Practice-oriented approaches are consistent with the main socio-technical views presented in the previous section, yet provide additional insights to understand the ISD process that will be briefly described in the following paragraphs. The particular realm of practice studied here involves the use of an information system to create practice standards to increase central control (Anderson, 1994). However, the efficiency of a work process depends not only on general logic and rules but also on individual workers’ knowledge and capabilities to deal with contingencies, sometimes in spite of the rules (Cherns, 1977; Suchman, 1987; Sachs, 1995). Such locally created knowledge may not be fully understood or shared, and so can cause communication obstacles among users, designers, and developers (Byrd et al., 1992; Bannon, 1995; Gherardi, 2001; Davidson, 2002). Better strategies to capture local knowledge may avoid this problem (Byrd et al., 1992; Gottesdiener, 2003), but the distributed nature of knowledge suggests that better techniques may not yield the expected results. ISD requires ways to incorporate such local innovation into the design process (Ciborra & Lanzara, 1991; Sachs, 1995; Suchman, 2002). The practice perspective can also be characterized as the ‘dual and paradoxical nature of organizations and structures’ (Star & Ruhleder, 1996). This duality recognizes that technologies do not have predefined structures of their own, and can only be described in terms of a local

ISD as socio-technical change

practice. To illustrate this, Star & Ruhleder (1996) write: ‘a tool is not just a thing with pre-given attributes frozen in time – but a thing becomes a tool in practice, for someone, when connected with some particular activity’ (p.112). Similarly, Orlikowski (2000) argues that technology cannot be described as it is, but only as it is instantiated in practice. Additionally, a practice perspective offers a way to link macro- and micro-levels of analysis. That is, ‘a practice lens directs attention to how macrophenomena are constituted by microinteractions, and how those microinteractions, in turn, are shaped by macroinfluences and effects’ (Schultze & Orlikowski, 2004, p. 88). This can be applied to design and development activities treated as ‘practices’ in their own right, bringing into consideration the importance of the objects and languages used by designers and developers to create representations of local knowledge. Underplaying the significance of social processes and practices throughout design and development can be one of the main causes of the rejection of an otherwise technically valid system (Latour, 1987; Newman & Robey, 1992; Berg, 1998). Objects and represen-

Table 1 Dates

95

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

tations of work can be understood as ‘boundary objects’ that help in the translation, and sharing of local knowledge (Star, 1989; Black, 2002; Carlile, 2002a, b; Bechky, 2003).

Research Method A case study method, relying primarily on qualitative data, was used to seek an in-depth understanding of a dynamic, complex, and multi-faceted ISD – the MACROS project (Benbasat et al., 1987; Lee, 1989; Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995). Semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation were the primary data sources, with archival data and documents as supplementary sources. Time frames and data sources are summarized in Table 1. The sampling strategy for the interviews included a combination of snowball and quota sampling. Each of the interviews lasted from one and half to two hours. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed for analysis. All semi-structured interviews were guided by an interview protocol (available from the authors). The researcher asked about the interviewee’s involvement in the project as well as current developments and activities

Time line of data sources and data collection techniques

Data

April–November 1998

 

Meeting reports and notes from the initial problem conceptualization and analysis processa Business casea

December–February 1999

 

Meeting notesa Personal communications with MACROS project managera

March 1999



Workshop reporta

March 2000



Bid and vendor-selection process meeting notesa

February–December 2000



Meeting reports for MACROS Advisory Committeea

Fall 2000



CTG case descriptionb

April 2001



Four interviews with the team involved in the initial analysis

May 2001



Demo day reporta

Summer 2001



Case report about MACROS from Derek Asoha

Fall 2002

 



Direct observation of meetings and system use Seventeen interviews with OSC MACROS participants from the Division of Municipal Affairs (MA), Info Tech unit of MA, Retirement System Division, State Financial Services, Regional Offices (MA), Bureau of Information Technology Services, the Executive Office, CTG, and the vendor of Intertrac Two team interviews with MACROS users at the State Financial Services Division

October 2002



NYSFIRM presentation at the 2001–2002 best practices award winners: technical implementation

Summer 2003



Six individual interviews with participants of MACROS at MACROS Strategic Services, MA, and the Bureau of State Expenditures

a

Documents collected during Fall 2002.

b

Available at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/static/usinginfo/Cases/oscma_case.htm.

European Journal of Information Systems

96

ISD as socio-technical change

in general. The ISD process was documented by observation of meetings and events associated with the development of MACROS. During or after an interview or an event, the researcher solicited relevant documents and archival data to further document the legal and policy environment, objectives, and other issues related to the project. The data analysis through coding and data collection was an iterative process that allowed gaps in the available data to be identified so that they could be addressed in subsequent data collection activities. The case description was organized using a process model that builds upon the ideas proposed by Newman & Robey (1992). This model is based on the description over time of different events (incidents that occur during the development process). Events can be encounters or episodes. Episodes constitute a series of events that stand apart from others; encounters mark their beginning and end. Episodes are represented as lines, and encounters are represented as dots in the model (see Figure 1). With time as the horizontal dimension, the model can be used to describe a complete development process or a small portion of it, including antecedent conditions (Newman & Robey, 1992). Our approach departs from the Newman and Robey’s model (1992) by classifying encounters in four categories relevant to practice: activities related to organizational design and adaptation (Pettigrew, 1977; March, 1981; Hutchins, 1991); activities related to the users’ daily practices (Suchman, 1987; Wenger, 1998); design and requirements definition (Byrd et al., 1992; Gottesdiener, 2003); and developing or adding functionality to information systems (Berg, 1998). Organizational design and daily practices link to the concept of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984), while daily practices, requirements definition, and system evolution through additions to system functionality are theoretically linked to the concept of the duality of

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

technology (Orlikowski, 1992, 1996; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). Besides the theoretical significance of these categories, they were selected as a part of the iterative nature of the data analysis process. Because of its dynamic nature, the ISD’s encounters and episodes may include elements of the four categories. The classification of encounters and episodes below identifies which of the four categories identified above appear to be more significant in each of encounter or episode.

The MACROS project The Division of Municipal Affairs (MA) of the Office of the State Comptroller is responsible for supporting and supervising financial management in over 10,000 local governments in New York State (MA changed its name into Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development in early 2003). This includes auditing, training programs for local government officials, technical assistance, and local government financial information processing. MA’s 210 employees are located in eight regional offices, distributed across the state. Each of the regional offices performs the same functions under relatively loose direction from the central office (OSCMA, 1998). The regional MA staff depend for their work on accurate and up-to-date knowledge from various sources about the fiscal conditions of a local government. Managing this information is complicated because of the diversity of sources and users, the variety of channels of collection and modes of distribution, and the geographical separation of the field offices from the central office. Within this context, MA management decided in 1998 to develop a central repository of information about municipalities and local officials, past services provided, and preferred channels of communication. This was the initial conceptualization of MACROS, intended to enhance the quality of communication and services provided to local governments, as well as to facilitate

Time Technical

Antecedent Conditions:

Requirements

en6

en1

Previous activities

ep5

Functionality

en4

ep4

ep1 en5 ep3 ep6

ep2

Practice

en2

en3

ep7

Organization Social Figure 1

Adaptation of Newman & Robey (1992) process model.

European Journal of Information Systems

en7e

n8

ISD as socio-technical change

information systems (e.g., MADSS and FAST ID) were unsuccessful. However, these earlier attempts did provide knowledge regarding distributed computing and information sharing. The initiation of MACROS was also linked to organizational changes at OSC. Following the 1994 inauguration of a new Comptroller, OSC began moving away from a regulation-oriented operation to more of a partnership with local government officials. MA began a serviceoriented approach, encouraging change through training and services to local governments (CTG, 2001b). These new organizational objectives and changes in organizational structure and processes increased the strategic importance of information. It also became apparent to MA staff that they should encourage collaboration in collecting and sharing information. That led to the first encounter.

information flow between central and regional offices of MA (OSC-MA, 1998). As an ISD project, MACROS can be considered a success. The implemented system provides more accessible and accurate contact information, saving the agency $100,000 per year in postage and staff costs. Response time to queries was reduced by 20%. The project has received awards for excellence from both the public and private sectors (Computerworks, 2002; NYS Firm, 2002). The project also brought changes to the structure and processes of the organization, especially with respect to knowledge sharing practices. A discussion of these changes appears in the results section, using a process model describing the key encounters and episodes occurring during system development.

A process model for MACROS development The MACROS ISD process describes the dynamic interactions among the four main elements outlined in the Research methods section: organization, practice, requirements, and functionality. This model is shown in Figure 2.

Encounter 1: Kick-off of the using information in government program In April 1998, MA applied for and was accepted into the Center for Technology in Government’s Using Information in Government program (UIG). UIG provided a structured program of problem analysis and planning for the MA staff to work on the information sharing problem (CTG, 2003).

Antecedent conditions The antecedents of the MACROS project can be traced to 1997, when the parent agency, OSC, found itself struggling to locate the desired information among disparate sources. Regional and central office staff communicated directly with local governments, resulting in information received, stored, and distributed among regional and central office locations in the Division with no consistent policy or guidelines for data collection and maintenance. The resulting islands of information made sharing throughout the Division exceedingly difficult (CTG, 2001a). Attempts to solve these problems with other

Time Antecedent Conditions: Organizational Changes at OSC: From regulatory to program of services

1/98

Episode 1: gathering system requirements From April 1998, an MA team of managers, central office, and field staff worked with the Center for Technology in Government (CTG) to analyze problems and to explore alternative development strategies. They worked with CTG staff to specify the business problem and its context, and to identify and evaluate alternatives. They used a series of socio-technical tools developed by CTG (Dawes

1/99

1/00

1/01

en1

1/02

12/02

en6

ep1

Requirements

97

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

en2

ep8 ep6

Functionality

en7 outcome ep5 ep7

ep2 en4

Practice en8 ep4 ep3

Organization ac

Figure 2

en3

en5

MACROS ISD main encounters and episodes.

European Journal of Information Systems

98

ISD as socio-technical change

et al., 1996, 2004). By November 1998, they had completed a stakeholders analysis, identified strategic requirements, and completed best practices research and business process cost-performance modeling. The results were written up in a business case for a new information sharing system; that led to the second encounter.

Encounter 2: business case presentation In November 1998, MA team presented the business case to CTG and MA divisional leadership. It was well received and the assessment results were deemed very useful. However, it was uncertain what MA would do in subsequent steps. Episode 2: obtaining support and spreading the MACROS concept Encouraged by their progress and new understanding of system objectives and requirements, the MA project team decided to use the business case to communicate these understandings with upper-management to gain support and persuade other key stakeholders of the need for collaboration. Based on the business case, MA was looking for additional support from CTG to map the Technical Assistance (TA) process across seven regions. Each regional office had developed a variety of practices over time. This new mapping would allow MA staff to better understand the range of technical assistance inquiries (in both central and regional offices), and start building a knowledge base to support more effective services and training programs. The mapping would make the TA process explicit in order to analyze and improve it (CTG, 2001b). Encounter 3: approval of the continuation of the project After a series of conversations among MA, CTG, and OSC’s managerial group, the MA team obtained the support to conduct a 2-day workshop with the regional managers to map technical assistance. The approval was obtained after a presentation to a group of OSC Deputies and Assistant Deputies on February 9, 1999. Episode 3: contrasting MACROS concept with regional work practices and obtaining resources The 2-day workshop, completed in March 1999, included 35 managers from central and regional offices. The analysis of information requirements and business processes yielded valuable data about key technical assistance processes. The participants also exhibited resistance to the changes resulting from adoption of a new system. The group could not reach consensus on what kinds of technical assistance should be recorded and how tracking could be carried out. It was suggested that only significant technical assistance should be stored in the information system. But practices differed among offices, and participants had difficulty agreeing on what technical assistance was significant. The participants were concerned that the knowledge shared could be misinterpreted or used in a

European Journal of Information Systems

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

punitive manner. These issues did not halt progress, as the project posed little immediate threat to existing practices and relationships in the regional offices. As one facilitator recalled, They [regional officers] have some concerns about changing and then have to take more burden in terms of data entry and keeping track of things. y But then there was also reasonable, a sort of balanced response, because y there is very little likelihood that anything would ever happen from this project. So y I’m not really going to invest huge amount of my energy to debate.

Along with regional officers’ views, the team was looking for funding for the project. IT resources in OSC are rationalized and allocated in a centralized way through an Information Resource Management (IRM) process. That process is controlled by the Bureau of Information Technology Services (BITS), a central unit responsible for systems development and maintenance throughout the agency. The MACROS team made a request to BITS for the MACROS project to receive an allocation of agency-wide resources in 1999. That request resulted in the fourth encounter.

Encounter 4: rejection of resource request MA’s request for resources was not accepted by BITS in spite of management support from elsewhere in the agency. There was little trust between BITS and the business bureaus (users) in OSC. Division staff saw BITS as focused on technical rather than business issues and unwilling to explore business problems. BITS did not want MA to produce an application that BITS would be responsible for maintaining over the long term. Moreover, the client–server architecture of MACROS was not in the core competence of BITS. Thus, the request was rejected on the grounds that MACROS did not support mission critical operations in OSC. Episode 4: negotiating with BITS and other divisions After the funding request failed in the normal budget process, MA upper management determined to fund MACROS using MA’s existing budget and personnel. At that time, there was no precedent for a project to be funded out of any budget other than the central IT resources, nor had staff other than BITS implemented a system. MA team needed to be prepared for the conflicts and tension raised by a non-traditional approach. Through a series of conversations with top management in other divisions, the MA team shared the concept embodied in the MACROS business case and successfully built support among a coalition of business divisions’ executives. MA then created its own unit called Info Tech, headed by a Chief Information Officer (CIO). Encounter 5: approval of changes to cross-divisional organizational practices In February 2000, the MA group obtained the permission of the Senior Management Group to invest MA funds to start the project. The Group approved the strategy, asking

ISD as socio-technical change

the team to explore the possibilities of expanding the system to other divisions, and to treat the MA experience as a pilot test for cross-division implementation.

Episode 5: preparing for cross-divisional system requirements The plan required the team to build a strong case that MACROS could meet cross-divisional information needs. To build support, the MACROS/CTG team invited senior managers from across the agency to assess the suitability of the MACROS concept to meet other Division’s information needs. The team arranged several group decision conferences between February and May 2000. In the conferences, they identified general information requirements and the extent to which MACROS could satisfy them. They found a core set of information requirements across the agency that MACROS could address. Parallel to the exploration of requirements, the team focused on identifying a corporate partner. They created a mini-bid to identify a vendor to work with in the next stages of the project. The plan was to complete the initial implementation by September 2000. Encounter 6: change of system requirements In June 2000, MA awarded the contract to a local software development company (ComputerWorks), and began the process of building MACROS, a Lotus Notes based application powered by InterTrac (the software developed by ComputerWorks). At the same time, the MACROS team made a mid-course change in its implementation strategy, partly because of the need to demonstrate agency-wide benefits, and partly acting upon vendor’s suggestion. The MACROS team decided to start with an easier component, the customer contact list, and then to introduce other components, such as the document management component or the correspondence capability, incrementally. Episode 6: implementing system functionality – customer contact list Beginning in September 2000, ComputerWorks started the development of the first component in the project: a prototype contact repository. The process started by setting up the infrastructure and the servers. They continued with translating MA’s current contact list from their legacy mainframe into the new system through spring, 2001. The presence of many inconsistencies and quality problems resulted in major efforts to clean and correct data. Encounter 7: demo day On May 21, 2001, the initial version of the MA contact repository was demonstrated to MA staff. The prototype was greeted with excitement and acceptance.

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

99

Episode 7: rolling out the system and initial expansion of MACROS The success of the demo increased engagement and buyin of project participants across OSC’s divisions. As the project leader commented, ‘[t]he reaction has been really good. We’ve been talking about this for so long, but people really understood it once we showed them what it would do. Seeing is believing’ (CTG, 2000). In June 2001, MACROS offered service to the first users in MA. By December 2001, MACROS expanded to the Press Office, which had been requesting similar services from the central IT shop unsuccessfully for years. This was the first application of MACROS outside of the MA division. Encounter 8: adding the technical assistance process in practice By December 2001, MA team decided to incorporate the second component: the technical assistance element. As a result of their initial interactions with MACROS, regional officers asked for the help desk functionalities to the process of technical assistance (based on the Intertrac product). As one team member said, [w]e had a follow-up to look at technical assistance and that generated significant, well, controversy because there wasn’t a big buy-in. But now, just this month, people are coming back and saying ‘Gee, you’ve got this product, you know; we really could use that (for technical assistance).’ You know, so it’s coming full circle basically by relocating where it’s gonna happen.

Interacting with the actual system helped people see the value of MACROS to their own work practices.

Episode 8: defining requirements and adding functionality for technical assistance The MACROS team used the experience of their Binghamton field office to define the customizations needed to incorporate the TA process into MACROS. The requirements definition occurred during late 2001. The function was implemented, piloted, and tested in that same office during early 2002. During the winter of 2002, after nearly a year of pilot testing in one regional office, the MA team began to roll out the technical assistance component. Knowledge sharing was formalized through this information system capability. The results still cannot yet be easily evaluated, but the participants expect that recording TA transactions will enhance the knowledge base about financial management in local government and the quality of the TA service. Outcome The TA experience led to other innovations across OSC. These included an automated workflow system in MA and risk assessment of payments in the Bureau of State Expenditures. This success also created new challenges, such as managing the many requests from OSC user groups to add functionality, and promoting local innovations while maintaining a coherent long-term vision. To

European Journal of Information Systems

100

ISD as socio-technical change

face these challenges and plan the development of new applications, OSC decided to create the MACROS Strategic Services unit. Additionally, the MACROS team promoted the creation of MACROS user groups for sharing applications and customizations of their daily work. This kind of flexibility in implementation has been a hallmark of the MACROS strategy. This is illustrated in the many versions of the project name, from Municipal Affairs Contact Repository Operating System (1998), through Municipal Affairs Comprehensive Repository Operating System, Multi-Access Comprehensive Repository Operating System, and finally, Multi-purpose Access for Customer Relations and Operational Support. The project went from one business objective serving one group of constituents with a technical system, to multiple objectives serving several groups of constituents by addressing multiple business functions. The impact of MACROS has gone beyond a basic information system, to enhance knowledge sharing, collaboration, and information systems investment across the organization. For example, MACROS has become a model for enterprise integration of other systems and business processes. Additionally, its use generated formal and informal networks and knowledge sharing routines extending well outside of the information system.

Theoretical and practical implications The process model of the development of MACROS (Figure 2) is a linear representation of the project as it evolved over time. However, it does not reflect the recursive nature of much in the encounters and episodes in the design and implementation processes. To better reflect these dynamics, this section of the paper presents a complementary recursive model of the process, taking advantage of a practice perspective, and using the grammars of system dynamics modeling (Richardson & Pugh, 1981; Sterman, 2000). The linear view provides a description that corresponds with the time-dependent evolution of the ISD process. The recursive representation shows the emergent and iterative nature of ISD. Combining these methods provides a way to link both views of the process to yield a more complete description of practice. This practice perspective makes it possible to consider the macrophenomena in relation to micro-level activities. Organizational-level events result from activities or practices at the micro-level, which are in turn shaped by these macrophenomena. In the system dynamics grammar, macrophenomena can be represented as accumulations that change continuously over time. These accumulations are represented graphically as rectangles in maps of variables (see Figure 3). These accumulations can only be changed by the daily practices of individuals in organizations, which are represented by the pipe-like arrows feeding into the rectangles. Figure 3, for example, represents the way in which work done by people builds

European Journal of Information Systems

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

Knowledge about practice

Figure 3 activities.

Doing work

Macro and micro levels as accumulations and

the collective knowledge about practices in a group. Daily activities carried out at each of the MA Regional Offices, for example, accumulated over time to develop particular practices for the TA function in each region. Accumulations also shape practices. This interaction appears in the figure as a curved arrow that represents an information flow. Collective knowledge accumulated at BITS about projects developed independently by Divisions at OSC, and the implications of maintenance in the long term, affected the initial decision to support the MACROS project. A number of the interactions among activities and accumulations can be represented this way. Figure 4 represents the four accumulations and activities identified in the ISD process of MACROS (the information flows from each accumulation to its associated activity were omitted for simplicity). Each accumulation represents one of the four main categories used in the linear process model of Figure 2: Organizational design (Pettigrew, 1977; March, 1981; Hutchins, 1991), knowledge about practice (Suchman, 1987; Wenger, 1998), system requirements (Byrd et al., 1992; Gottesdiener, 2003), and system functionalities (Berg, 1998). All four accumulations changed during the development of MACROS. The organizational structure was changed by the addition of new offices, such as the Info Tech unit inside MA or the MACROS Strategic Services unit. Practices changes are seen in stronger linkages among regional offices, and new ways of documenting technical assistance. System requirements changes are seen in changes in the meaning of the MACROS acronym. Finally, system functionality was customized in or added to the original InterTrac application. The two feedback processes depicted in the figure are consistent with theory. The inner process, linking knowledge about practice with organizational design is consistent with the concept of the duality of the structure (Giddens, 1984), and the process in the outside, linking knowledge about practice with system requirements and system functionalities is consistent with the concept of the duality of technology (Orlikowski, 1992; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1996). Both feedback processes were instantiated several times during the MACROS project. It is possible to identify instances of feedback in organizational change and adaptation (inner loop). Because of the process initiated at the OSC organizational level in 1994 (organizational design), practices in different divisions were gradually moving from a regulatory to

ISD as socio-technical change

current practice knowledge in regional offices (March 1999 workshops) motivated an adjustment in the system requirements to keep the project idea alive. The result was a reduced scope of requirement specifications and the choice of ‘low-hanging fruit’ (the contact repository) for development. Initial user-MACROS interactions with basic off-the-shelf InterTrac functionalities created a demand for the development or adaptation of new functionalities such as the technical assistance process or the risk assessment of payments. Although the process can be triggered by exogenous trends or needs, the endogenous component of the cycle also plays an important role in the development process. This particular cycle has some characteristics that may point to discrete processes. For example, InterTrac helpdesk functionality was built into the system and may look as if this functionality was generated instantaneously. However, we believe that this is also a gradual process. It took several months from the decision to buy Intertrac (June 2000) to the point in which the system was ready to use with the initial contact repository (Spring 2001). Moreover, the team waited until December 2001 to take advantage of the helpdesk functionality to incorporate the technical assistance process into MACROS. Thus what appear to be discrete events of implementing the system (i.e., the first implementation of MACROS) can be better understood as gradual processes that involve several delays. Some delays, for example, are associated with the time needed to migrate data from the legacy system, some involve adaptations made by the software vendor, and some delays are associated with the phased implementation of new functionalities, that is, there is a pilot

a service-oriented approach. The gradual and continuous transformations of the particular practices are well illustrated by the time lag from the Deputy initiative in 1994 to the origin of the MACROS project at the end of 1997. Moreover, changes in practices led to the organization-level transformation of the Division of Municipal Affairs into the Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development in 2003. Feedback is also evident in the way the MA team looked for funding following the central IRM process (organizational design). The failure to get central funds forced the team to invest their own resources (new practice), which led to a new organizational design (the MA Info Tech unit). Organizational design imposes constraints or enablers that affect the daily work, but people’s improvizations and adaptations to deal with specific problems accumulate knowledge about practice that generates needs and opportunities to adjust organizational design (Suchman, 1987). As depicted in the figure, the process of change can be triggered by exogenous trends or needs. However, like some authors in organizational change (March, 1981; Hutchins, 1991), we believe that there is an important endogenous component in the process of organizational change promoted by the continuous interaction between organizational structures and people at work. The larger loop, representing changes in technology as it is enacted in practice, has also several instances in the MACROS project. Knowledge of specific information problems at work (diversity of information sources, users, and channels of collection), led the MA team to develop a business case based on a problem definition and system requirements. Misalignment of the original design with

Designing

101

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

Off-the-shelf functionality

System requirements

Developing Technology change and adaptation

Demand for changes or new functionality

Exogenous trends or needs

Adjusting arrangements

Needs and opportunities to adjust organizational arrangements

Figure 4

Organizational Design

Organizational change and adaptation

Knowledge about practice

System Functionality

Constraints or enablers to work

Doing work

Recursive interactions representing the theoretical constructs of the duality of structure and the duality of technology.

European Journal of Information Systems

102

ISD as socio-technical change

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

description of how macro- and micro-phenomena interact. Moreover, the representation recognizes and depicts the intertwined nature of the social (organization and knowledge about practice) and technical (requirements and functionalities) components in socio-technical design. Viewing ISD as a set of inter-related accumulations changing gradually over time helps explain important aspects of the interactions among technology, practice, and organization-level events. In the MACROS case, the initial need to explore information needs emerged from a change in orientation at the organizational level. Decentralized practices affected the strategy and the initial scope of the project, when the technical assistance process was first analyzed by the regional officers in 1999. Off-the-shelf software functionalities like the helpdesk, interpreted from the perspective of work practices at Binghamton, triggered the incorporation of the technical assistance process into MACROS. Finally, the initial set of requirements created by the MACROS team influenced the selection of a particular technology. Interpreting the pace of change, however, does pose problems. Delays in accumulations can result from resource scarcity or intensity of the activity. Varying paces of changes are responsible for potential mismatches among the accumulations. For example, the dynamic nature of knowledge of a specific practice makes the ‘actual’ work requirements a moving target for system analysts and programmers. An ISD cycle that takes a year to develop an initial system is likely to be rejected, even if

test of each new functionality before rollout. Moreover, it is people at work who adapt and adjust the technology through use with or without the direct intervention of a designer or a developer. The MACROS user group constitutes an example of adaptations without designer or developer intervention. Through their participation in the group, users share particular applications and adaptations of the system with a larger community of users who select and re-enact each customization to meet their needs. Figure 5 shows a third feedback process among these four accumulations and activities. This process is created by the information flow between organizational design system requirements, system functionalities, and knowledge about practice (thick lines in the figure). Changes in the organization, such as the creation of the Info Tec unit at MA, facilitate or promote the design and development processes (consistent with the planned action model of organizational change; Orlikowski, 1992). Design and development of MACROS triggered changes in practices in MA and across OSC that have further promoted organizational change, moving OSC towards the vision of a service to their customers at the state and local levels. The recursive view of ISD in Figure 5 does not present new variables or theories about the individual relationships among constructs. However, the main contribution of this representation is to offer an alternative way to integrate all the different variables and their interactions in a framework that stresses the dynamic and iterative nature of ISD, using specific grammars that allow

Designing

Off-the-shelf functionality

System requirements

Organizational change and adaptation Technology change and adaptation

Demand for changes or new functionality

Exogenous trends or needs

Adjusting arrangements

Needs and opportunities to adjust organizational arrangements

Organizational Design

Organizational change and adaptation

Knowledge about practice

System Functionality Developing

Constraints or enablers to work

Doing work

Figure 5 A feedback-rich framework to explain the recursive interactions among practice, organization, requirements, and functionality.

European Journal of Information Systems

ISD as socio-technical change

it is technically valid because of changes in organizational and work practices. It is not surprising then that experts in organizational design suggest that ‘implementation should start at the same time that design starts’ or that ‘as soon as design is implemented, its consequences indicate the need for redesign’ (Cherns, 1977, p. 63). Although the MACROS strategy may not have considered these delays and adjustments, they do seem to be an important element in the engagement across divisions. The use of InterTrac demos along with conversations about requirements (‘seeing is believing’) was effective. Moreover, the use of this concrete object (MACROS prototype) was effective in facilitating translations among user groups in developing requirements and extensions to the contacts repository (Star, 1989; Carlile, 2002a). In these ways, the feedback framework presented in Figure 5 offers an alternative and complementary view to the factor approach in socio-technical ISD processes. From this process-oriented approach, ISD is conceived as an emergent process, where social and technical structures interact in a recursive way along a chaotic path. This view suggests a kind of project leader role as less a rational planner proactively controlling social and technical processes and more as a surfer on waves of change that focus on solving problems and meeting challenges as they emerge. Learning and adaptation are crucial to identifying and taking advantage of unforeseen situation and chaos (De Meyer et al., 2002). This analysis of the MACROS project shows how emergent situations can be dealt with by adjusting requirements in response to resistance to change, or creating alliances to push forward the project vision. In this new role, project leaders are recorders and reflectors of group views, as in the MACROS case’s development of detailed documentation of the processes and products. The project manager maintains liaison among groups and group leaders, negotiates new meanings and visions, as in the MACROS project’s many conversations among regional officers, Deputies, and users. The flexibility in project manage-

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

103

ment includes making compromises about short-term goals and strategies, and being a steward of a long-term vision. Each information flow in Figure 5 also implies the need of translation among practices. Some translation processes in MACROS suggest that objects (process diagrams or prototypes) and social processes play an important role in this translation (Star, 1989; Carlile, 2002a).

Concluding remarks On the basis of a longitudinal case study, we have identified four accumulations important for the understanding of ISD as an emergent process of change: organizational design, knowledge about practice, system requirements, and system functionality. Moreover, interpreting the case data in terms of well-established theory about the practice view of ISD, we have constructed a feedback-rich framework that shows three main feedback processes. The resulting feedback structure suggests ways in which the macrophenomena in ISD are the result of the microinteractions among participants and artefacts used in the social process. Although the analysis shows a sound and parsimonious theory of ISD, we do believe that it is possible to identify additional accumulations and activities to enrich the initial framework proposed in this paper. Moreover, our analysis focused mainly in the social processes without taking into account the specific role of artifacts in shaping practices and other social processes. Future research of the ISD process of sociotechnical change should focus in these two important elements.

Acknowledgements The research reported here is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant #SES-9979839. The views and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not reflect the views or policies of the National Science Foundation.

About the author Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes is an Assistant Professor of Business at the Universidad de las Ame´ricas in Me´xico. He is a Ph.D. in Information Science for the University at Albany. His research focuses on collaborative information systems development across functional and organizational boundaries, dynamic modeling of socio-technical systems, and electronic government. Jing Zhang is an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Management of Clark University. Her research focuses on knowledge sharing and knowledge networking, and on the organizational impact of information technology and innovations in E-Government initiatives.

She received her Ph.D. in Information Science from the University at Albany, State University of New York. ´ n Gil-Garcı´a is a doctoral candidate at the J. Ramo Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and graduate research assistant at the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, SUNY. Currently, he is a Doctoral Fellow at the National Center for Digital Government, Harvard University. His research interests include interorganizational e-government and information systems implementation. Anthony M. Cresswell is the Deputy Director of the Center for Technology in Government, University at

European Journal of Information Systems

104

ISD as socio-technical change

Albany. He is an Associate Professor of Information Science and of Educational Administration & Policy Studies. His research interests focus on the relationships

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

between information systems and organizational action. Cresswell holds a doctorate in educational administration from Columbia University.

References ANDERSEN DF, BELARDO S and DAWES SS (1994) Strategic information management: conceptual frameworks for the public sector. Public Productivity and Management Review 17(4), 335–353. ANDERSON RJ (1994) Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system design. Human–Computer Interaction 9(2), 151–182. ARGYRIS C and SCHo¨N DA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA. ARNOLD M (2003) Systems design meets habermas, foucault and latour. In Socio-technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems (CLARKE S, COAKES E, HUNTER MG and WENN A, Eds), pp 226–248, Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group, Inc.), Hershey, PA. BANNON L (1995) The politics of design: representing work. Communications of the ACM 38(9), 66–68. BASKERVILLE RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the AIS 2(19), 1–32. BECHKY B (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14(3), 312–330. BENBASAT I, GOLDSTEIN D and MEAD M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369–386. BERG M (1998) The politics of technology: on bringing social theory into technological design (humans, animals, and machines). Science, Technology, and Human Values 23(4), 456–488. BERGER PL and LUCKMANN T (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday, New York. BLACK LJ (2002) Collaborating across boundaries: Theoretical, empirical, and simulated explorations, Ph.D. Dissertation. Sloan School of Management. Cambridge, MA, MIT. BROWN JS and DUGUID P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science 2(1), 40–57. BYRD TA, COSSICK KL and ZMUD RW (1992) A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quarterly 16(1), 117–138. CAFFREY L Ed. (1998) Information Sharing Between & Within Governments. Commonwealth Secretariat, London. CARLILE P (2002a) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4), 442–455. CARLILE P (2002b) Transferring, Translating and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA. CHECKLAND P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17(S1), S11–S58. CHERNS AB (1977) Can behavioral science help design organizations? Organizational Dynamics 5(4), 44–64. CIBORRA CU and LANZARA GF (1991) Designing networks in action: formative contexts and post-modern systems development. In Managing Information Technologies Organisational Impact (CLARKE R and CAMERON J, Eds), pp 265–279, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. COMPUTERWORKS (2002) Intertrac named best industry solution worldwide. Accessed in 2003. Available at http://www.computerworks. com/cwwebsite/itfilenys.nsf/webgovframeset?Openframeset. CTG (2000) Using information in government program concludes. Innovations 4. CTG (2001a) Insider’s guide to using information in government, Center for Technology in Government. Accessed in 2002. Available at http:// www.ctg.albany.edu/static/usinginfo/index.htm. CTG (2001b) Using information for organizational change: the transition from regulation to service in the division of municipal affairs. Accessed

European Journal of Information Systems

in 2002. Available at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/guides/usinginfo/ Cases/printable_oscma_case.htm. CTG (2003) About ctg. Accessed in 2004. Available at http:// www.ctg.albany.edu/about/about?sub ¼ mission. CUNNINGHAM M (1999) It’s all about business needs. Document World 4(5), 34. DAVIDSON E (2002) Technology frames and framing: a socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly 26(4), 329–358. DAWES S and PARDO T (2002) Building collaborative digital government systems: systemic constraints and effective practices. In Advances in Digital Government: Technology, Human Factors, and Policy (MCIVER WJ and ELMAGARMID AK, Eds), pp 259–273, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. DAWES SS, KELLY KL, ANDERSEN DF, BLONIARZ PA, CRESSWELL AM and GALVIN TJ (1996) Making smart it choices: a handbook. Center for Technology in Government Working Paper Series. Albany, NY, p 134. DAWES SS, PARDO TA, SIMON S, CRESSWELL AM, LAVIGNE MF, ANDERSEN DF and BLONIARZ PA (2004) Making smart it choices: Understanding value and risk in government it investments. Center for Technology in Government Working Paper Series. Albany, NY, p 144. DE MEYER A, LOCH CH and PICH MT (2002) Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. Sloan Management Review 43(2), 60–67. DEEPHOUSE C, MUKHOPADHYAY T, GOLDENSON D and KELLNER M (1995) Software processes and project performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(3), 187–205. DESANCTIS G and POOLE MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5(2), 121–147. DOHERTY NF and KING M (1998a) The consideration of organizational issues during the systems development process: an empirical analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology 17(1), 41–51. DOHERTY NF and KING M (1998b) The importance of organisational issues in systems development. Information Technology & People 11(2), 104– 123. DOHERTY NF and KING M (2003) From technical change to socio-technical change: towards a proactive approach to the treatment of organisational issues. In Socio-technical and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems (CLARKE S, COAKES E, HUNTER MG and WENN A, Eds), pp 22–40, Information Science Publishing (an imprint of Idea Group, Inc.), Hershey, PA. FOUNTAIN J (2001) Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. FOUNTAIN JE (1995) Enacting Technology: An Institutional Perspective. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. GHERARDI S (2001) From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations 54(1), 131–139. GHERARDI S and NICOLINI D (2000) The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry 9(1), 7–18. GIDDENS A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley. GOTTESDIENER E (2003) Requirements by collaboration: getting it right the first time. IEEE Software 20(2), 52–55. GRUNDY S (1982) Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives 2(3), 23–34. HUTCHINS E (1991) Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science 2(1), 14–39. IIVARI J, HIRSCHHEIM R and KLEIN HK (1998) A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9(2), 164–193.

ISD as socio-technical change

KEIL M, CULE PE, LYYTINEN K and SCHMIDT R (1998) A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM 41(11), 76–82. KLING R and LAMB R (2000) It and organizational change in digital economies: a sociotechnical approach. In Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools and Research (BRYNJOLFSSON E and KAHIN B, Eds), pp 295–324, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. KLING R, ROSENBAUM H and HERT C (1998) Social informatics in information science: an introduction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49(12), 1047–1052. KLING R and SCHACCHI W (1982) The web of computing: computer technology as social organization. In Advances in Computers (ZELKOWITZ MV, Ed), pp 1–90, Academic Press, New York. KRAEMER KL, KING JL, DUNKLE DE and LANE JP (1989) Managing Information Systems. Change and Control in Organizational Computing. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. LATOUR B (1987) Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. LEE AS (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13(1), 33–50. MARCH J (1981) Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(4), 563–577. MARCH S, HEVNER A and RAM S (2000) Research commentary: an agenda for information technology research in heterogeneous and distributed environments. Information Systems Research 11(4), 327–341. MUMFORD E (2000) A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering 5(2), 125–133. NEWMAN M and ROBEY D (1992) A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly 16(2), 249–266. NYS FIRM (2002) 7th annual 2001–2002 best practices award winners: Technical implementation. Accessed in 2003. Available at http:// www.nysfirm.org/nominations/practice_ti5.asp. ORLIKOWSKI W (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427. ORLIKOWSKI W (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7(1), 63–92. ORLIKOWSKI W (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404–428. ORLIKOWSKI W (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13(3), 249– 273. ORLIKOWSKI W and IACONO S (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘it’ in it research – a call to theorizing the it artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2), 121–134. OSC-MA (1998) Macros Municipal Affairs Contact Repository Operating Systems: Business Case. Unpublished Report, Albany. PASMORE WA (1988) Designing Effective Organizations: The Sociotechnical Systems Perspective. John Wiley, New York.

Luis F. Luna-Reyes et al

105

PETTIGREW AM (1977) Strategy formulation as a political process. International Studies of Management & Organization 7(2), 78–87. POWELL WW and DIMAGGIO PJ (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. REEVE D and PETCH J (1999) GIS Organisations and People. A Socio-technical Approach. Taylor & Francis, London. RICHARDSON GP and PUGH III AL (1981) Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with Dynamo. Productivity Press, Cambridge MA. SACHS P (1995) Transforming work: collaboration, learning and design. Communications of the ACM 38(9), 36–44. SARKER S (2000) Toward a methodology for managing information systems implementation: a social constructivist perspective. Informing Science 3(4), 195–205. SCHELIN SH (2003) E-government: an overview. In Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues (GARSON GD, Ed), pp 120– 137, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA. SCHULTZE U and ORLIKOWSKI W (2004) A practice perspective on technology-mediated network relations: the use of internet-based self-serve technologies. Information Systems Research 15(1), 87–106. SCHUMAN SP and ROHRBAUGH J (1991) Decision conferencing for systems planning. Information & Management 21(3), 147–159. SCOTT WR (2001) Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. STAKE RE (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. STALLINGER F and GRu ¨ NBACHER P (2001) System dynamics modelling and simulation of collaborative requirements engineering. The Journal of Systems and Software 59(3), 311–321. STAR SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence (GASSER L and HUHNS MN, Eds), pp 37–54, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA. STAR SL and RUHLEDER K (1996) Steps toward an ecology infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research 7(1), 111–134. STERMAN JD (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston. SUCHMAN L (2002) Practice-based design of information systems: notes from the hyperdeveloped world. Information Society 18(2), 139–144. SUCHMAN LA (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human– Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. TSOUKAS H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17(Special Issue), 11–25. WALSHAM G and HAN C-K (1991) Structuration theory and information systems research. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 17, 77–85. WENGER E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. YIN RK (1994) Case Study Research Design and Methods (2nd edn). Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

European Journal of Information Systems

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.