Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Information Management
Exploring Patterns in
Information Management
EFI Mission
EFI, the Economic Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics, is a scientific
institution which works independently of economic, political and sectional interests. It con-
ducts theoretical and empirical research in management and economic sciences, including
selected related disciplines. The Institute encourages and assists in the publication and dis-
tribution of its research findings and is also involved in the doctoral education at the Stock-
holm School of Economics.
EFI selects its projects based on the need for theoretical or practical development of a
research domain, on methodological interests, and on the generality of a problem.
Research Organization
The research activities are organized in twenty Research Centers within eight Research
Areas. Center Directors are professors at the Stockholm School of Economics.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Management and Organisation; (A) Prof Sven-Erik Sjöstrand
Center for Ethics and Economics; (CEE) Adj Prof Hans de Geer
Center for Entrepreneurship and Business Creation; (E) Prof Carin Holmquist
Public Management; (F) Prof Nils Brunsson
Information Management; (I) Prof Mats Lundeberg
Center for People and Organization; (PMO) Prof Jan Löwstedt
Center for Innovation and Operations Management; (T) Prof Christer Karlsson
ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY
Center for Risk Research; (CFR) Prof Lennart Sjöberg
Economic Psychology; (P) Prof Guje Sevón
MARKETING
Center for Consumer Marketing; (CCM) Acting Prof Magnus Söderlund
Center for Information and Communication Research; (CIC) Adj Prof Bertil Thorngren
Marketing, Distribution and Industrial Dynamics; (D) Prof Björn Axelsson
ACCOUNTING, CONTROL AND CORPORATE FINANCE
Accounting and Managerial Finance; (B) Prof Lars Östman
Managerial Economics; (C) Prof Peter Jennergren
FINANCE
Finance; (FI) Prof Clas Bergström
ECONOMICS
Center for Health Economics; (CHE) Prof Bengt Jönsson
International Economics and Geography; (IEG) Prof Mats Lundahl
Economics; (S) Prof Lars Bergman
ECONOMICS STATISTICS
Economic Statistics; (ES) Prof Anders Westlund
LAW
Law; (RV) Prof Erik Nerep
Chairman of the Board: Prof Håkan Lindgren. Director: Associate Prof Bo Sellstedt
Address
EFI, P.O. Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden • Internet: http://www.hhs.se/efi/
Telephone: +46(0)8-736 90 00 • Fax: +46(0)8-31 62 70 • E-mail: efi@hhs.se
Exploring Patterns in
Information Management
Concepts and Perspectives for
Understanding IT-Related Change
In honour of
Professor Mats Lundeberg’s
60th birthday
Edited by:
Bo Sundgren
Pär Mårtensson
Magnus Mähring
Kristina Nilsson
© 2003 by EFI and the authors
ISBN: 91-7258-631-1
Keywords: information management, information systems, informatics,
information technology, information, data, knowledge, organisational change,
change management, models, frameworks, theory, methodology, epistemology,
learning, knowledge management, e-business
Cover: Design and manipulated photograph by Christofer Tolis
Published and distributed by: The Economic Research Institute (EFI),
Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden.
Internet: www.hhs.se/efi
Printed by: Elanders Gotab, Stockholm, 2003
Electronic version: www.hhs.se/im/exploringpatterns
We gratefully acknowledge the generous contributions
towards the publication of this book from:
Capio Diagnostik
Handelsbanken
Innovare Corporate Adviser
Pantor Engineering
Process Management Consulting
Red Lemon Datakonsult
Blanksida
Acknowledgements
When we began this book project in honour of Mats Lundeberg, we thought
we were in for a challenge: After all, our plan was to invite a selection of
scholars in the field of information management – all very busy people – to
write this book with us. We decided to invite people who we knew had
worked closely with Mats over the years, including those who had com-
pleted their dissertations under his supervision. Even if we had a sneaking
suspicion that people would try their best to join the project, it would have
been impossible to anticipate the overwhelmingly positive response: People
who really did not have the time to write a chapter for this book somehow
managed to find the time – simply because it was for Mats!
As editors, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all authors for
their positive response to our invitation, for their excellent contributions
and for their friendly cooperation in the process of completing this book.
We are particularly grateful to one person who was very influential in the
formative years of Mats’ research career: Professor Emeritus Börje Lange-
fors, who has written his personal preface to this book.
As it turned out, coming up with the list of contributors was the real chal-
lenge: It would have been possible to produce a very long list of people
who work or have worked with Mats. We focused on some of Mats’ long-
time research partners, aware that it would be close to impossible not to
miss someone. Our apologies to anyone we might have failed to invite.
The entire Department of Information Management at the Stockholm
School of Economics has been involved in the production of this book. All
doctoral students have contributed in discussions on various chapters as
well as in the editing work. Our sincere thanks to Martin Andersson, David
Blank, Magnus Bratt, Niklas Källberg, Lasse Lychnell, Anders Mårtens-
son, Susanne Ohlin-Kjellberg, Björn Thodenius, Christofer Tolis, Frank
Ulbrich and Pablo Valiente. In particular, Christofer Tolis has contributed
generously and extensively throughout the final production process.
On behalf of all authors we hope that you will find the book interesting.
Stockholm, June 4th 2003
Now that Mats Lundeberg is celebrating his 60th birthday it is natural for
me to remember when he first joined our department Administrativ Infor-
mationsbehandling (Business Information Processing). This was at a time
when most of the interest in the discipline moved around computer tech-
nology and “software” had begun to mean computer programs and pro-
gramming. When it came to problems in applications, it was generally
assumed that the systems work had to be done by systems analysts who
had to ask the users about the requirements. Mats’ group at our institute,
the “ISAC Group”, were among the first to recognize that it had to be the
users themselves who must do the main systems design work. The analysts
would merely assist in this work. It then became clear that there were
many functionalities to be specified for the system that could not be iden-
tified as pre-existing requirements, but, rather had to be created during the
systems work.
The need to create the requirements to be specified, introduced organiza-
tion theory into the information systems area, in addition to computer sci-
ence aspects – “datalogical” aspects had to be supplemented with “info-
logical” aspects. Mats Lundeberg became a leader in this development.
Mats’ recent work on e.g. Handling Change Processes seems to me very
interesting and important to the field of IT applications. The introduction
of new information handling resources is likely to entail changes in the
organization and how to handle these becomes an important question.
Mats has shared with me a deep interest in the problem of how information
is related to data and to knowledge. This I have found very stimulating.
Many persons have emphatically insisted that information is not knowl-
edge. Of course, such statements are rather pointless as long as no one
knows what knowledge really is. During these last few days, in thinking
around the stimulating work I have been doing together with Mats over the
years past, there has come to my mind a rather simple analysis of the rela-
tion between Information and Knowledge. It is often pointed out that a
simple collection of separate fact or information messages does not con-
x Exploring Patterns in Information Management
stitute knowledge. With this I agree, but the interesting observation here is
that a separate fact statement does not provide an information message
unless it “links” to existing pre-knowledge, as the infological equation
indicates. Thus while one may think of separate statements, separate infor-
mation messages do not exist.
Now this linking implies that inferences may be drawn from the message
through pre-knowledge, and the possibility to make inferences from a mes-
sage seems to be a very reasonable qualification for knowledge. I said that
this rather sudden insight has struck me in these few days but it agrees
with an earlier intuition (THAIS)1 that information could be seen as incre-
ments of knowledge.
As I came upon the thought that it can be so simply demonstrated that
information is knowledge, while thinking over my work together with
Mats over many years, I find it natural to feel that this is one more influ-
ence from him – though I am myself to blame for any critique it may gen-
erate, of course.
To finish, I want to congratulate Mats on his birthday and I am very
pleased to see the very interesting contents list for this book in his honour.
Börje Langefors
1
Langefors, B. (1966, fourth edition 1973) Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems,
Studentlitteratur, Lund, & Auerbach, Philadelphia, PA.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................vii
Preface: In Honour of Mats Lundeberg’s 60th Birthday .....................ix
Börje Langefors
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................1
Bo Sundgren, Pär Mårtensson, Magnus Mähring & Kristina Nilsson
Introduction
Bo Sundgren
Pär Mårtensson
Magnus Mähring
Kristina Nilsson
1
Also information systems or informatics.
2 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Most other technologies that have so far been developed and used by human
beings have aimed mainly at supporting and amplifying physical capabili-
ties; consider for example tools used by craftsmen, machines used by work-
ers, and cars used by people who want to transport goods and themselves
from one place to another. In contrast, information technology to a great
extent aims at supporting and amplifying our mental and intellectual capa-
bilities: e.g. our abilities to observe and obtain information about reality, to
remember and process this information in view of other knowledge that we
are already in possession of, to share our knowledge with others, and to plan,
execute, and evaluate individual or concerted actions.
The use of information technology certainly involves ergonomic and psy-
chosocial problems that also occur in use of other technologies, and there
is hardly a need to establish a new discipline for the study of those prob-
lems in connection with information technology. By being an extension of
the human mind rather than of the human body, information technology
introduces new classes of problems and opportunities. Earl, for example,
discusses the learning process. Learning to use a tool or a machine sup-
porting physical work is not likely to affect us very much as persons,
whereas the use of information technology supporting intellectual work
may have a considerable impact on our understanding of the world around
us. When we use information systems supported by information technol-
ogy, there is a unique and urgent need to understand the complex relation-
ships between reality (as perceived by different people), data, information,
and knowledge (personal and organisational).
For ages, philosophers have studied questions of knowledge acquisition (or
epistemology) and sociologists and organisation theorists have developed
important theories of socialization and organisational knowledge and
behaviour. We should certainly take advantage of the scientific results from
these and other areas when we study information systems and IT-related
change. But we also have a lot to add. This is demonstrated in the essays in
this book by Göran Goldkuhl, by Hans-Erik Nissen, and by Pentti Kerola,
Tapio Reponen, and Mikko Ruohonen.
Usage of information systems and information technology has an interest-
ing feature that it shares with science in general. It is often driven by
human curiosity and planning; prognosticating is not always very mean-
ingful. The development may sometimes take a route that is completely
unexpected even for the originator of the development. Earl mentions Tim
Berners Lee as an example: did he foresee the amazing enabling scope of
the world wide web? The computer itself is another example. As can be
concluded from its name in English, it was originally intended for mathe-
6 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Blanksida
PART ONE:
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
Blanksida
—2—
Information Systems
for Concerted Actions
Bo Sundgren
Gösta Steneskog
Introduction
It is often said that we are entering the Information Society. But hasn’t
man has always been forced to obtain information about what is going on
around him just to stay alive? Didn’t the members of the hunting pack
communicate with each other during concerted actions to kill their quarry?
Being able to use languages was a giant step forward in communication.
Vast amounts of information were coded into some sentences, transmitted,
and decoded by the receiver. The next invention was writing. It allowed
the sharing of information over time and space. The invention of printing
machines enabled mass-production of information in a way that really
changed the world into the “Gutenberg Galaxy” (McLuhan, 1962).
Electronic communication facilities with the telegraph, telephone, radio,
TV, IT, and now the Internet have radically shortened the time required to
communicate over the whole world. We have got an Internet Galaxy.
Still – the purpose of all these exciting developments has been to further
improve man’s inherited abilities to get informed and to communicate with
others in order to “get things done, to achieve goals beyond the reach of
the individual” (Scott, 1998). Our approach here is to see our world as an
Information Galaxy, or a Cyberspace, where human beings process infor-
mation, communicate and use different tools in order to coordinate their
thinking and actions. That is why we believe that the study of information
management is so important.
Information
Mental models
Real World
Phenomenon
“A car”
Direct Symbolic
Data Data
Perception data may be called direct data, since they directly reflect the
real world. Symbolic data are indirect data in the sense that they are (a) the
1
The human being is also able to perceive signals from her own body like hunger,
thirst, pain, etc.
Sundgren & Steneskog 13
INFORMATION
es
ref
lis
ers
o
mb
to
sy
REAL-WORLD
DATA
PHENOMENON
stands for
Since symbolic data are themselves a part of reality, they may again be
perceived by human beings, and re-interpreted into concepts and informa-
tion. The interpreter may be the person who originally stored the symbolic
data, but it may also be somebody else. In the former case, the data may
remind the person about something that he or she has already forgotten,
14 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
and in the latter case the symbolic data may be part of a communication
process between the two persons involved.
When a person stores symbolic data in some physical form, or medium,
outside the human mind, e.g. on a stone, a piece of paper, or in a computer,
the person uses the medium as an extension and amplifier of the memory
capacity of her own mind. Similarly, a person may use symbolic data and
data processing tools as extensions and amplifiers to her own information
processing capabilities. Consider for instance an engineer analysing and
solving construction problems by creating and manipulating mathematical
symbols and models, supported by instruments like pencil and paper or
software-supported computers.
When symbolic data are used for storing and communicating information
over time and space, the storage and communication processes may be far
from perfect. In fact, one can never know if one person interprets the same
data in the same way as another person. One cannot even be sure that the
same person will interpret the same data in the same way at different
points of time. Different persons, and the same person at different times,
will have different frames of reference, and this is one important reason
why the interpretations are likely to be different.
Langefors (1995) describes the mental process of interpreting data into
information by means of the infological equation
I = i(D, S, t)
where
• I is the information contents obtained by a human being
• i is the process of interpretation and creation of meaning
• D is the received data
• S is the frame of reference, or accumulated knowledge, used by the
interpreter
• t is the time used for interpretation
So far we have analysed how an individual human being may form con-
cepts and information, and how a person may use data and man-made tools
in order to amplify her own mental capabilities and communicate with
other individuals. But the human being is, to a higher or lesser degree, a
social creature. We do things together, both because we like to do things
together, and because we need to do them together. In a modern society we
are in fact extremely dependent on each other, and it is hard to imagine
that anyone of us would survive particularly long, if we were left alone in
the world. We will return to this.
Sundgren & Steneskog 15
2
Note the distinction between the position that “my reality” is the only reality that
exists, and the position that “my reality” is likely to be different from “your real-
ity”, even if we live in “the same reality”.
16 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
The figure gives a dynamic view of the world. There is a basic “reality cir-
cle” where
1. A person perceives reality using her senses and possibly some man-
made instruments
2. The mind interprets perception data, using her existing frame of refer-
ence
3. The mind digests existing concepts and information
4. A person decides to do something, e.g. change reality or create data,
and acts accordingly
5. Reality is being changed or changes itself.
3
Mind
digest
t
De
re
cid
rp
e
2
te
4
In
1 Body 5
Pe
rc Reality
ei v
changes or is being changed Ac t
e
thermometer
thermostat
Symbolic Data
changes and is processed
Reality
changes or is being changed
thermometer
thermostat
Symbolic Data
changes and is processed
Human Interaction:
Communication, Co-operation, and Conflicts
We have already noted that the human being is a social creature. We need
to communicate In order to co-operate and to achieve certain goals, and,
what is maybe even more important for our behaviour, we want communi-
cation and co-operation for its own sake. Even hermits need a certain
amount of social contact. All human interactions are not idyllic. Some-
times we run into disagreements, conflicts, and wars, but even in such
situations it seems to be a natural human struggle to find ways out, through
negotiations and compromises, i.e. through information processing and
communication.
Human beings seem to have lived in collectives and societies in all times,
that is, they have organised their lives together to some extent. Families,
households, villages, tribes, and nations are examples of different kinds of
more or less “natural” organisations. The members of a group or a society
co-operate in many different ways. Sometimes a task is simply too big for
a single person to manage. In other cases specialisation and division of
labour turns out to be rational for achieving individual as well as collective
goals.
Many societies, e.g. the Vikings, found it worthwhile to establish contacts
with others, driven maybe by curiosity as much as by a desire to reach
material advantages through trade and conquering.
In later times the human drive to co-operate in order to achieve goals
beyond the reach of individuals has translated into the formation of organi-
sations for specific purposes, e.g. business companies, but also churches,
trade unions, government agencies, hospitals, etc. Today organisations
Sundgren & Steneskog 19
become more and more sophisticated and are themselves organised into
higher-level organisations and networks. Whereas an organisation of tradi-
tional type usually has a hierarchical structure, networks have more com-
plex mechanisms for control and co-operation. Markets represent yet
another form of organised human interaction.
People are the driving force of an organisation. A concerted action requires
communication between the participants. Each participant must have a
clear understanding – information – about the current situation and what is
expected from him or her. This in turn requires every participant to gain
sufficient knowledge about professional and business-related frameworks,
as well as an understanding of languages and other ways of communicat-
ing.
Earlier in this article we used the infological equation and a graphical
model to clarify the distinction between information and data and to
explain the importance of this distinction for understanding a human
being’s usage of information and data. In order also to cover concerted
human actions in order to achieve goals beyond the reach of individuals,
we need to elaborate these models.
Act Perceive
Act Perceive
Symbolic Data
Symbolic Data input-process-output
Figure 5. Direct communication using data (left), and indirect communication with
intermediate processing (right)
Our abilities to eliminate the time gap by storing and later retrieving data
have increased substantially by the use of written languages. It has been,
and still is, a major tool for accumulating human experiences over the gen-
erations. Dramatic improvements in this respect have taken place in the
“Gutenberg Galaxy” and now in the Cyberspace.
Communication over longer distances was once solved by the use of couri-
ers (Marathon). This was later improved by the use of written messages car-
ried by a messenger. In order to decrease the delivery times, flagstaffs and
smoke-puffs were tools used to communicate over a distance. Recent inven-
tions are the telegraph, telephone, and radio. Now we live in cyberspace,
where huge amounts of data are available immediately and everywhere.
Other technological developments have also substantially improved our
abilities to expand the richness of our data by the use of photos, pictures
and other iconographic data.
Data processing systems can be seen as offering proxy processes for human
exchange of information over time and space. If A is an archivist, and B is a
researcher using data archived by A, A and B may not know each other, and
they may not even live during the same century. Yet, thanks to the stored
data, there may be some kind of communication between A and B. Obvi-
ously, this communication will not be perfect – there are many sources of
error in the communication process – but there are ways to improve the
quality of this kind of communication. However, such improvements require
a good understanding of the distinction between information and data.
3
Two frames of references are compatible (for a certain purpose) as long as they
do not (severely) contradict each other in relevant parts.
22 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
But how do we know that two frames of reference are compatible? They
cannot be inspected or compared with each other, at least not directly,
without intermediary data processes that will anyhow introduce uncertain-
ties and errors into the comparisons. A frame of reference is the product of
life-long learning, driven by the person’s perceptions and reflections. Thus
one thing that would increase chances that two persons have compatible
frames of reference is that they share similar experiences. If this is not the
case, we may try to make the frames of reference more compatible in some
other way, e.g. by documenting essential parts of the respective frames of
reference and making these documentations available to the persons who
need to be able to communicate and share data. This again means repre-
senting information by data. Since these data represent background infor-
mation needed for proper interpretation of other data, we call them meta-
data; data about data. The communication of metadata is subject to the
same fundamental difficulties as the communication of the basic data that
they describe, but even so, adequate metadata will reduce the range of pos-
sible interpretations of the data that they describe, and thus improve the
chances of different persons making similar interpretations of the same
data. In other words we increase the intersubjectivity of the data.
Individual actions and, even more so, concerted actions by people in co-
operation often benefit from a certain amount of planning. In a collective
planning process, the participants develop shared descriptions of
• the present situation
• a desirable future situation
• possible ways of getting from the present situation to the desirable
situation
The descriptions can be seen as models, and this is an example of how data
in the shape of models can be used as instruments for people (alone or in
co-operation) to control an external reality.
4
Monolithic, from Greek “one stone”.
5
COmmon Business Oriented Language.
Sundgren & Steneskog 25
done by the computer during the following night, and in the morning the
application programmer would have to search through a heap of listings
outside the closed shop, in most cases just to find that he or she had made
some syntactic errors that had prevented the compiled code from being
executed. When the programmer had managed to eliminate all syntactic
errors, the computer would be able to run the program, but the results
would probably be wrong anyhow, because of some logical errors in the
program. After some further debugging, testing, and running, the end-
user would finally get the results, possibly only a few weeks after the day
he or she had submitted the specification to the programmer.
The real users were separated from the computers by staff and technology.
Then there was a revolution. On-line terminals appeared which made it
possible for users outside the closed shop to be in direct contact with the
computer. Note that in this context the user was initially not the real user,
the end-user, but the application programmer, who was now also regarded
as a user, since he or she was sitting outside the closed shop. After some
further efforts, the application programmers learnt how to develop interac-
tive applications for the end-users, who were then also able to communi-
cate directly with the computer behind the locked door from their termi-
nals. Note how well the words “end-user” and “terminal” describe the real
position of the users/customers who were supposed to be served by the
computer and the computer servants. It is an indication of a computer-cen-
tred world view or “Weltanschauung”.6
After yet another decade there was another revolution – and this time it
was a real revolution, since it implied a shift of power from the computer
servants in their white coats to the real users, the end-users. We refer to the
introduction and striking success of personal computers, or microcomput-
ers as they were called by the technicians. Now it was clearly demon-
strated what it could mean for development and progress, if a new technol-
ogy becomes available for everyone. Many people start using the new
gadget like a toy. But even if only some small fraction of the usage of a
gadget leads to something useful, if only by chance, mass usage often
results in important and unexpected innovations. What the technical
designers of a new tool have intended is one thing, what the users do and
request may be something quite different. But the users may not have been
able to specify their needs and requests, before there existed something
that could possibly satisfy them, if only partially and imperfectly to begin
with.
6
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
26 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
INFORMATION
INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION
STORAGE AND
STORAGE AND STORAGE AND STORAGE AND STORAGE AND
PROCESSING INFORMATION
PROCESSING PROCESSING PROCESSING PROCESSING
STORAGE AND INFORMATION
PROCESSING STORAGE AND
PROCESSING
DATA
REALITY OBSERVE PREPARATION:
STORE & RETRIEVE &
PRESENT,
MEASURE CODING, INTERPRET &
PROCESS ANALYSE
REGISTER EDITING & ACT
CORRECTION
INPUT OUTPUT
CLEAN DATA DATABASE
DATA DATA
Computers have certain advantages over the human brain, mainly by being
faster and more accurate in certain types of operations. Because of this,
data processing systems may be used for amplifying certain human capa-
bilities. On the other hand, human beings have also certain advantages
over computers. For example, humans have creativity, imagination, and
intuition, and are capable of contextual thinking and unexpected associa-
tions.
Human beings, equipped with suitable, computerised data processing sys-
tems, can obviously achieve much more than human beings alone or in co-
operation with each other. But these “bastard systems” are not without
problems. We have already discussed how important it is that the human
users of data processing systems are in full control, preferably without any
intermediaries. Only then can people feel that they have a really efficient
tool that fits into their hands, or rather their minds; the computerised sys-
tem becomes a natural extension to the human mind.
28 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Metadata
Let us take a simple example to show the importance and roles of meta-
data. Consider a statistical table. We look into the table, and somewhere in
it we see a cell containing the figure 12345. This figure is data. Seen in
isolation it tells us nothing. However, if we know something about statisti-
cal tables, we know that there are labels in so-called stubs and headings
that briefly describe the intended contents of the cell. For example, we
may find out that 12345 is supposed to be “the average income during the
year 2002 of people living in city C”. This gives us an idea of the meaning
of the data in this table cell. But there are still many uncertainties. What is
meant by “income”? Is it income from regular work only, or does it
include extra incomes, income from capital, pensions, allowances, ...? And
who were the people living in C during 2002? Everyone living there some
time of the year, and if so, how has their income been made comparable
with the incomes of those who have lived in C for the whole year? And
how precise is the figure 12345? Is it based on data about all persons in C,
or is it based on a so-called sample survey, which implies a certain sam-
pling error? Have the data been obtained by means of a questionnaire, and
if so, have all respondents understood the questions properly, and have
they returned complete data? Have they answered the questions truthfully,
or have they had reasons to overestimate or underestimate their incomes,
implying a so-called bias?
In order to be able to answer questions like these, we need metadata
together with the data. Metadata have a similar relation to data, as the
frame of reference (in the human mind) has to perception data entering the
human mind. Furthermore both data processing systems and humans
require metadata in order to be able to process data.
Metadata may have several roles. They may describe the (intended) meaning
of data, the precision of data, the origin of data, the format of data, etc. Very
often it is not enough to describe the data as such, information about the pro-
cesses behind the data is also needed. Let us return to our income example
above. It makes a difference in many respects, if income data come from a
Sundgren & Steneskog 29
survey, where the respondents are anonymous, or whether they come from
an administrative system managed by a taxation authority. And we need to
know what efforts the data producer has made in order to check the quality
of the data and investigate suspicious data (possible errors).
Naturally metadata can never be perfect. They can never completely bridge
the gap between data and information, and they cannot ensure that differ-
ent users of the data will interpret them in exactly the same way, even less
ensure that the data are interpreted in a “correct” way. But metadata can
reduce the discrepancies between different users’ interpretations and
improve the conditions for constructive communication between people,
without too many misunderstandings – provided of course that the persons
communicating want to understand each other.
It should also be noted that some tasks performed by humans and organi-
sations are more demanding in terms of “information harmony” between
people than others. If we are conducting research, or if we are going to
make an extremely important decision with implications for many people
for a long time, we need to be much more rigorous in our communication
and information management than if we are engaged in a casual discussion
at a dinner party.
The scope of communication and co-operation must also be taken into
account. A prime minister speaking to voters with widely varying back-
grounds and mental frames of reference has another problem than people
working and living together in a small organisation, e.g. a local company,
or even a household.
A collective of people who are working together need to share conceptual
frameworks and a communication language in order to co-operate effi-
ciently and effectively. These frameworks and the terms of the language
and their meaning may be more or less unique for the organisation. The
more they are adapted to the task of the organisation, the more unique they
are and the less understandable they are for outsiders. Jargon within the
guild may be very effective for the insiders but excludes the outsiders. This
also strengthens the development of group feelings and of feeling of
belonging, but it may also induce destructive thinking: “it is us against
them; we are good, and they are stupid”.
OPERATIVE OTHER
SYSTEMS BUSINESSES
ANALYTICAL GOVERNMENT
INTERNAL SYSTEMS EXTERNAL SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
HOUSEHOLD
OFFICE SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
7
Here “directive information” should be interpreted as “information that gives
direction or guidance”. It should not be mixed up with directives in the sense of
(e.g. military) orders or commands.
Sundgren & Steneskog 33
culture may secretly collect and evaluate data and information in order to
“help” God (or an oracle) to come to “the right” decision.
Another example, which has been an object of debate, is whether experts
do better than monkeys on the stock market, that is, whether a data-based
placement strategy will beat a strategy based upon a random number gen-
erator (or a monkey’s random choices).
It is sometimes debated among business managers, which kinds of directive
data and information, and how much of it, would be optimal. Obviously it
takes time and resources to collect and process directive data, so there is a
balance to be struck between the costs and the benefits of such information.
One extreme view on this was expressed by the managing director of a
major Swedish bank, who stopped all production of management reports in
his organisation. The production of such reports would be resumed, only if
there were strong and well motivated requests for them. The same managing
director also claimed that budgets and prognoses are useless.
Typical tasks for operative and directive data systems are listed in Table 1.
A directive data system should serve situations, which can only partially
be foreseen at systems development time. When a concrete, directive data
need becomes manifest, for example when a decision-maker is going to
make a concrete decision, there is seldom time to change the data system,
or even to collect new data. Thus the user must use existing systems and
existing data. On the other hand, in an operative data system the usage
situations are repetitive and can often be described with good precision at
system development time.
In an operative data system there are often close connections between col-
lection and usage of data. An order receptionist, for example, adds new
data to the order management system in the same process as he or she uses
data from the same system. One good effect of such close connections
between data collection and usage is that the user will gain a good under-
standing of the meaning and quality of the data in the system, i.e. is able to
create good information.
In a directive data system the connections between collection and usage of
data are much weaker. Data often come from several other data systems,
and formalised, computerised data must often be combined with informal
data from other sources, including information from the user’s own mem-
ory and judgement. In order for the user to be able to interpret the meaning
and relevance of data that has been collected elsewhere and for other pur-
36 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Conclusion
The present evolution of information and communication technology and
its applications creates new possibilities for people to work together and to
co-ordinate their activities in order to achieve personal and common goals.
To understand and possibly control these developments, it is important to
take an information and data view on the different types of enterprises we
work with: societies, markets, companies, groups of people, and so on.
People and computers are the nodes in such networks, where data are
flowing between the nodes, and information processing in people’s minds
Sundgren & Steneskog 37
References
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Trea-
tise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.
Flensburg, P. (1986) Personlig databehandling; introduktion, konsekvenser,
möjligheter (In English: Personal Computing; introduction, consequences,
possibilities), doctoral thesis, University of¨Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Langefors, B. (1995) Essays on Infology: Summing up and Planning for the
Future, Edited by Bo Dahlbom, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
McLuhan, M. (1962) The Gutenberg galaxy: the making of typographic man,
Toronto University Press, Toronto, Canada.
Ogden, C.K. & Richards, I.A. (1956) The Meaning of Meaning: A study of the
Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbols, Harcourt
Brace, New York.
Scott, W.R. (1998) Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed.,
Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
38 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Blanksida
—3—
A Simple Challenge
During one of my early visits to the Stockholm School of Economics, Mats
Lundeberg invited me to conduct a seminar for his MBA and doctoral stu-
dents on “managing information technology”. Somewhat unnerved by this
rather broad topic, I asked Mats what particular question I might address.
He replied in an impromptu sort of way – of course it was probably far
from impromptu – why don’t you tackle the question what is different or
special about IT?
Like many of Mats’ questions, this apparently simple challenge was quite
demanding. Once we had exhausted the coward’s (or perhaps humble) tac-
tic of asking the students themselves that question, I had to suggest some
ideas.
In the late 1980s, for that was when the seminar took place, IT was per-
ceived in business as an exciting, important and “can’t be dismissed any
more” technology; in some ways it was seen as a phenomenon – perhaps
not yet fully understood. So I tackled the question at a phenomenological
level, I drew on the opening chapter of my book of that time (Earl, 1989)
40 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
argue that jobs are improved by technology, but more because it takes the
burden out of work rather than enriches it. Bright (1958) and Schrank
(1978) have argued this way.
Interestingly, however, as technologies have become more sophisticated,
or “intellectual”, some scholars, for example Blauner (1964), have sug-
gested that work can be more satisfying in terms both of being less routi-
nized and more sociable. Then when obviously information technologies
have been studied, further evidence to this effect is available. For example,
Zuboff (1988) in her landmark study of computer-based technologies in
both the factory and the office documented persuasive evidence that while
IT may displace physical effort and operational know-how, it also may
stimulate reskilling, in particular providing opportunities for workers to
deploy knowledge and more intellectual skills. Zuboff distinguished
between “automating” and “informating” work; the latter enabled devel-
opment and use of “intellective” skills.1
Economists, like sociologists, often aggregate technologies, particularly in
searching for macro-level generalisations. Technology is seen as an
exogenous variable which may stimulate product or process innovation. It
is only when the black box of the firm, or industries, is opened that
endogenous processes of innovation, learning and adaptation are
addressed.
At the macro level, economists often are building on Schumpeter’s (1934)
theory of economic development, linking firms’ entrepreneurial behav-
iours and new paradigm technologies through processes of “creative
destruction”. The real rise of IT (i.e. the convergence of computing and
telecommunications) in the 1980s coincided with interest in longwave or
“kondratiev” cycles of economic activity due to technological discontinu-
ity. This was in the Schumpeterian tradition and Freeman’s (1982) work in
particular concluded that economic restructuring does arise from such
cycles.
Interestingly, Nolan and Croson (1995) built on the concept of “creative
destruction” by recasting the “stages theory” of IT assimilation and nesting
it in Schumpeter’s original work to advance a six stage model of organisa-
tional transformation. In that the “stages theory” is premised on managerial
processes of organisational learning, we see links between both econo-
1
In my case study on Shorko Films SA and a subsequent paper based on this case
on Knowledge Management (Earl, 1994) I observed both the potential and
practice of “informating” in a manufacturing plant. Here there was clear
investment in “upskilling”.
42 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Ambiguous Technology
The adjective “ambiguous” may not be perfect. Commonly it is used to
describe double meaning or doubtful classification, but also the Oxford
English Dictionary (and what other dictionary dare I use?!) suggests “of
uncertain issue”. It is this aspect of IT which should not be underestimated,
Earl 43
Enabling
Uncertainty
Impact
Uncertainty
Commissioning
Uncertainty
whether a system will work in its intended context. A vital one is the effect
on user behaviour, work practices, organisational decision-making and so
on.
At least three managerial implications arise here. First is the question does
the technology fit the context or do we have to adjust the context to the
priorities and potential of the technology. In both cases we have to recog-
nise that we are dealing with socio-technical systems and without exami-
nation of social realities the system or technology is destined to fail.
Second, if uncertainty on this dimension is high, it is imperative that users
(and today this can be customers, consumers, allies etc) are involved in
specifying, designing and introducing the application. Indeed, this is the
domain of prototyping – in its true sense of live trialling in use (Earl,
1978).
Third, the performance metrics or evaluation schemas are clear. We have
to measure the operational and social outcomes as well as the technologi-
cal and economic results. This is where we realise that “IT is more than
IT”.
ing up to such social and operational realities and failure is just around the
corner.
So What?
The reason for developing this framework of ambiguous technology is that
most available alternative models do not capture the “uncertainty of issue”
that IT demonstrates in practice. Indeed, there is a tendency by IT vendors
and practitioners to be quite unambiguous in their rhetoric and over-certain
in their actions.
Those of us in academe have a duty to explain what is different or special,
if anything, about IT – and especially to be articulate about both the
promise and reality of IT.
Technology developers should not be daunted by the ambiguity frame-
work, but they might avoid technological determinism in their pronounce-
ments and recognise and embrace elements of ambiguity in at least the
three dimensions I have emphasised. Equally, they should retain their
excitement and enthusiasm about IT because the corollary of each ambi-
guity or uncertainty is that “you just never know”!
Those applying and managing IT might assess the “ambiguous technol-
ogy” framework and ask do they assume too much certainty and knowl-
edge when they formulate IT strategies, develop information systems and
evaluate their benefits. Or should they incorporate more experimentation,
more learning and even more uncertainty reduction in these activities?
Scholars who have conflated information technologies with industrial
technologies (plus those who have posited differences arising from the
intellectual content of the former) might consider whether ambiguity or
uncertainty are important differentiators. If so, there may be quite a
research agenda to work on.
And Mats Lundeberg should keep on asking questions, for the role of aca-
demics in what Mats often calls “our subject” – as elsewhere – is to ask
good questions as well as to seek good answers. Indeed, better questions
may lead to better answers.
References
Blauner, R. (1964) Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Indus-
try, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Earl 47
Blanksida
—4—
Introduction
“Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres” is the famous opening line of Julius
Ceasar’s De Bello Gallico. As such, it often serves as a metaphor for well-
ordering a resume, a line of reasoning or a presentation. In his satirical
variation on this theme, Pierre Daninos (1954) expressed the variety of
views in the same geographical area by having his protagonist begin “La
France est divisé en 48 millions Français”1. The latter characterization
may be most appropriate for describing the abundance of approaches and
lack of consensus regarding the role of information and information sys-
tems in any context, world wide. Yet, in spite of the many – often petty –
differences of opinion, the international academic community has bene-
fited hugely from the – always friendly and stimulating – exchanges in
such gremia as IFIP TC8 and its derivatives.
In this paper, I should indeed like to address three issues:
• the existence of ‘information systems’, as such,
• the value of ‘information’, as such,
• the persistence of ‘information’ such as we define it…
These thoughts are motivated by the apparent common belief that infor-
mation systems are intrinsically beneficial and the even more common
misconception that refining them must lead to perfect knowledge. Alas,
few situations permit anything like it. Understanding evolves piecemeal,
by introspection, observation, comparison, debate.
A contribution to the information systems community at large, on the
occasion of Mats Lundeberg’s 60th anniversary, is offered with the greatest
of pleasure.
1
The quote was made from memory and may be incorrect.
50 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
2
This section owes much to the author’s contacts in TC8 through the years, but
especially to the CRIS (Comparative Review of Information System methodolo-
gies) conferences in the 1980s and the FRISCO (Framework of Information Sys-
tem COncepts) task group in the 1990s. The influence of Langefors’ Theoretical
Analysis of Information Systems (Langefors, 1966/74) remains undeniable.
Verrijn-Stuart 51
use our knowledge. What about the world of abstraction, where we talk
about things rather than observe them? Where we reduce a multitude of
recognizable attributes by constructed summaries, groupings or qualitative
labels? Where the name of an author (say, Wittgenstein, Langefors, Lun-
deberg) immediately conjures up an entire view about a wide subject.
Where, more mundanely, the concept ‘stock’ is understood as representing
a quantity of identifiable goods. Where we count, relate and classify
things. We may be precise in our abstractions, but must admit that the
underlying models leave out a lot. We state that we have captured the
‘essential’, but our essence may not be that of someone else.
In short, whenever we represent things and communicate by exchanging
the resulting representations, we are in fact negotiating so as to arrive at a
common view. This is done subconsciously in everyday conversation and
generally accepted when the problem is addressed seriously. However, it
applies to all ‘information’ streams in society, be they ‘informal’ (as in
telephone or face-to-face conversations in the office) or ‘formal’ (as part of
the procedures of what we call ‘information systems’). No matter how
strictly defined the latter, there are good arguments to say that they are no
more than a small portion of what goes on in the organization, in society.
If the recognized systems actually constitute the tip of the informational
iceberg, what then is that iceberg? Hence, the rhetorical question: do
‘information systems’ exist?
A balanced system analysis should never start from the point of view of
what information is required. A better insight is obtained by asking for the
full characteristics or the organization as a whole. This is where the con-
cept ‘system’ comes into play. The term system may be loosely defined as
a collection of elements that display coherence, either as components-and-
their-interactions (CI model) or states-and-transitions (ST model). In
either form, the definition remains typically subjective, in that what is cov-
ered by it depends on some personal choice. Although common usage has
made us react with confidence to statements regarding ‘systems’, it cannot
be said that you will recognize a system when you see one. A more useful
definition is:
System ::= perceived domain, with at least one ‘systemic property’
not possessed by any of its sub-domains, and seen as distinct from
its ‘environment’
This definition implies the cohesion (because it is a domain with a recog-
nizable environment) of a number of components (because it is a domain
that may have sub-domains), strengthened by the special joint characteris-
52 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
tic (the systemic property or properties) that makes it stand out and causes
any sub-domain to be a mere component, even if it might have some more
restricted systemic characteristics itself. A traditional example of a system
is a motor vehicle with components, engine, body, wheels, etc. The engine
consists of a carter, cylinders, valves, a carburetor and so on. Often, it is
said to be a sub-system of the vehicle. However, the overall systemic
property of the latter is the transportation capability, whereas the engine
just provides the propulsion (which might have served in other contexts, as
well). The engine just adds something and only in this particular context.
’Environment’
’Organization’
Org.sub-system
Material / Informational flow
Machine/device
3
The origin of this section lies in lectures on ‘information quantification’ given at
Leiden University in the 1980s. This text is a transcription of a section in the latest
draft of the forthcoming Revised FRISCO Report (2003).
Verrijn-Stuart 55
(but see below), the revenue aspects are often matters of faith in the mar-
ket it is engaged in. That last aspect is even harder to define for non-
profit bodies and government agencies. However, all may certainly be
viewed as ‘organizations’. In various degrees, they provide a suitably
representative range of study objects. Firstly, they do not constitute
homogeneous groups of cooperating persons, but diverse structures.
There is top management, line management, staff management and there
are individual workers. At each level there are different ‘information’
requirements and responsibilities (for action and decision, including a
variety of calls on ICT based support).
For organisations, the cost side is difficult to specify precisely. Obviously,
there is the hardware (computers and networks), and the system and appli-
cation software. But both are subject to curious economics. For instance,
over what period should hardware be written off, given that its economic
life is much shorter than its technical one? When an attractive new model
is on offer? When desirable new capabilities become available? Even this
relatively tangible aspect is hard to quantify. The software case is harder
still, for current applications will continue to function without degradation
as long as the platform supports it. Other costs must also be recognised,
many of which are staff related. Examples are the training of non-special-
ists and the salaries of specialists (with the difficult choice “internal or
external?”). There is the cost of documentation (in-house libraries and help
desks, or reliance on external on-call support and specially ordered
research reports). There is also the cost of security (either by investing in
prevention or, upon errors and losses, in rebuilding one’s knowledge base).
And finally, there is the cost of communication, that is to say, of the formal
and informal message streams through the organizations, which always
existed, but are handled quite differently in a computerised setup. We shall
revert to these issues, but already note at this point that they apply equally
– in analogous form – to the case of the ‘individual’.
On the revenue side, few people (other than gurus and daring innovators)
will make explicit forecasts, except in cases of entirely ICT dependent
services. But even there, one faces the normal uncertainty whether the
market will take to a new product or not. However, any change in one’s
overall way of working – as a switch to or extension of ICT support is –
must be evaluated both on costs and benefits. Vague references to
improving the quality of the information flow may help sell new
approaches, but should be met with critical analysis. We shall demonstrate
that significant comparisons may be made. But first, we turn to the core
problem, namely that of the value of ‘information’.
56 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
overall (probably dubious) value. Thus, the question of ‘the value of a par-
ticular piece of information‘ is replaced by a balanced analysis of the many
factors that may give rise to it.
The resulting knowledge may never be ‘perfect’, in the sense of providing
the basis for uniquely optimal decision-making, but we can at least associ-
ate a relative price with it.
4
The ideas giving rise to these views result from research work done in Leiden in
the 1990s, culminating in Guus Ramackers’ Thesis (1994), a series of contribu-
tions to CAiSE, EJC, ISCO, WG8.1 and other conferences, and recently presented
at the Colloquium of the Institute for Logic Language and Computation (ILLC) at
the University of Amsterdam.
60 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
processors (where previous formats are only usable up to a point) and image
processors (where change of colour depth or file format generally result in
loss of quality). However, given the same kind of reservations, a suggestion
is presented, that should be applicable at a high level of ‘information system
planning’, i.e. for maintaining the most up to date view of general informa-
tion use (the ISB) and the system-level computerization (the ISNs, as such,
without their detailed specification and implementation). Just add one more
class to the system concept, CT (calendar time):
S = <GU, RU, AC, TK, CT>
where CT = { status, DT | status={def,undef}, DT=date-time } and all sub-
systems, structures and protocols are similarly ‘date-time-stamped’. Any
updating (‘Analysis of Change’ at ISB level and at ISN level) would be
conducted in the ‘undefined’ status, while the current use of the previous
defined-status version would continue. Once the desired new version has
been accepted, the status would change to defined and that new version
kept.
The advantage would be that during any later use of data from earlier ver-
sions flags might be shown, indicating potential incompatibilities or other
restrictions. A disadvantage would be that the entire system would grow
into one huge ‘historic’ database application. In theory usable for the
information requirements of an organization, in practice certainly feasible
for smaller off-line computerization and, as mentioned above, for ‘infor-
mation system planning’.
Yes, ‘information’ might be made persistent, in that previously recorded
representations of knowledge may remain available longer than the life
cycle of the project in which it was collected, but this requires much care
and dedication. Alas, the recording media may not change as much as the
software systems that run on them, but new technologies will come about
relentlessly. After the clay tablet and the cave drawings, we invented papy-
rus and paper. The quill pen was replaced by the punch card, key board,
voice input, solid state devices and what not. Whereas hard media based
documents may often be preserved and available for study by historians,
digital data do not last much beyond the ‘next generation’ of equipment.
Changing ideas of how to keep statistical data may be annoying to those
wishing to incorporate those from previous periods; when printed, they can
always be accessed. It is alright to permanently store electronically
recorded data, but one must save a working copy of the appropriate play-
back device along with it. Now, there is a challenge for maintaining man-
kind’s knowledge!
62 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Envoi
As an old acquaintance and friend of Mats Lundeberg, I would like to wish
him many years of enjoyable research, education, project work, participa-
tion in sometimes boring but often stimulating international committee and
working group activity. We first met when I was honoured to be the Fac-
ulty Opponent for his Doctoral Examination. The not yet polished propo-
sitions of 1976 became stimulating views to many of us. No mean
achievement.
All the best, even if perfect knowledge will forever remain a ‘contradictio
in terminis’, wisdom a beacon on the horizon, but friendship a persistent
intangible!
References
Daninos, P. (1954) Les carnets du major W. Marmaduke Thompson, Hachette,
Paris.
Langefors, B. (1966/74): Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, 4th ed.
Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden and Auerbach, Philadelphia.
Lundeberg, M. (1976) Some Propositions Concerning Analysis and Design of
Information Systems, Doctoral dissertation, Trita-IBADB, No. 4080, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Ramackers, G.J. (1994) Integrated Object Modeling: An Executable Specification
Framework for Business Analysis and Information Systems Design, Thesis
Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
—5—
1
The case of omissions will be commented below.
64 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
2
This follows the analysis of Weber’s (1978) notion of social action made in
Goldkuhl (2001).
Goldkuhl 65
tation and inquiry. When you make an experiment you make some external
changes in order to investigate, observe and learn about the world. Inter-
vention is in this case a means to observational ends. Intervention serves
interpretation.
An actor can purposefully reflect upon his own knowledge. This can be
done in order to articulate tacit knowledge, draw conclusions, construct
categories, arrive at new insights, and shape new ideas or other creative
and knowledge developing acts. This kind of internal transformation is
conceived as action when it is made with some deliberation and endeav-
our. I call it reflective action.
One more supplement can be made to the action notion. There is human
behaviour, which is not oriented towards change, but we still call it action.
In action theory, the human omission to act is also considered an action; an
omission act (von Wright, 1963). Not all human “non-behaviour” is
viewed as omission action. We call something an omission act only when
the actor had an apprehended possibility to act and he avoided making
such an interventionist action.
Type of action
Interventio- Outward External world External influ- Reflexive
nist action (towards to influence ence (material feedback
external world) or social) (internal
change)
Interpretive Outward External world Internal External
action (towards to observe change change of an
external world) (improved inquiry can
knowledge) occur
Reflective Inward Knowledge to Internal
action (towards be reflected change
knowing) upon (improved
knowledge)
Omission None External world No intentional Changes can
action to be left change occur without
unaffected influence of
the actor
These four types of action3 can be seen as pure types (ideal types). Many
performed actions in real life can, as indicated above, be combinations of
these different types. The four types of action are described in a table
(Table 1) with the purpose of characterizing and comparing them.
In this essay I focus mainly on interventionist action but partly also on
interpretive and reflective action as preparatory actions for interventionist
action. My primary interest is action aiming at change.
Organisational Action
3
This socio-pragmatic framework has been more thoroughly elaborated in other
publications; cf. e.g. Goldkuhl (2001; 2002), Goldkuhl & Röstlinger (2002) and
Goldkuhl & Ågerfalk (2002).
4
I will use commercial organisations as the prototype case when discussing
organisational change and action. I think that much of what I say may also be rele-
vant for non-commercial settings. A consequence of using commercial organisa-
tions as prototypes is that I use the word “business” instead of more general terms,
like e.g. workpractices. Confer Goldkuhl & Röstlinger (2002) for an analysis of
the workpractice concept.
Goldkuhl 67
5
See e.g. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary; http://www.m-w.com.
Goldkuhl 69
6
I have borrowed the concept of institutional carrier from Scott (1995). I have
defined other carriers than Scott.
7
In Goldkuhl (2002) I have described the concept of multi-existing phenomena;
i.e. social phenomena which at the same exist in different realms of the world; for
example in cognitive, semiotic and material realms. An organisational institution
is such a typical multi-existing phenomenon.
8
Confer Goldkuhl & Ågerfalk (2002) about automatic vs. interactive use-situa-
tions of information systems. In line with Latour (1992) I give artefacts a promi-
nent place on the organisational scene.
70 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Inter-subjective, practical
knowledge
Norms/rules/ Action
assignments
Material Operating
instruments instructions
important to recognise that there is a social9 basis for all carriers; for the
cognitive, semiotic and material carriers.
An organisational institution (as inter-subjective knowledge) involves dif-
ferent types knowledge: For example categories, conceptions, values, pref-
erences, role definitions, action rules, standards for action results. Institu-
tional knowledge resides in both, what Giddens (1984) calls, practical and
discursive consciousnesses. An institution involves a meaning-universe
with both coherence and tension.
9
The social character has not been made explicit in Figure 1. This illustration
should however be interpreted as an institutionally focused model of
organisational action derived from the more exhaustive model of social action
found in Goldkuhl & Röstlinger (2002 p 18).
72 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Organisational
change
If this is the case, the NB actors will try out new ways of action. Different
proposals for NB action can have different levels of detail concerning pre-
scriptions. Sometimes such proposals leave (intentionally or by accident)
much room for action design made by the actors themselves.
are
studied Inquiry, reflection
and design
Institutions New institutions
New proposals
implementation
as
Normal New normal
business actions Transformation and business actions
re-institutionalisation
Institutions
governing reinforcing
Unproblematic Normal
situation business actions
Usually one single person does not have the power to change an institution
governing the work of many persons. The new ways of action must be
distributed among the colleagues. This is often a process of mutual influ-
ence and adaptation. The process may not include verbal instructions. It
can be limited to imitation of others persons’ actions serving as exemplars.
Institutions
governing Possibly
changing
Problematic Normal
situation business actions
(new demands (new ways)
and ideas)
process should reflect on the process and try to improve it and its action
constituents.
Continuous improvement is not performed directly in a running business.
The actors take “one small step away” from the NB actions. They assess
what has been performed and try to improve it. This approach has resem-
blances to the project-based development since it involves reflection, con-
scious design and implementation of new ways of working. Such ways
must be institutionalised in order to be permanent. It differs from project-
based development since it is not performed within a separate change
organisation (project). It is performed in close connection with daily work.
In this sense it resembles running adaptation.
Is continuous improvement really performed continuously? Running
adaptation can be seen as a case of organisational change that is performed
continuously in the business whenever a need arises. I would like to con-
test that continuous improvement is performed continuously. A more
appropriate way to describe it is to say that it is performed recurrently. We
do not perform such changes all the time. It is rather performed recurrently
on certain occasions.
This typology, with categories from evolution to design, involves thus the
following four categories (Figure 6):
• running adaptation
• recurrent refinement
• partial improvement
• radical renewal
Organisational
change
References
Ahrne, G. (1994) Social organizations. Interaction inside, outside and between
organization, Sage, London.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1967) The social construction of reality, Doubleday
& Co, Garden City.
Davenport, T.H. (1993) Process innovation. Reengineering work through infor-
mation technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dewey, J. (1938) Logic: The theory of inquiry, Henry Holt, New York.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamäki, R-L. (Eds.) (1999) Perspectives on
activity theory, Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structura-
tion, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Goldkuhl, G. (1998) The six phases of business processes – business communica-
tion and the exchange of value, Accepted to the 12th Biennial ITS conference
(ITS´98), Stockholm.
Goldkuhl, G. (2001) “Communicative vs material actions: Instrumentality, social-
ity and comprehensibility”, in Schoop, M., Taylor, J. (Eds.) (2001) Proceed-
ings of the 6th International Workshop on the Language Action Perspective
(LAP2001), RWTH, Aachen.
Goldkuhl, G. (2002) “Anchoring scientific abstractions – ontological and linguis-
tic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism”, in Proceedings of
European Conference on Research Methods in Business, Reading.
Goldkuhl, G. & Braf, E. (2002) “Organisational Ability – constituents and congru-
encies”, in Coakes, E., Willis, D., Clarke, S. (Eds.) (2002) Knowledge Man-
agement in the SocioTechnical World, Springer, London.
Goldkuhl, G. & Röstlinger, A. (2002) “Towards an integral understanding of
organisations and information systems: Convergence of three theories”, in
Proc of the 5th International Workshop on Organisational Semiotics, Delft.
Goldkuhl, G. & Ågerfalk, P.J. (2002) “Actability: A way to understand informa-
tion systems pragmatics”, in Liu, K. et al. (Eds.) (2002) Coordination and
Communication Using Signs: Studies in Organisational Semiotics – 2, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the corporation. A manifesto for
business revolution, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Goldkuhl 79
Blanksida
PART TWO:
REFLECTIONS ON
IT-RELATED CHANGE
Blanksida
—6—
Business Development
We will use business development as an overall concept for change work
in organisational contexts. Business development generally consists of
different tasks which can be collected into some appropriate levels (Lun-
deberg, 1993). We can recognise three levels of development work in
practice with a distinct scope and focus (cf. Österle, 1995; Nilsson,
1999):
• Strategy development; focusing on corporate strategies for improving
the relationships between our company and the actors in the market
environment, e.g. customers, clients, suppliers and business partners
(cf. Ansoff, 1990; Porter, 1980; 1985).
• Operational development; focusing on how to make the business
operations more efficient within our company. The workflow between
different functions or processes in the organisation is designed in a new
and better way (cf. Davenport, 1993; Rummler and Brache, 1995).
84 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
This means that a user demands some specific messages from a reporting
system or a data retrieval system at a certain point in time – in this case
he/she wants this information neither earlier nor later in time.
In the ISD field we have learnt the lesson that time is very important when
developing information systems. It is not an understatement to say that
Langefors (1973) in his theoretical and empirical work has “reinvented”
the significance of the time concept for successful systems design. In the
infological approach to information systems development we can find
three circumstances where time has to be considered in a clear and explicit
way (Langefors, 1995). Firstly, we have to strive for executive optimal
solutions or sufficiently good information systems with regard to the user
needs, together with time and cost limits for implementation. It is in this
sense a trade-off between information needs and time restrictions. Sec-
ondly, we have to consider the infological equation where the time com-
ponent is essential for a user to be able to interpret personal information
from a given set of data. The infological equation states: I = i (D, S, t)
where “I” is the information conveyed, “i” is the interpretation process,
“D” is the data at hand, “S” is the pre-knowledge, frame of reference or
mental structure of the user, and “t” the time required or available for the
process. When a user needs more time for interpretation it could mean
losses in efficiency. Thirdly, we have to consider how messages should be
designed for a better understanding and communication. An elementary
message (e-message) represents the smallest information unit in a system
and is defined as the following triplet: object, time, property. It says that
such an elementary message describes a property (e.g. price) for a specific
object (e.g. article) at certain time (e.g. year-month-day). The reasoning
behind this principle for systems design is that it is urgent with time
stamps for messages in order to avoid confusion in operating future infor-
mation systems.
Goal Analysis
Strength
Implementation Analysis
Improvement Stakeholder
Analysis Analysis
Assessment of
Present Situation
A lesson learned from the ISD field is the significance of starting up devel-
opment work from a change analysis which builds a platform for further
development of e.g. information systems. The model for promoting busi-
ness operations is based on the change analysis method in the traditional
ISAC approach (Lundeberg, et al., 1981). The change model can be
regarded as a clock starting with a goal analysis for the organisation (12
o’clock). We then move on with strength analysis, problem analysis and
stakeholder analysis, i.e. people (users) who are affected by the problems
and strengths. These analyses build a platform for assessing the present
situation before making a “brain-storming” session with an improvement
analysis where we generate appropriate change measures. Again we make
an assessment but now for the next situation for the organisation. Thereaf-
ter it is time for the implementation phase when we introduce the desired
business changes in daily work. After a period of time we start a new
change program for business promotion according to the clock model.
96 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
References
Andersen, E.S. (1994) Systemutveckling: Principer, Metoder, Tekniker {Informa-
tion Systems Development: Principles, Methods and Techniques}, Studentlit-
teratur, Lund, Sweden.
Ansoff, I. & McDonnell, E. (1990) Implanting Strategic Management, 2nd Edition,
Prentice-Hall, New York.
Avison, D.E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2003) Information Systems Development: Method-
ologies, Techniques and Tools, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, London.
Bally, L. & Brittan, J. & Wagner, K.H. (1977) “A Prototype Approach to Infor-
mation System Design and Development”, Information & Management, Vol.
1, pp. 21-26.
Booch, G. & Rumbaugh, J. & Jacobson, I. (1999) The Unified Modelling Lan-
guage User Guide, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Budde, R. & Kautz, K. & Kuhlenkamp, K. & Züllighoven, H. (1992) “What is
Prototyping?”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 6, No. 2-3, pp. 89-95.
Davenport, T.H. (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Infor-
mation Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Davenport, T.H. (1998) “Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System”, Har-
vard Business Review, July-August, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 121-131.
Davenport, T.H. (2000) Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise
Systems, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Earl, M. & Khan, B. (2001) “E-Commerce Is Changing the Face of IT”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Fall 2001, pp. 64-72.
Edvardsson, B. & Gustafsson, A. & Johnson, M.D. & Sandén, B. (2000) New
Service Development and Innovation in the New Economy, Studentlitteratur,
Lund, Sweden.
Elin, L. (2001) Designing and Developing Multimedia: A Practical Guide for the
Producer, Director and Writer, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Fitzgerald, B. & Russo, N.L. & Stolterman, E. (2002) Information Systems Devel-
opment: Methods in Action, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hawryszkiewycz, I. (2001) Systems Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, Prentice
Hall/Pearson Education Australia, Sydney.
Iivari, J. & Lyytinen, K. (1998) “Research on Information Systems Development
in Scandinavia – Unity in Plurality”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Sys-
tems, Vol. 10, No. 1-2, pp. 135-186.
Ishikawa, K. (1985) What is Total Quality Control?: The Japanese Way, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Nilsson 97
Sowa, J.F. & Zachman, J.A. (1992) “Extending and Formalizing the Framework
for Information Systems Architecture”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3,
pp. 590-616.
Tolis, C. & Nilsson, A.G. (1996) “Using Business Models in Process Orientation”,
in Lundeberg, M. & Sundgren, B. (Eds.) Advancing Your Business: People
and Information Systems in Concert, Chapter VIII, Stockholm School of Eco-
nomics and Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden (also published electronically on
the Internet: http://www.hhs.se/im/efi/ayb.htm).
Yourdon, E. (1993) Yourdon Systems Method: Model-Driven Systems Develop-
ment, Yourdon Press, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
100 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
—7—
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to investigate change processes and to reveal
patterns in terms of typical traps. There are two underlying reasons for this
aim: first, to increase our knowledge about change processes, and second,
to offer people working with change processes in practice ideas for how
their work could be improved.
I will start out by addressing three fundamental underlying views for the dis-
cussion. The first is that I view reality as socially constructed (cf. Berger and
Luckmann, 1966). The second is that there is an underlying systems
approach in the discussion (e.g. Langefors, 1966). The third is related to the
view of reality and concerns the value of different perspectives. Given the
assumption of a social construction of reality and that reality is a mental
phenomenon, the value of including different perspectives is significant (cf.
Lundeberg, 1993). By finding ways of including different perspectives, one
can increase our ability to perceive different aspects of reality.
These underlying views taken together imply that my view of change
processes in the discussion to follow is in line with Mats Lundeberg’s
work presented in “Handling Change Processes: A Systems Approach”
(1993). This view suggests that it is possible to improve the ability to
handle change processes in a business context by learning to recognize
patterns.
The chapter is structured in the following way. After the introduction I dis-
cuss some theoretical aspects of change. Then follows a section on change
from a practical perspective, where I describe the empirical foundation for
the patterns, which are described in the next section in form of seven typi-
cal traps in change projects. Then there is a discussion and some practical
implications, where I address people working as project leaders in practice
102 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
(cf. Robey and Markus, 1998). The chapter ends with some concluding
remarks.
Change in Theory
The amount of previous research on different aspects of change is exten-
sive (e.g. Lewin, 1947; Watzlawick et al., 1974; Lundeberg, 1993; Kotter,
1996). Literature includes many different aspects of change, and in the
following I briefly touch upon five themes: contexts of change, communi-
cation for change, levels of change, leading change and models for change.
I do not include what one needs to communicate in order to accomplish
change, like for example the need to communicate a change vision, which
is discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g. Kotter, 1996).
Contexts of Change
The systems approach, or systems thinking as suggested by Checkland
(1981), offers a broad view for understanding a context. The importance of
viewing development processes in their wider contexts has been empha-
sized in theories on information systems development (e.g. Lundeberg et
al., 1981). Here, perceived needs in business activities could be seen as
goals for development efforts regarding information systems, which in turn
could be seen as means to fulfill these business needs. In later theories on
change processes, business needs in turn have been put in context in terms
of people involved and their intentions (Lundeberg, 1993).
Applying the systems approach can help place change processes in their
wider contexts and help understand the complexity involved, by offering
ways to view the complexity in terms of different parts with relationships
among the parts. Abstraction is one way for the human mind to deal with
complexity (Argyris, 1982). Thinking in abstractions, for example in the
form of levels of abstraction (Bateson, 1972), can help describe how dif-
ferent contexts are interrelated. When using levels of abstraction it is
important to bear in mind that there are no “true” levels, but one chooses
what to view as levels. This is in accordance with the systems approach,
where one chooses what to view as a system (e.g. Churchman, 1968;
Checkland, 1981).
Levels of Change
Change efforts can be seen as being of different orders: where changes of
the first-order take place within a system, and second-order changes are
when changes of the system take place (Watzlawick et al., 1974). The two
orders could be seen as taking place on two different logical levels
(Bateson, 1972).
The two fundamentally different types of change have become most well-
known in learning contexts through the concepts of single-loop and dou-
ble-loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1974). That is, learning within given
settings and frames, versus learning by changing the setting and moving
beyond the frames.
One way to capture these opportunities for learning is through reflection
on action (e.g. on change efforts). In order to enhance the possibilities of
learning in relation to change processes there is a need for the ability for
“reflection-in-action” (Schön, 1983).
Leading Change
Many research efforts have focused on aspects of leaders’ roles in
change processes and how change could be handled. Much of the
results of these efforts have been published with a practical and partly
normative stance (e.g. Kotter, 1996). There are many different types of
processes included on the managerial agenda (e.g. Mårtensson, 2001)
and the reframing activities discussed above can help reveal driving
forces for including change efforts on the managerial agenda. By ask-
ing how a particular change effort is handled and how this could be
perceived from other perspectives, different framings of the change
effort could be revealed. Framing and reframing of change processes
can also be seen in the context of attracting managerial attention (or
not) to a change effort. People can for example try to “sell” an issue to
managers by framing the issue in a certain way (cf. Dutton and Ash-
ford, 1993).
Change efforts are not only handled, they are also sometimes mishandled.
Watzlawick et al. (1974) have suggested three basic ways of mishandling
change, as illustrated below in Figure 1.
Mårtensson 105
Necessary:
No Yes
Taken Action:
No A
Yes B C
Action taken at
the wrong level
The three ways of mishandling change could be described as: (A) action is
necessary but is not taken, (B) action is taken when it should not be, and
(C) action is taken at the wrong level. Action taken at the wrong level
could mean that there is need for second-order change activities, but
efforts are only made in terms of first-order changes. In such a situation
more effort will not help, instead there is a need for a shift in focus to
change at another level. Underlying this view of change one could trace
the theories of logical levels. It is worth noting that the expression “neces-
sary” could be challenged in terms of the clarifying question “according to
whom and by what criterion” (Lundeberg, 1993).
Person Person
Relationship Behavior
Preconditions Outcomes
Current
Situation
Need Change
for Alternatives Outcomes
Changes
Intended
Future
Situation
Change in Practice
The patterns discussed below are based on more than 40 change projects
that have been carried out in Scandinavia between 1995-2002 where all
projects have lasted for about one year. In terms of different types of
change efforts, the change processes could be described as project-based
improvement (cf. Davenport, 1993). My own role in relation to the pro-
jects is that I have been a coach to the project leaders. This means that I
have had a good insight into the projects, but have not been directly
involved in the projects myself. The project leaders have been working in
various industries, and most of them have been between 30 and 45 years
old. Some of them have been experienced project leaders, while others
have had less experience.
The projects have been carried out as a part of the Executive MBA pro-
gram at the Stockholm School of Economics and have followed a format
where the first part of each project has been to carry out change studies (cf.
Lundeberg, 1993). Basically these change studies aim at analyzing the
situation in terms of the Y-model described above. The second part of the
projects has been to implement the solutions suggested in the change
studies. During the process, groups have been formed with four to five
projects in each group, where the project leaders have met on a regular
basis in order to share experiences and to help each other in the projects.
When these groups met, the project leaders had prepared written reports of
the situation in the project to share with the other people in the group.
A risk with the Jeopardy Trap is that the project leader is committed to a
certain solution from the beginning and is not open for alternatives. This
means that there may be more suitable solutions that the project leader
cannot see, or does not want to see.
The Neutron Bomb Trap is where people seem to be extinguished from the
change project. (The expression Neutron Bomb is used to illustrate some-
thing that wipes out human life, but leaves the rest. It is worth noting that I
use the expression only as an illustration of a phenomenon, without
detailed knowledge about neutron bombs.) Often there are clear task-ori-
ented descriptions and logical lines of argument in the projects, but people
are not included at all. In terms of the X-model described above, this
means that the entire focus is on the task-oriented level.
A risk with the Neutron Bomb Trap is that the change project is planned
with too much focus on task and not enough attention on the person-ori-
ented level. This means for example that the project may face difficulties
in the implementation phase if people and their driving forces are not
included in the analysis of the situation.
The Confusion Trap is where different process focuses are considered in
the change project, but these focuses are not coherent. The project leader
may have worked through all parts of the Y-model and described the dif-
ferent focuses, but the different parts are not related to each other. There
may for example be a description of a current situation related to one part
of the organization and a description of a future situation of another part,
etc. Some parts may also be missing. The confusion can furthermore be
related to the described deliverables from the change project, where the
intended effects are not coherent with the intended deliverables.
A risk with the Confusion Trap is that the project leader does a good job
analyzing a situation, but does not pay enough attention to the importance
that the different parts are coherent. This means that there may be an
extensive analysis as a basis for the planned actions, but this analysis does
not capture the actual situation.
The Bad-Good-Improve Trap relates to the precision in descriptions and
communication in the change project. The trap is named after the simplis-
tic formulation of the situation analyzed, where the current situation is
described as “bad”, the intended future situation is described as “good”,
and the need for changes is described as “improve”. The use of these three
expressions is a simplification intended to illustrate too simplistic descrip-
tions of the different process focuses in the Y-model.
Mårtensson 109
Trap Description
The Jeopardy The answer is given from the beginning and one tries to find a
Trap question.
The result of the change study is given from the beginning.
The Neutron People seem to be extinguished.
Bomb Trap
Often there are clear task-oriented descriptions and logical
lines of arguments, but people are not included.
The Confusion Every part of the Y-model is included, but the parts are not
Trap coherent. (Or some parts may be missing.)
and/or
Deliverables and effects are described, but they are not
coherent.
The Bad-Good- Current Situation = Bad.
Improve Trap
Intended Future Situation = Good.
Need for Changes = Make Better.
The Poker Trap The cards are kept secret from others. As little as possible
about the project is disclosed.
Information about the project is presented gradually bit by bit.
The Chameleon The descriptions of the project are made to meet requirements
Trap from all different target groups.
The Bravery Everything is linked to the project and included in it.
Trap
The project just keeps growing.
There is a real good intention to solve all possible problems
within the scope of the project.
The best project becomes the enemy of the good project.
Discussion
The seven typical traps in change projects described in the previous section
illustrate an array of potential difficulties that a project leader can face.
Some traps concern the ability to deal with different contexts of the change
process (e.g. the Neutron Bomb Trap and the Chameleon Trap). A lack of
ability to think in abstraction may explain some of these difficulties (cf.
Argyris, 1982; Lundeberg, 1993). Here, it may be of importance to find
suitable ways of seeing one’s own project through different frames (cf.
Mårtensson 111
Practical Implications
“Ok, so what can I do if I am a project leader?” In this section I will
address this question and allow myself to be more normative and give
some pieces of practical advice. If you are a project leader for a change
Mårtensson 113
project, the following are some ideas about how to avoid the traps dis-
cussed above.
You can avoid:
• the Jeopardy Trap by being open to varied results from the change
study. Allow yourself to not know everything from the very beginning,
and accept a certain amount of uncertainty in early phases of the change
project.
• the Neutron Bomb Trap by including people in the change study. If you
normally do not describe much about people, but focus on task-oriented
matters instead, try to do things differently this time. Try to find out
more about the driving-forces and individuals for (or against) the
change efforts.
• the Confusion Trap by making sure that all parts of the Y-model, as
well as deliverables and effects, are described, and that they are
coherent. Instead of trying to include everything in one single Y-
model, notice that you may find it more fruitful to present the
situation in multiple Y-models.
• the Bad-Good-Improve Trap if you perceive the precision in the
descriptions as important. You need to spend enough effort on precision
in order to get a sufficient level of details. Especially, the needs for
change are of vital importance to pinpoint.
• the Poker Trap if you share information with other people. This does of
course not mean that you should share everything with everyone, but
dare to open up. If it is a lot of information to grasp for people, choose
ways to present it with clarity.
• the Chameleon Trap if you think through various target groups and how
they can be reached. Remember that what looks like a short cut often is
the longest way round. If you try to reach everyone with the same docu-
ment, you may not reach anyone.
• the Bravery Trap if you delimit the change study in its final phases.
Allow for openness in the early phase (cf. the Jeopardy Trap) and then
be realistic in the action plan. Take some time to reflect on alternative
dimensions for delimitations of the project, and look for different types
of phases in the project.
In Table 2 practical implications of the traps are summarized.
114 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Concluding Remarks
The aim with this chapter has been to reveal patterns in order to increase
our knowledge about change processes, and to offer people working with
change processes ideas for how they can improve their work. It is worth
highlighting that falling into traps most often is a result of good intentions.
Project leaders want to achieve good results in their projects, but on the
way it is easy to fall into different types of traps. One should bear in mind
that there may be rational and logical reasons behind the traps. In this
chapter I have presented some patterns that have emerged from a number
of change projects.
My intention with the chapter has been to illustrate some typical patterns
in change projects, which hopefully can contribute to our understanding of
challenges in change processes. The form of seven typical traps should be
seen as seven opportunities to learn about change projects and how typical
traps could be avoided. The traps are not the seven deadly sins, but merely
Mårtensson 115
seven areas to pay attention to, if you are interested in change projects
from a practical perspective.
Mats Lundeberg (1993) has defined three core subprocesses in handling
change processes: to perceive reality as it is, to make use of the freedom of
action that you have, and to learn from the consequences of what you do.
Hopefully, the seven typical traps presented in this chapter can be a tangi-
ble help when dealing with these three subprocesses.
References
Andersen, E.S., Baustad, I. & Sørsveen, Å. (1994) Ledelse på norsk: Prinsipper,
arbeidsmåter og resultater {Management In Norwegian: Principles, Ways of
Working and Results}, Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo, Norway.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organiza-
tional, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Ashby, W.R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London,
England.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Illinois.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, Anchor
Books, Doubleday, New York.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, England.
Churchman, C.W. (1968, second edition 1979) The Systems Approach (second
edition), Dell, New York.
Davenport, T.H. (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Infor-
mation Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dutton, J.E. & Ashford, S. J. (1993) “Selling Issues to Top Management”, Acad-
emy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 397-428.
Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation, Arkana Penguin Books, London, Eng-
land.
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Langefors, B. (1966, fourth edition 1973). Theoretical Analysis of Information
Systems (fourth edition), Auerbach Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(also published by Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden).
116 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
1
This account is based on a study in an international company at division man-
agement and sales and service company level. More than 70 interviews and meet-
ings have been conducted in four companies and at division headquarters in the
period 2001 to 2003. We have also had access to a substantial amount of project
documentation. The research has been made possible by a grant from VINNOVA,
Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems.
Westelius 119
would suggest that in order to achieve flow of such repair work, you
have to view the detection of first-level errors and subsequent halts in the
execution, not as interruptions, but as an objective of the work. In quartet
playing, this is the case during rehearsals. During performances, the view
of – and the handling of – such errors is quite different.
In the string quartet, members are physically close to each other and there-
fore have a good chance to detect signals from each other and communicate.
Detection of errors in the playing, and handling them through repetition and
correction, is part of what you expect to do when you rehearse. Error han-
dling during performance, however, centres on avoiding errors, minimising
and covering up those that do occur, and recovering as unnoticeably as pos-
sible, should some major problem occur. Designing fault avoidance and fault
recovery strategies can then also be part of rehearsing. Giving cues – empha-
sis on a certain note or beat, a nod, a motion, … these small indicators can
help uphold co-ordination and confer a sense of security and control: we
know that we are together. Should we lose co-ordination, this is a recognis-
able passage were we can reassemble, alternatively imperceptibly restart
from (or jump to) point X at the sign of a designated leader. The fluent and
improvised leadership during rehearsals is then replaced with predetermined
leadership and cues that have been explicitly agreed upon.
In a similar manner, we can expect that the attitude towards errors connected
with information systems use, and the behaviour when and if they occur,
would differ according to organisational role and view of your job. We
could probably find people who are predominantly “performers”, and others
who mostly think and act as “rehearsers”? In finance, we could expect to
find rehearsers. Part of the job in a finance department is to identify data that
appears to be inconsistent or questionable. Whether you contact someone
who has caused the error, or you just try to correct it, depends on how you
view your job. In a sales department, we are more likely to find “perform-
ers” than “rehearsers”. Here, the data that you enter into or receive from the
administrative computer application are just means to perform your task. If
there are errors in the data, it is an interruption, an embarrassment, and
something that you do not want to let interrupt the “real” work. You could
even expect people in sales to disregard or find workarounds to deal with
erroneous data, rather than spend time and effort on trying to correct it.
people in the small subsidiary found the help from the large subsidiary
very useful – help not just regarding the use of the application, but also of
the underlying business concept and that business process.
It seems the Danes started communicating with the English, not because
they were designated as helpers as much as because they actually had
answers, while the system supplier’s international designated helpdesk did
not. Thus, the Danes learned about the business processes as well as about
how to set up and use their ERP installation by keeping a close communi-
cation with the English. The English were somewhat flattered, but also felt
that they were giving without receiving – that they were doing tasks that a
well-organised support organisation should have been able to handle. In
that sense, their part of the communication was organisational error han-
dling – handling the malfunctioning support organisation by doing their
work for them.
role holders. When the previously anonymous “other” receives a face, you
begin to understand your interaction, not only cognitively, but also emo-
tionally. You begin to care.
Returning to the strategic ERP implementation and one of the large sub-
sidiaries, the people working in Finance found that they became the hub of
the data flows. It was in the finance modules of the application that data
from different parts of the organisation came together, and inconsistencies
became visible. All sloppily entered or erroneous transactions ended up
there sooner or later. As one key user said, Finance became the error-han-
dling station and the data laundry of the organisation. The key user realised
that it would be an impossible task for the people in Finance to be reactive
error correctors. In a proactive manner, she started contacting and visiting
those she could trace to be the sources of different data quality problems,
and made them aware of the problems their present use of the system was
causing. Most of these users in other departments came to adopt a new
view of their system’s use, and the Finance key user became a personifica-
tion of other users who could be affected by heedless use of the ERP sys-
tem. But to a large extent, this was a network that revolved around the
Finance key user, described by a manager as “the fount of all knowledge”.
After a year, she had to temporarily transfer out of her department in order
to, by her absence, force the development of new and more multilateral
relationships and routes of contact.
This example shows how contacts can develop out of error handling, but it
is not obvious that they will. In another subsidiary, a centrally placed user
in Finance also reported being the one who detected errors in the transac-
tions coming from other parts of the company. But in her case, the main
error handling method was to learn more about what people in other
departments were doing. Once she reached sufficient understanding of
their jobs, and the parts of the application that they were running, she
could correct the errors they entered. She would have wanted to contact the
people directly, but did not have access to the translation between user
codes and actual identities. In serious cases, she could ask a superior with
access to the codes to tell her who the “culprit” was, so she could contact
them. But in the majority of cases – the minor, everyday mistakes – she
did not see the cumbersome identification and contact process as a viable
option. This shows how fragile the network-building process is.
the task has been solved. The group charged with specifying the product and
article codes for global use in the system encountered unanticipated prob-
lems in agreeing on a common list, leading to a heated debate and long
negotiations. Their initial views on what was to be considered “correct” dif-
fered substantially. Implementing the set of codes they had agreed on also
turned out to be difficult, with differences between local lists and differences
between codes in the system, in the warehouses, on forms and in people’s
minds, etc. All these errors led to communication, and in turn to the gradual
development of a shared appreciation of the value of standardisation among
the people in the code group. The people who once formed that group still
find it easy to contact each other regarding diverse work-related matters,
although they are now back in line positions in their respective country.
They believe that had their joint task been easy and uncontroversial, these
strong relationships would not have formed.
Here, order receivers, who felt responsible for correctly dispatching the
spare parts that had been ordered, devised a solution to the problem, using
the channels and tools that they knew of. Had they instead used the formal
communication channel for problems with the ERP system, and had this
channel worked smoothly, the simple solution would have been to change
the parameter controlling the number of characters displayed to the pack-
ers. However, this formal communication channel did not work smoothly.
The order receivers had learned that errors and problems reported through
that channel were not very likely to get solved, at least not at short notice.
In this particular instance, it was also known to application designers and
developers at the ERP supplier, that the field was controlled by a parame-
ter that is set at the installation of the program, and that is easy to change.
However, that knowledge was not present at the local level of the support
organisation. Thus, the error (packing information not reaching the pack-
ers) set the order receivers looking for a solution, using the ways they
knew and the tools they found that they could influence.
This is an example of an existing network being stronger than the one that
is planned by the project managers and intended for use in a case like this.
The designers of the new support network have not managed to implement
it in such a way that it supplants the existing networks and becomes the
preferred network of the users.
Another example of strong, existing networks is provided in Buck et al.
(2001). They investigated internal communication in a paper and pulp
group, where the new group manager was trying to implement a knowl-
edge management inspired culture of knowledge sharing and communica-
tion within the group. The manager also tried to facilitate communication
and knowledge sharing through increased use of IT. Buck et al. noted that
the paper mill operators rather asked their friends in other companies (out-
side the industrial group) for help and advice when they encountered
problems, than asking unknown (or known) people in their own industrial
group. From a headquarters perspective, this was contrary to organisational
norms, but from an individual perspective it made sense.
Thinking in terms of information system development and information
system implementation projects, rather than in terms of actor-network
building, more easily leads to fragmented cultures (isolated actor-net-
works) that rely to the greatest part on existing networks and their previous
communication and action cultures. The existing networks provide a
known and developed mode of error handling, and can be expected to
occasion fewer second-level errors and interruptions of the error handling,
than a new and untried network. This results in re-enactment of the exist-
Westelius 129
ing structure and translation of the new tools aimed at minimal change of
the present structure, rather than modification of the existing structure to
accommodate (and explore) the new impulses and ideas. Thus, when we
try to create rational communication channels, support functions, we often
underestimate the strength of extant networks and the importance of trust.
Perhaps it would make more sense to figure out what networks are already
in existence, and try to supplement them with some new nodes and supply
them with relevant knowledge and resources, rather than try to build
entirely new networks. And perhaps it makes sense to try to channel the
attention and energy provoked by first-level errors into such network
improvement efforts. Perhaps, after all, errors can be useful in helping
users to learn.
References
Bergum, S. (2000) Managerial communications in telework, Linköping Studies in
Science and Technology, Thesis; 807, Linköping University, Linköping, Swe-
den.
Buck, E., Castevall, J., Dunér, M., Eding, D. & Eklöw, M. (2002) Rottneros
interna kommunikationsstrategi ur ett KM-perspektiv, report in MSc program
in course Strategic Applications of IT, Sektionen för industriell ekonomi, Lin-
köpings Tekniska Högskola 2001-09-28 http://i98daned.island.liu.se/TDEI55/,
accessed 2001-09-29.
Gäre, K. (2003) Tre perspektiv på förväntningar och förändringar i samband med
införande av informationssystem, Linköping Studies in Science and Techno-
logy, Dissertation; 808, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Hanseth, O. & Braa, K. (1998) “Technology as traitor: emergent SAP infrastruc-
ture in a global organization”, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International
Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, December 13-16, 1998, pp. 188-
196.
Latour, B. (1995) “Social theory and the study of computerized work sites”, in
Orlikowski, W., Walsham, G., Jones, M.R. & DeGross, J. (Eds.) Information
Technology and Changes in Organizational Work, Chapman and Hall, Lon-
don.
Moberg, A. (1997) Närhet och distans: studier av kommunikationsmönster i satel-
litkontor och flexibla kontor, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology,
Dissertation; 512, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Monteiro, E. & Hanseth, O. (1995) “Social Shaping of Information Infrastructure:
On Being Specific About the Technology”, in Orlikowski, W., Walsham, G.,
Jones, M.R. & DeGross, J. (Eds.) Information Technology and Changes in
Organizational Work, Chapman and Hall, London.
130 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
IT Project Failures
Many IT projects fail. We read about failures all the time, in newspapers,
trade magazines, and scientific papers. Research undertaken by Standish
Group International (1999) concluded that out of 23,000 projects, 28 per-
cent failed completely, 46 percent were characterized by cost and time
overruns and only 26 percent succeeded.
Ewusi-Mensah (1997) points out that the cancellation of projects can be
attributed to a combination of several factors, including the following:
• Projects goals: lack of general agreement on a well-articulated set of
project goals and objectives
• Project team composition: weak or problematic project team
• Project management and control: bad management, poor decisions, lack
of IS to measure progress and identify risks
• Technical know-how: team not capable of the task, lack of expertise
and experience, not relevant application-domain knowledge
• Technology base or infrastructure: the current infrastructure is not sat-
isfactory for the kind of project
• Senior management involvement: monitoring of progress and making
decisions are deferred to technical experts
• Escalating project cost and time of completion: not addressed before
crisis stage
Conradi (1997) has estimated that failed IT projects gave the Norwegian
government a loss of 2,500 million NOK during the first half of the 1990s.
The most spectacular failure project was TRESS-90, an IT-system for
Norwegian Social Security (Rikstrygdeverket), which was delayed for five
years and lost approximately 1,200 million NOK.
134 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
important tools for the project manager (Meredith and Mantel 1995,
Fleming and Hoppelman 1996). This type of control will continue to be
imperative, but the problem is that they are based on retrospective infor-
mation; all data tell us what happened yesterday.
The Project Implementation Profile (PIP) of (Pinto and Slevin 1988) made
a valuable contribution to the field of project management insofar as they
demonstrated how to use critical success factors to diagnose a project’s
status. PIP or similar approaches should be used as a supplement to tradi-
tional monitoring of projects (Andersen and Jessen 2000).
The X Model
The candidate for a general evaluation model is called the X-model (Figure
1) (Andersen et al. 1994). It consists of five elements: Personal inputs,
Factual inputs, Work processes, Personal outputs, and Factual outputs. The
name reflects its shape.
Personal Factual
inputs inputs
Work processes
Personal Factual
outputs outputs
The personal inputs and outputs are the members of the project organiza-
tion and their attitudes, needs, knowledge, skills, experience and rela-
tions to others. This is what may be called the “soft part” of the project
organization. The inputs refer to the situation at the start of the project or
a previous situation, while the outputs are related to the present situation.
The factual parts of the model focus on the more formal or structural part
of the project. The inputs may describe the tasks to be performed, the
problems to be solved or the challenges to be met, the project plans and the
formal organization. The outputs should show what the project has
achieved so far and what has not been accomplished.
The work processes are the project activities (in groups, meetings or indi-
vidually), the decision processes, the communication processes and the
general working climate. Processes integrate both personal and factual
aspects and it is meaningless to make a distinction between the two in a
description of the present status of a project.
The project manager may at certain stages of the project have an X
model created. The best result is achieved when several participants first
Andersen & Sørsveen 137
make their own independent descriptions of the project and decide which
aspects of the project they will focus on. The participants then co-operate
in combining the individual descriptions into a common description. This
model is then used for analyses of the connections between outputs, work
processes and inputs. This insight into the project situation will help the
project manager and the project team to decide how to proceed to better
the functioning of the project. The subsequent actions might be quite dif-
ferent from the results of a traditional project control.
We would claim that the X model gives an interesting view of the present
situation of the project and highlights aspects that would not have been so
obvious if only traditional control methods have been used.
The X model would secondly be the starting-point for an analysis of the
project. We see that the actual status of the presented project is such that
actions are necessary. The X model should help us to identify the causali-
ties between the personal and factual outputs on the one hand and the work
processes and the personal and factual inputs on the other (Figure 3).
Andersen & Sørsveen 139
The X model shows that the quality is not as good as expected (factual
output). We may hypothesize that this is caused by the lack of focus on
quality and that all project members are not involved in the decisions
(work processes). This might be caused by the attitudes to quality (per-
sonal input). When conducting a further causal analysis there may be a
need for more detailed descriptions of the conditions presented by the
model.
The results of the description of the present situation and the causal analy-
sis provide the background for actions to be taken to correct or better the
present situation. An action list has to be worked out. Later descriptions of
the present situation will demonstrate if the actions were adequate.
Table 1: The most frequently used statements of the five elements of the X model
The main results from Table 1 are also depicted as an X model (Figure 4).
142 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Table 1 and Figure 4 tell us how Norwegian projects work in general: they
have motivated and well-informed team members who sometimes lack
project experience. Only 30% of the projects have clear goals. For the
majority of the projects there are no clear lines of responsibility, the plans
are inadequate and not enough resources are allocated to the project. The
feedback to project team members is not good enough, but for the most
part the co-operation between them functions well. The quality of the lead-
ership differs and project control is rather weak. People learn a lot from
project work, but their motivation for further project work seems to be
reduced. The task is completed as described by the mandate or project
charter, but most projects are not completed on time and within the budget.
The results are more focused on technical than social factors.
Work processes
• Not so good management /
• Medium feedback
leadership
• Good co-operation between
• Poor project control
project team members
study which input factors and work processes influence the different out-
put factors. Figure 4 looks at the personal and factual output factors, which
were most focused on. The table shows which input and transformation
factors are significantly correlated with these output factors.
Table 2: The two most frequently used output statements and their correlations to
other statements
Table 2 shows that different factors affect the two chosen output factors.
Motivation for further project works depends on how well the team mem-
bers are kept informed and given feedback as well as the quality of the
project meetings and the co-operation within the team. Strong motivation
at the start and predetermined budget help to keep up the motivation.
144 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
References
Andersen, E.S., Baustad, I. & Sørsveen, Å. (1994) Ledelse på norsk. {Leadership
– The Norwegian Way}, Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo.
Andersen, E.S. & Jessen, S.A. (2000) “Project Evaluation Scheme”, Project Man-
agement, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 61-69.
Andersen & Sørsveen 145
Introduction
Venture capitalists typically require that you can explain the business
model in the time it takes the lift to get to the tenth floor. Implementation
typically takes years. There is a disproportionately large amount of focus
on what constitutes an innovative new business model compared to imple-
mentation, since most e-business failures are attributed to failures in
implementation.
Few researchers in the Nordic countries have been as influential as Mats
Lundeberg when it comes to business transformation using IT, especially
the problem/business-oriented side of IS/IT. From the early 70s, Mats
Lundeberg has contributed to theoretical developments as well as to
empirical implementations. Think for example of the ISAC method (Lun-
deberg, 1971; Lundeberg & Andersen, 1974), but also of much more prac-
tical guidelines like his textbook ‘Handling Change Processes’ (1993). It
was therefore natural for us, in honour of his large contributions within this
field, to choose the topic of implementation of e-business models.
The purpose of this paper is to develop an integrated approach for imple-
mentation of eBusiness models based on a taxonomy including four very
different approaches to eBusiness implementation/adoption. These
approaches are:
• Traditional IS/IT implementation insights especially as these were con-
ceived until the late 80s.
1
The research leading to this framework has been coordinated as part of the
‘eFactors Network of Excellence’ funded under the FP-6 of the EU contract num-
ber IST 2001-34868. Please consult www.e-factors.net for further information.
148 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Basic Definitions
This section presents our basic understanding of eBusiness models and
implementation.
e-Business Models
Whether the company is a new venture or an established player, a good
business model is essential to every successful organization (Magretta
2002).
In this paper we adopt the following definition of an eBusiness model: “An
architecture of product, service, and information flows, including a
description of the various business actors and their roles; as well as a
description of the potential benefits for the various business actors, and a
description of the sources of revenues”, cf. Timmers (1998:4). This defini-
tion frames the discussion of implementation factors and initiatives.
An underlying assumption of this paper is that the characteristics of eBusi-
ness models call for research on the rethinking of the basis of implementa-
tion. Compared to earlier information systems, there are a number of rea-
Bjørn-Andersen, Henriksen & Larsen 149
Venture Capitalist
Developer
Top Management
Business partners
Process manager
Operator
Client
Assuming that the horizontal axis represents a time scale, the figure also
illustrates that the different actors in principle have different and/or over-
lapping time-periods in which they are actively involved in the design and
implementation process.
Definition of Implementation
Rogers (1995) argues that the implementation stage ends when the new
idea becomes an institutionalized and regularized part of the adopters
ongoing operations. Any systems development project may be seen as con-
sisting of three rather different sets of activities: requirement specifica-
tions, design and implementation. But implementation is not a particular
stage occurring after a design stage. Instead we subscribe to the view that
implementation is a set of activities starting almost at the very beginning
of any eBusiness project and continue as Rogers suggests above, until the
solution has been adopted and fully integrated not just in the target organi-
zation developing the eBusiness solution, but also for everybody else in
the value network related to and affected by the solution. This is illustrated
in Figure 2.
Demand specification
Development
Implementation
The horizontal axis represents time, whereas the vertical axis represents
the amount of efforts dedicated to particular activities, i.e. demand speci-
fication, development and implementation.
Common for almost all conceptualizations of the term implementation is
that some degree of organizational action has taken place. This requires
different degrees of commitment and a large variety of actions until the
intended benefits are realized as a successful implementation (Gottschalk,
1999).
DeLone and McLean (1992) found that the most common IS implementa-
tion success factors were system usage and user satisfaction, but these are
clearly too limited when considering eBusiness systems, where adoption
Bjørn-Andersen, Henriksen & Larsen 151
tures, management and measurement systems, and values and beliefs. When
restructuring the business process, the content of jobs and of organisational
structures changes for all employees. Changing jobs and structures requires
changes in management principles and performance measurement systems.
These new management principles and performance measurement systems
induce change in values and beliefs, which in turn enable the new business
processes. Consequently, reengineering is not complete until all elements of
the business system diamond have been changed and aligned (e.g. Larsen &
Leinsdorff 1998), which is a process that may be undertaken iteratively in
order to gain the buy-in, acceptance and appreciation from the employees
involved (Larsen & Bjørn-Andersen 2001).
Moreover, alignment of the business processes with the business strategy
is considered important (Tinnilä 1995; Clemons et al. 1995; Sarkis et al.
1997; Lockamy & Smith 1997) as well as alignment with the information
technology strategy. Hence, recruitment of the necessary skill-base and
training are vital for BPR-project success, cf. Bashein et al. (1994) and
Martinez (1995). In addition to this, scoping the BPR-projects (Hall et al.
1993), assuring learning processes (Galliers 1997) as well as shared values
(Grover et al. 1995) are crucial for obtaining radical results.Change man-
agement emphasizing communication, training and handling of political
controversies is important in order to maneuver in a highly political land-
scape of a BPR project (McElrath-Slade 1994; Taylor 1995; Davenport
1995; Homa 1995). Finally, most authors agree that all BPR efforts are
unlikely to reach success unless the top management is committed, sup-
ported and engaged in the activities (e.g. Davenport & Short 1990; Bashein
et al. 1994; Willcocks & Smith 1995).
Discussion
The validity and applicability of a framework is of particular importance as
it is formulated to serve as recommendations and guidelines for future
implementations of eBusiness models. Hence, the robustness of the pro-
posed framework is discussed in the following.
As demonstrated above, literature suggests a huge number of factors that
may affect implementation of information systems and eBusiness models
in particular. In our synthesis and presentation of relevant factors we have
only selected those factors which were found as being important in more
than one source.
Since almost all eBusiness models are encompassed in the selected defini-
tion of Timmers (1998), we believe that the framework represents the
gross list of potentially relevant factors. However, the actual list of imple-
mentation factors for a particular e-business model may provide some
variation in the final outcome of the framework.
Our large survey of implementation factors within the four perspectives
resulted in a large number of factors which meaningfully could be grouped
into the three clusters: technology, market, and organization – the TMO-
model. Depending on the theoretical perspective, emphasis varied on the
three dimensions. However, given our multi-disciplinary approach it is
concluded that a feasible model for eBusiness model implementation has
to embrace the three dimensions.
Space does not provide the possibility of validating the framework here.
We have done that elsewhere, both theoretically and empirically, through
the application of the framework on a specific case of Haburi.com. Inter-
ested readers are referred to Larsen et.al. (2002).
References
Bashein, B.J., Markus, M.L. & Riley, P. (1994) “Preconditions for BPR Success –
And How to Prevent Failures”, Information Systems Management, Spring, pp.
7-13.
Champy, J. (1995) Re-engineering Management. Nicholas Brealey, London.
Clemons, E.K., Thatcher, M.E. & Row, M.C., “Identifying Sources of
Reengineering Failures: A Study of Behavioral Factors Contributing to
Reengineering Risks”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 9-36.
Coe, L.R. (1996) “Five Small Secrets to Systems Success”, Information Resources
Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 29-38.
Cooper, R.B. & Zmud, R.W. (1990) “Information Technology Implementation
Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach”, Management Science, Vol.
36, No. 2.
Dagi, T.F. (2001) “E-Business and the Venture World of 2001. Cordova Ventures
and The Georgia Institute of Technology”, Presentation at the Global E-Man-
agement MBA Seminar, Atlanta, Georgia.
Bjørn-Andersen, Henriksen & Larsen 159
ceedings at IFIP TC8 W.G 8.6, fourth working conference, April 7-10, Banff,
Canada, pp. 173-190.
Magretta, J. (2002) “Why Business Models Matter”, Harvard Business Review.
May, pp. 86-92.
Marble, R.P. (2000) “Operationalising the Implementation Puzzle: An Argument
for Eclecticism in Research and in Practice”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 132-147.
Martinez, E.V. (1995) “Successful Re-engineering demands IS/Business Partner-
ship”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 51-60.
McElrath-Slade, R. (1994) “Caution: Re-engineering in Progress”, HR Magazine,
Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 54-57.
Noble, C.H. (1999) “Building the Strategy Implementation Network”, Business
Horizons, November-December, pp. 19-28.
Premkumar, G. & Ramamurthy, K. (1995) “The Role of Interorganizational and
Organizational Factors on the Decision Mode for Adoption of Interorganiza-
tional Systems”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26, pp. 303-336.
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. & Nilakanta. (1994) “Implementation of Elec-
tronic Data Interchange: An Innovation Diffusion Perspective”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 157-177.
Ramamurthy, K. & Premkumar, G. (1995) “Determinants and Outcomes of Elec-
tronic Data Interchange Diffusion”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement, Vol. 42, pp. 332-351.
Ramamurthy, K., Premkumar, G., & Crum, M. (1999) “Organizational and
Interorganizational Determinants of EDI Diffusion and Organizational Per-
formance: A Causal Model”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Elec-
tronic Commerce, Vol. 9, pp. 253-285.
Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.
Sarkis, J., Presley, A. & Liles, D. (1997) “The Strategic Evaluation of Candidate
Business Process Reengineering Projects”, International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, Vol. 50, No. 2-3, pp. 261-274.
Timmers, P. (1998) “Business Models for Electronic Markets”, in Gadient, Y.,
Schmid, B.F. & Selz, D., EM – Electronic Commerce in Europe, EM – Elec-
tronic Markets, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Tinnilä, M. (1995) “Strategic Perspectives to Business Process Redesign”, Busi-
ness Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 44-59.
Tornatzky L.G. & Fleischer M. (1990) The Process of Technological Innovation.
Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Willcocks, L. & Smith, G. (1995) “IT-enabled Business Process Reengineering:
Organizational and Human Resource Dimensions”, Journal of Strategic Infor-
mation Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 279-301.
162 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS
Venture BPR: Diffusion Theory: System
Capitalists: Development:
Top management Job tenure
Management commitment Acceptance of
Education
change
The board Process orienta-
Resistance to
tion Training and sup-
Products and/or change
port
services Scoping of BPR
Appropriate user-
projects Job redesign
Revenue model designer interac-
Clean sheet prin- tion and under- Organizational
Organizational
ciple standing change
structure
Holistic redesign of Commitment to Organizational
True costs of
business system change redesign
starting and run-
ning the business Performance Recognition and Plan implementa-
based incentive management of tion process
Growth is obtained
structure diverse vested
organically or by Human resource
interests of IT
acquisition. Skill-base and development
stakeholders
training
Focus on goals Understand inno-
Social approval
Definition of (non) vation
Leadership
value adding Communicability
Measure effective-
Communication activities
Individual learning ness
Incentives Performance
Organizational
measurement
learning
Learning
Innovation cham-
Shared values pion
Communication Specialization
Training Centralization
Handling of politi- Formalization
cal controversies
Top management
support
Compatibility with
organizational
tasks
Relative advan-
tage
Cost
Profitability
Divisibility
Trialability
Observability
Internal need
164 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
— 11 —
On Interpretation of Strategic
Knowledge Creation in a Longitudinal
Action Research Project
Pentti Kerola
Tapio Reponen
Mikko Ruohonen
The model has two very different objectives. On one hand it is a normative
framework to guide the strategy development process, and on the other
hand it is also a way to increase interaction of stakeholders in the target
company to generate double-loop learning and to increase mutual under-
standing on ICT issues. The approach tries to combine systematic planning
with intuitive thinking. The EMIS model offers enough structure for the
strategy creation process, but emphasizes also qualitative and implicit con-
siderations.
The main contribution of the EMIS model is the early adaptation of inter-
active learning in the strategy generation process. Instead of “top-down” or
“bottom-up” thinking it represents “inside-out” thinking (Ein-Dor and
Segev 1981, Hirschheim 1982, Galliers 1987). Trying to collect insights of
different people on the potential use of ICT, creates the essential contents
of the strategy process (Lederer and Sethi 1996). The objective of creating
shared vision was intuitively present in the early stages of using the EMIS
model, but has become more explicit over time.
This approach has resemblance with Mintzberg’s concept of emergence
(Mintzberg 1994) and promotes interaction of people and information
systems (Lundeberg & Sundgren 1996). Emerging strategy is something
that evolves from different stakeholders’ ideas and thinking, not necessar-
ily from the formal planning process. In the EMIS model an effort is made
to collect the emerging ideas from different people in the organization.
S
NT
IPA C O NT E NT S
R TIC
PA Us
e rs
Co
ns u
D ev l ta n
AD el o ts
Ma P per B e n efits
nag s
Lin em
Ma e e nt Inv e st m e n ts
nag
S em
M a enio e nt
nag r A rc h ite c tu re
em
e nt
O rg a n isa t ion
C o mp eti tio n
St r ate g y
V is io n
L e c t u re s M e e t in g s Te a m -w or k Int e rv ie w E x p ert D ra w i ng u p
R e p or ti n g o f Pl a ns M E TH O DS
D e cis io n
D e sign
D e fi n it i on
S u rve y i ng
C o m m e n c e me n t
STAGES
minds of people who have participated into the strategy process. This
understanding may be supported with written reports, but the implementa-
tion is very much based on the internal views of people in the organization.
From this viewpoint all interaction between different stakeholders is
extremely important.
The role of researchers as outside facilitators is important in charting the
internal views of stakeholders. By interviewing people the researchers can
collect both common and conflicting opinions of ICT usage. Thus the final
strategy is a combination of both internal and external expertise.
texts. The design and decision sub-processes have more foci in combina-
tion and internalization within their responsive contexts.
Stakeholders inside and outside of the company define the strategy and
therefore the real nature of its planning is different from the rational plan-
ning models. Learning and knowledge creation during the process is
extremely important. Therefore, Nonaka’s knowledge creation sub-proc-
esses would help to understand strategy creation and implementation pro-
cesses. People use their tacit knowledge in their actions. Knowledge in
documents such as strategy plans is explicit knowledge. The main problem
is therefore to explain, convert, and express tacit knowledge in explicit
concepts and terms. We can say that challenge of management is to try to
explicate their “tacitness”.
Externalization provides symbols and icons for the organization, which
you can rely on and work with. The result of this process is conceptual
knowledge. Any written or encoded document is externalized from tacit
knowledge of process participants or is converted from other externalized
knowledge. The problem is, however, commitment. Many strategy plans
are never implemented due to low commitment, which is, in our view,
basically due to misunderstandings and errors in this knowledge conver-
sion. With systematic knowledge created through a combination it is pos-
sible to describe instructions, tools and systems for the organization. This
means an effective combination of plans and budgets with technology
development investments.
Operational knowledge is the result of internalization, i.e. the use of docu-
ments and artefacts for transformed routines and processes. In the case of
ICT deployment it means that people should adopt new procedures, work
tasks and business processes enabled by strategy-directed technology.
However, this is the main problem of organizations. It has been fashion-
able to discuss the productivity paradox and service quality, which in our
view is a problem of effective internalization. Internalization is also critical
for the “next circle or spiral” of organizational knowledge creation. With-
out a new understanding of business models and processes enabled by ICT
architectural solutions there is less possibility to upgrade the use of ICT.
In the following sections we describe and interpret two different, but
essentially interrelated areas of strategic knowledge creation, at first con-
cerning development of business strategy, and then development and
implementation of IR strategies as one essential sub-area of the business
strategy implementation.
174 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
replicated in each area level. The council controls and coordinates the
work of the board and managing director. In addition to this, all business
chains have their operative boards which decide on assortments and logis-
tics.
The nature of the cooperative organization is such that families may join as
members of an area cooperative and become owner-customers. This will
cost a certain amount of money and give all a share of the cooperative. All
members can then participate in the decision making of the local coopera-
tive by electing representatives to decisive bodies of the organization
(board of representatives, supervisory board and the board of directors).
However, all cooperatives have professional managers for running busi-
ness operations. The total number of these owner-customers is currently
over one million households. The number has been increasing for several
years, primarily due to active development work in the S-Group and
recently also because of the growing importance of customer management
in Finnish retailing industries.
In 1987 a new managing director was appointed from inside the Group. In
his earlier position he had already been responsible for business strategy
development and one of his first actions was to finalize a new strategy for
the group. The challenges described above were evident, and new operat-
ing strategies were needed. The socialization process was in the strategy
generation process within the top management of SOK. They visited sev-
eral other countries to find ideas for innovative solutions. They looked for
new development paths both with external influences and internal consid-
eration. The ideas matured with both interaction and personal thinking. In
this stage the methods of socialization were internal discussions and
meetings. The action researchers were not yet present.
On the basis of these idea-generating processes the management became
convinced that the traditional wholesaling should be replaced with nation-
wide chains. These strategic plans were generated mainly within the top
management of SOK with only some participation from the area coopera-
tives. Therefore, the suggested model was very centralized, where the
decisions about assortment and supply channels were made in the chain
management. The objective was to create a very cost effective distribution
model to compete with the existing structures.
Another idea was to link customers closely to the area cooperatives. Some
pioneering examples of customer bonus systems already existed and in
some cases they had contributed to increasing market share. S-Group was,
however, a very early adapter of this thinking. In a cooperative this is a
very natural way of operating, as the members of the cooperatives are also
owners of the organization. The objective was set to strengthen the cus-
tomer links.
In retrospect we can notice that business strategy generation was a SOK-
centered socialization process and SEci-cycle by its nature. Top manage-
ment of SOK was a key actor and player in the strategy process. Conse-
quently the management at the highest level of the Group was involved
and committed to new strategic lines, but at the area cooperative level the
knowledge of strategic objectives was limited. Management of area coop-
eratives was not present in the Orig- and Int-ba’s of the knowledge crea-
tion process, leaving them outsiders of the inner circles of the planning
process.
The socialization and externalization processes resulted in strategic plans
following the SEci-cycles. The role of wholesaling would consequently
change dramatically: there would be fewer steps in the delivery chain,
operations would be faster and customer contacts would be closer than
Kerola, Reponen & Ruohonen 177
earlier. The basic ideas of the strategy were based on the earlier experience
of the management, outside influence, and interaction.
From a knowledge creation viewpoint, tacit strategic information was
shared within a limited group. As the socialization process was only par-
tial, externalization to governing bodies and area cooperatives was a chal-
lenging task. This may, however, have been an intentional choice of the
managing director since the new strategy proposed a radical business
transformation from traditional wholesale-retail model to “business chain”
strategy. We can raise the question: when conflicting goals exist how
should socialization be realized? Presenting premature thoughts and plans
may result in early rejection.
This strategy was decided early 1988 and implemented over the following
ten years. The managing director clearly had a vision of how wholesaling
should be developed to meet the requirements of the future. Naturally
implementation requires making the plans explicit and acceptable. Because
of the limited nature of knowledge sharing in the business strategy devel-
opment process, the following IR strategy generations were essential in
implementing the new business strategy. The two cornerstones of the strat-
egy have proven to be essential for the whole business: integrated logistic
wholesale-retail chains and customer bonus systems (Figure 3). In Figure
3-Figure 6 we utilize the pictorial structure of seci-cycle where the upper
left rectangle refers into the s-focussed sub-process, the upper right rectan-
gle into the e-focussed sub-process etc.
- From 1988-1996
- Since 1996-
The main problem with implementing the business strategy was the dis-
cussion about the decision authority in different parts of the organization.
The main idea of the new operating system was a relatively centralized
decision concept, which was difficult or impossible to accept by many of
the area cooperatives. Some discussion had been going on regularly about
the right balance between local and central decision making. In the imple-
mentation of the model the degree of centralization has somewhat
changed.
Since then the strategy implementation process has continued along similar
lines. The concepts of market-oriented chains and customer bonuses have
been developed in the spirit of the earlier strategy, but always considering
the balance between the economies of scale and local expertise. The busi-
ness strategy calls for proper information systems to meet all the business
requirements. Thus in 1988 an information resource strategy creation pro-
cess was carried out for the first time. IR strategy process was clearly used
as part of the externalization and internalization process of the business
strategy. We can observe similar examples in several business cases:
information systems development is the concrete way of implementing
business objectives.
Recently S-Group has gained a greater market share than competitors and
it has been very profitable after many recession years. It is still a coopera-
tive, with customer ownership, but its business operations are very modern
and far from what might expect of a traditional, inefficient cooperative
company. This change has been received with a broad-minded strategy and
operations. The S-Group has turned this type of ownership into one of its
strengths.
In the new strategic plan a great deal of emphasis was put on the ICT
architecture of the new software generation. The plan was a technical
advancement of the earlier strategy. The business objectives remained
almost the same as earlier, but the role of operational chains was crystal-
lized. The needs of regional cooperatives were taken more into considera-
tion, which caused changes in the software design. On the overall corpora-
tion level the process can be interpreted as the complementary SECi-cycle.
The second update in 1993. The second revision of the IR strategy was
made in 1993. Again the new strategy built on the earlier plans and their
realization. The main reason for updating was that there were concerns
about the implementation of the new software. In the planning process the
integration between business and ICT worked very well, but during the
implementation phase the interaction was not high enough. The business
managers did not take the ICT questions enough into their agenda of
important decisions. The support of top management was, however,
always evident and made the implementation easier.
Both business and IS management felt that the progress was not fast
enough, and something should be done. The reasons for this situation were
not clear, therefore a new project was needed. The regional co-operatives
also felt that the systems development had been done in a too centralized
way.
EMIS approach was used in this stage in two ways. The researchers inter-
viewed top management to find out their views on how strategy imple-
mentation could be improved. They also interviewed managers of area
184 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
On the basis of these interviews and the discussion in the project group
more emphasis was put on the development of applications needed in the
local supermarkets and department stores. The quality and costs of the
project work was emphasized. Also an integrated approach to the earlier
decentralized information systems was introduced. The following applica-
tions were developed:
• management information systems
• chain management systems (1993)
• home shopping test system (1993)
• logistical systems (1994)
• management accounting systems (1995-1997)
• office systems (1997).
During the implementation process there has been a lot of discussion on
how S-Group’s information systems serve users and how competitive they
are compared to other systems. Business managers have not been totally
convinced of the quality of the information systems’ work. With an inter-
active planning process it was, however, possible to create a good starting
environment for the new ICT investments.
With NT-lenses this update could be seen as the iteration of the sECI-
cycle.
Kerola, Reponen & Ruohonen 185
which the wordings and structures of the strategy document was evaluated.
However, no assessment of understanding of strategy intentions was made.
The definition of application portfolio was more ICT centered, and the ICT
manager was one of the key persons. The project group followed and
supervised the development; the actual planning work was made by their
own and outside ICT experts. The final result of this definition stage was
an IR plan with an implementation schedule.
The interacting bas and their updates included the essential co-effort
between enterprise personnel and academic facilitators. This decision espe-
cially affected interaction between the CEO and the leader of the research
team. This included also the decision to utilize the EMIS-model.
Combination. The next step, after externalizations in the large, was to
develop concrete action plans for the explicit objectives of ICT business
use. This included a combination of stages to make the changes happen.
Architecture planning requires a stable view of the grounding of IS opera-
tions, i.e. long-term development of information systems. The ICT
department started to prepare IS infrastructure in order to add and develop
strategy-based applications. This was rather complicated due to a dispersed
regional decision-making structure. The SOK could not command all their
regional cooperatives to invest in new integrated information systems
while all of them had independent area activities. Selling the idea of the
new architecture and software generation to all stakeholders was the chal-
lenge. This was done with a combination of the influencing power of the
CEO and discussions and seminars.
The situation was problematic because of the different maturity of existing
information systems through the S-Group. Some business chains naturally
preferred to use their own systems and the others had their own IS culture.
It meant that some of the chains had to unlearn and relearn some IS fea-
tures and some had to learn both new business and IS activities (see more
Ruohonen 1991).
The period after accepting the first IR strategy was clearly dominated by
ICT experts who built a new business chain oriented ICT architecture in 5-
6 years. This included a number of difficult phases. Some application
development projects failed, some totally new start-ups had to be made,
and some technological platforms had to be changed due to the evolution
of ICT. However, the key ideas of the IR strategy plan remained and made
it easier to stay on the development path in a coordinated way.
Kerola, Reponen & Ruohonen 187
have been so convincing that some competitors have imitated them. The
use of different bonus systems has increased and chain models became
stronger than earlier. S-Group has, with its pioneering example, strength-
ened these trends.
We have also observed a change in thinking about the role of ICT in busi-
ness operations. We have interviewed managers and personnel in different
parts of the group to find out their attitudes towards using ICT in compe-
tition. We have clearly noticed that their conceptual thinking has changed
and understanding has increased in integrating business objectives and ICT
potential. It is, however, difficult to show and to prove this change in
internal “tacit” thinking. The changes happen slowly and people do not
necessarily notice them by themselves. An interactive strategy generation
and implementation process has clearly contributed to the learning effect
of ICT’s potential.
ICT has been used in S-Group to foster significant changes in operational
models. Based on these changes its competitive position has improved in a
remarkable way and it has gained market share. As a matter of fact ICT is
frequently used in breaking down barriers and implementing changes. This
often causes resistance to accepting new technology, since ICT is regarded
as the reason for changes, not as a tool of implementing new thinking. In
this case we do not know what would have happened with some other
strategy, but it is evident that continuing the old operating models would
have resulted in market failure.
In implementing the new software there have been conflicts and disagree-
ments, mainly concerning decision power and the degree of decentraliza-
tion. The socialization process of implementation was not as impressive as
in the planning stage. An interesting question can be raised, how should
the interaction in the implementation stage be organized?
Behind the success of the strategies there is enough shared vision about the
objectives and measures to obtain them. In the beginning of the process the
use of the EMIS model increased belief as to the possibilities of ICT in
supporting business. At the same time the shared objective to utilize ICT
was accepted. Using an action research approach, the researchers have had
an opportunity to influence the decision making in the case enterprise, and
to experience its changes, conflicts and learning themselves. The utiliza-
tion of NT-interpretations was tested and retested. With this first paper we
are able to share early experiences with other researchers – and some
practitioners, too.
190 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
References
Brancheau, J.C. & Wetherbe, J.C. (1987) “Key Issues in Information Systems
Management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Dickson, G.W., Leitheser, R.L., Wetherbe, J.C. & Nechis, M. (1984) “Key Infor-
mation Systems Issues for the 1980’s”, MIS Quarterly, September, Vol. 8, No.
3, pp. 135-159.
Ein-Dor, P. & Segev, E. (1981) A Paradigm for Management Information Sys-
tems, Praeger Publications, New York.
Galliers, R.D. (1987) “Information Systems Planning in the United Kingdom and
Australia – A Comparison of Current Practice”, Oxford Surveys in Information
Technology, 4, 223-255.
Galliers, R.D. (1991) “Strategic Information Systems: Myths, Reality and Guide-
lines for Successful Implementation”, European Journal of Information Sys-
tems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 55-64.
Hirschheim, R. (1982) Information Management Planning in Organizations, Lon-
don School of Economics, Working paper, London.
Hult, M. & Lennung, S. (1980) “Towards a Definition of Action Research: A Note
and Bibliography”, Journal of Management Studies 17(2), 241-250.
Kerola, P. & Reponen, T. (1996) “Action Research as an Intermediary Knowledge
Work Method between Information Systems Science and Practice – A Case
Study on Information Management Strategy Planning”, Publications of the
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series Discussion
and Working Papers 7.
Lederer, A.L., & Sethi, V. (1996) “Key Prescriptions for Strategic Information
Systems”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, 35-62.
Lundeberg, M. & Sundgren, B. (1996) (eds) Advancing Your Business –People
and Information Systems in Concert, EFI, The Economic Research Institute,
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
McFarlan, F.W. & McKenney, J.L. (1983) Corporate Information Systems Man-
agement – Issues Facing Senior Managers, Dow Jones Irwin, Homewood, Illi-
nois.
McFarlan, F.W. (1984) “Information Technology Changes the Way You Com-
pete”, Harvard Business Review 62(3), pp. 98-103.
Mintzberg, H. (1987) “The Strategy Concept I: Five P’s for Strategy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 11-24.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall.
Niederman, F., Brancheau, J.C. & Wetherbe, J.C. (1991) “Information Systems
Management Issues for the 1990s”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4, 475-500.
Kerola, Reponen & Ruohonen 191
Blanksida
— 12 —
Introduction
This chapter presents a number of patterns that surfaced during a series of
interviews around the subject of Information Management, held in 17 large
Swedish multi-national companies the year 2002 (Ulbrich & Nilsson,
2002). The content is mainly empirical but the findings are analysed
according to one of Mats Lundeberg’s frameworks: different levels of
abstraction (Lundeberg, 1993). Besides presenting the empirical findings,
the purpose with the chapter is to picture how this model can be used in
practice and to discuss what kind of patterns may occur while using it.
parts or levels, is that the model stresses the influence between the levels;
they do not exist in a vacuum.
Persons
Behaviour
Results
Activities
Information
Info. System
Environment
There are no universally true levels; different levels are important in dif-
ferent situations and different persons stress different levels, more or less.
Or more precisely, their fields of interest, day to day problems and chal-
lenges, will relate to different levels in the model. A technician working
with IS development will probably express more concern that relates to the
IS/IT level than a marketing person working in the same company. The
latter’s daily work will probably address the levels of results or activities.
People will also be more or less aware of the influence between the differ-
ent levels or areas, how for example one single action within marketing
affects the results of the company, or how the executives’ statements and
goals for the company will influence day-to-day activities in business pro-
cesses.
Purpose
The purpose of investigation was to gather information and input for forth-
coming meetings in the group. Several participants were, at this point in
time, newcomers; they had taken over the membership from a former col-
league, but there were also a few new companies in the group. The main
idea with the interviews was to gather information about the present situa-
tion in the companies. For example challenges, opportunities, problems
and threats facing the company and the individuals as professionals in their
work, and within the Information Management area. The interviews should
also cover major running or planned change and/or business development
projects within the organization.
The empirical material was gathered through semi-structured interviews
which were sent back to the interviewees afterwards. The interviews were
done with the representative in the group at SSE or another person he or
she recommended. The latter could for example be the Chief Accountant
or the Group Controller. All interviewees were working at the head office
or company group office. In several cases the interviewed persons also
belonged to the Executive Group in the company. Twenty individuals were
interviewed in total, i.e. in some cases more than one person participated in
the interview or was interviewed at another point in time. All interviews
were done between February and May 2002.
Nilsson 197
The interviews took approximately 1.5 hours and the individuals were
asked to speak freely around a couple of pre-defined areas, primarily
relating to their work and secondarily to the area of Information Manage-
ment. The sessions were always initiated by asking the individual to
describe their area of responsibility and what they presently worked with.
This chapter will present the findings in line with Lundeberg’s levels of
abstraction as described above. The findings are presented under the
headings: Persons and Behaviour, Results, Activities, Information, Infor-
mation Systems and Environment.
Results
This level of abstraction refers to the results that people try to achieve. It is
also the outcome of the business activities, or the goal of these activities.
In this investigation the result refers to business strategy and IT, valuation
and evaluation procedures of IT-projects and outsourcing as an optional
way to increase the efficiency of the IT-function.
Strategies
A majority of the 20 interviewees did not know if they had a company
wide IT-strategy. Several of them also questioned if this was necessary.
They meant that the overall business strategy included the IT-strategy. The
need for using IT is a consequence of the business and therefore the IT-
strategy should be embedded in the business strategy. If a separate IT-
strategy is needed it should contain, for example, constraints and policies
for the organization such as the infrastructure regarding operating system,
Nilsson 199
Investment Control
There seemed to be a large spread among the companies when it came to
monitoring and following up the cost for planned and implemented IT-pro-
jects. Some companies followed up their projects thoroughly with dedi-
cated controllers, others did nothing like it. The latter is common because
the evaluation is forgotten about when, for example, a system is up and
running. The individuals are engaged in new projects. The pre-planning
process requires a lot of time and effort, there is little energy left for
evaluations, and as long as no one asks for it, it is not done.
Previously all IT-investments were handled as direct costs and affected the
result directly. The bookkeeping rules have changed now and companies
are forced to treat IT investments like other investments, and gradually
depreciate the amount spent. Some of the interviewees thought this is good
because it gives a more relevant picture of the companies’ IT-portfolio and
its value. Others believed that this may lead to overspending because the
units do not have to face the total cost at once. It seemed however, that a
common theme in the companies was to write off the investments as fast as
possible.
Outsourcing
All interviewees mentioned that outsourcing is treated as an optional way
to go when discussing IT-issues and -investments. However, in reality, it
seemed almost only be done for IT-operations. Outsourcing can for exam-
ple be to manage and support hard- and software.
Outsourcing was also seen as challenging from a cost perspective. The
interviewees thought that it was difficult to monitor and follow up the
costs and evaluate whether outsourcing really resulted in the promised
resource and cost savings.
Activities
This level refers to activities taken by individuals to reach certain results.
In a company setting it may, for example, refer to business activities per-
formed to reach the intended results of the business.
200 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Shared Services
A common project that was under investigation and implementation in
several of the companies was the creation of a unit or function for shared
services. This means centralizing activities that are common for different
business units such as accounts payable, accounts receivable and/or
invoicing. But there could also be other common services within a com-
pany. The services provided by this centre are normally only offered inter-
nally but they can also be offered to customers outside the company. The
name used for this function or service differs among companies, for exam-
ple “internal service provider” or “advanced service administration pro-
vider”.
The purpose of a shared service centre is mainly to support the business by
providing high quality services, cheaper and more efficiently compared to
when all individual business units handle it separately. Some of the inter-
viewees questioned the idea. They had not experienced the promised
202 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Information
This level of abstraction refers to information individuals and business
processes use.
In 1993 the lead time for the report in this group corresponded to an aver-
age of thirteen working days. This means that the lead time has changed by
an average of four working days in nine years.
The results show that the group that expressed no need for changes in 1993
had compressed the lead-times by more days compared to the group that
expressed a wish to compress it. The “no change” group has on average
compressed the lead time by seven working days (six of the sixteen com-
panies). The “change” group has on average compressed it by five working
days since 1993.
Quarterly Reports
These reports are compulsory for companies noted on the Swedish Stock
Exchange in Sweden and are, in contrast to the monthly reports, public and
official information. These reports are more extensive than the internal
since a full balance and income sheet is required. The internal report may
be extensive too but in these cases the information need of the executives
decides the content of the report.
The public reports get a lot of attention in media. Just before they are
released, analysts speculate about their content. Once the information is
released, this may affect the stock rates to a smaller or larger degree. It is
important to minimize the risk that the information leak out before the
publication. One way is to compress the lead-time, the more time available
for consolidation of the material the greater is the risk that it will leak out.
But the pressure from investors and the stock exchange to get more fre-
quent and fast financial information has also forced the companies to com-
press the lead-times further.
In the investigation of 1993, 106 out of 210 companies reported that they
publish quarterly recurrent financial reports. The average lead-time was 33
working days after the end of the third month (standard deviation 10.7, a
spread from 12 to 60 working days). In this case only 23 % thought that
the lead-time should be compressed with in average five working days
within twelve months. In the current investigation 2002, fifteen companies
published the report and the average lead-time was 19 working days after
the end of the reporting period (spread 15 to 28 working days). The con-
clusion is that there is still a huge spread in lead-times, but still, the lead-
times have changed a lot compared to 1993. One explanation given to the
little interest in compressing the lead-times 1993 was that it was mainly
the available dates for the Board of Directors to meet that, in the end,
decided when it would be published. This is probably still relevant to some
204 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
extent, but the pressure from investors, banks and the stock exchange is
much bigger today. If a company wants to meet their present and future
investors’ needs they will have to adjust to their demands towards current
and frequent information.
Information Systems
This abstraction level refers to the information systems that collect and
process information to and from the business environment.
Environment
This level of abstraction refers to the immediate business environment.
This environment interacts with stakeholders within the company, puts dif-
ferent kinds of constraints on it, or is a source for new business opportuni-
ties.
should be careful with extending the results outside the studied companies
and area.
References
Nilsson, K. (1994), Rapportering i svenska storföretag 1993 – rapporteringstider
för kvartals/tertialsrapporter, delrapport 2, (Recurrent management accounting
reporting in Swedish large companies 1993 – lead times for quartly reports,
part 2), EFI Research Report, SSE, Stockholm.
Nilsson, K. (1999), Ledtider för ledningsinformation, (Lead times for Executive
Information), Doctors Dissertation, EFI, SSE, Stockholm.
Lundeberg, M. (1993), Handling Change Processes – A Systems Approach, Stu-
dentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Ulbrich, F. & Nilsson, K. (2002), Frågor kring ämnet Information Management i
svenskt näringsliv våren 2002, (Information Management Related Issues in
Swedish Industry, the Spring 2002), EFI, Electronic working paper series,
SSE, Stockholm.
— 13 —
Introduction
This chapter discusses a conceptual framework for management of IT-
related change, developed by Mats Lundeberg (1992; 1993; 1995; 1996;
2000). While focusing this specific framework, the chapter also addresses
issues that pertain to the development, adoption, adaptation and use of
conceptual frameworks in general.
The Lundeberg framework has been used extensively in teaching as well
as in research, in particular at the Stockholm School of Economics, for
more than a decade. Over time, models in the framework have been
modified several times and its areas of intended and actual application
have expanded. In my view, these developments suggest at least three
reasons for providing a commentary on the framework, its evolution and
use:
First, the generality and versatility of the framework has proven to be a
major benefit to its potential and actual usefulness, while its concomitant
complexity can be an adoption threshold. A commentary on the framework
may provide additional avenues to understanding and using the frame-
work.
1
The author wishes to thank Allen S. Lee, Christofer Tolis and Alf Westelius for
valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter; the Computer
Information Systems Department and the Electronic Commerce Institute, Georgia
State University, for providing a stimulating environment in which to pursue the
ideas contained in this chapter; the Sweden–America Foundation and the Carl
Silfvén Scholarship Fund for research funding.
210 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Second, while the framework has found a variety of uses, potential uses
remain unexplored and the use of the framework to date has not been
reviewed. By discussing current and potential uses of the framework, I
hope to provide input to further use as well as development of the frame-
work.
Third, while frameworks are not uncommon within information manage-
ment, issues pertaining to the evolution and use of frameworks are seldom
discussed. A discussion of this particular framework may serve to shed
light on some issues of general interest concerning conceptual frameworks.
I depict this chapter as a commentary because I do not intend to provide
anything near a complete description or discussion of the entire Lundeberg
framework. Rather, this is a short and personal selection of views and
comments on the framework and on its use, offering the reader either an
introduction to the framework or an opportunity to reflect on her/his view
of it. Correspondingly, the chapter offers observations and pointers regard-
ing approaches to use and areas of use for conceptual frameworks in the
area of information management.
Below, I summarize briefly some of the framework’s key models and their
characteristics, as well as comment on intellectual roots and some under-
lying principles of the framework. After providing this basis, I comment
on drifts in purposes over time, review how the framework has been used
and discuss avenues for further development and application of the frame-
work. Finally, I point to some considerations in the development of
frameworks as well as to applying frameworks in research within informa-
tion management.
A Framework Apart:
Characteristics, Roots and Mechanisms
The core model of the Lundeberg framework is the levels of abstraction
model. This model builds on principles from mathematics and formal logic
(Whitehead & Russell, 1910), systems theory (Churchman, 1968), informa-
tion theory (Shannon & Weaver, 1949), information systems theory (Lange-
fors, 1973/1966) and theories on communication, learning and epistemology
(Watzlawick et al., 1967; Bateson, 1972, 1979). The basic idea of this model
(see Figure 1 for two typical generic versions) is that a certain situation (i.e.
a selection of phenomena situated in time) can be classified into process and
structure aspects and that these aspects can be “sorted” in accordance with
their “level of abstraction” (Lundeberg, 1993; 1996).
Mähring 211
A key claim for this model is that through sorting, different aspects of a
complex situation and the interrelationships between aspects can be better
understood. Execution of the sorting requires identification of entities as
well as determination of how they fit into the pre-determined framework.
Persons
Behavior Individual
Perspectives
People
Results in Action
Intersubjective
Conceptions
Business
Activities
Activities
Represented
Information Information
Information
System
Information Systems Physical
Data
Environment
While the framework is in practice open for redesign to fit a certain prob-
lem area, the standard presentation of the levels model emphasizes prede-
termined levels (Lundeberg, 1993). An example of use of the predeter-
mined levels to structure a problem area can be found in Nilsson (2003).
An example of how the abstraction levels model can be adapted is shown
in Figure 2.
Individual
Perspectives
Behavior
Strategy
Methods
Strategy
Processes
Improvement
Methods
Improvement
Processes
2
Here, the levels model also resembles an ends–means hierarchy.
Mähring 213
Person Person
Relationship Behavior
Preconditions Outcomes
The linkage between the levels model and the X-model is that each stage
in the X-model can be described with guidance from the levels model. The
two categories that compound the levels model in the overview version of
the X-model can be called relationship and task issues, “soft” and “hard”,
or behavioral and non-behavioral aspects of the studied process. The guid-
ance from the levels model for this analysis varies depending on which
version of the framework is used. Early versions of the framework use all
levels for each state, whereas later version separate structure and process
levels and thus vary what levels pertain to structure versus process states.
Another model in the Lundeberg framework is called the Y-model (Figure
4). In its basic structure, this model seems to resemble a “rational” deci-
sion model, distinguishing between actual and desired state, the problem
(the gap between actual and desired states, or change requirements), alter-
native solutions and action plans (cf. Simon, 1977; also operationalizations
e.g. in Hill, 1981). Used as an analysis tool, however, the Y-model does
not assume a sequential process through “stages”, a significant difference
towards a rational (as well as bounded-rational) decision model.
Current
Situation
Need Change
for Alternatives Outcomes
Changes
Intended
Future
Situation
Below the surface, the Y-model can be seen as reframing the abstraction
level model in the form of an ends–means hierarchy. Conceptually, goals,
change needs and change alternatives can be seen as a potentially infinite
ends-means chain (cf. Lundeberg, 1996; 2003). In this use, the focus
becomes one of selecting appropriate problem focus and problem contexts.
Like the levels model, this model leaves considerable discretion to the
user(s) regarding how the model is applied.
While there are other models in the framework, these three models can be
seen as the most central and other models do not substantially differ from
these in their characteristics, albeit in foci, which includes individual and
shared perspectives and a model depicting iterative action towards goal
attainment (similar to a cybernetic model).
Another type of characteristic that is important for the understanding of the
Lundeberg framework – and quite different from the aspects discussed
above – is how the framework is presented in writing. A brief look at the
use of language in most presentations of the framework serves to illustrate
a central aspect of the framework itself as well as of the basis for under-
standing the framework. Here are a few examples: “The better you are able
to perceive reality, the better you are prepared to act” (Lundeberg, 1993, p.
1); “Person outcome: All executives agree on what we want to achieve”
(ibid., p. 17); “Reality in a business contains a number of concrete phe-
nomena – for instance, different persons, things and activities, that you can
observe” (Lundeberg, 1996, p. I:9); “There are different transformation
processes (different observation, interpretation and coding processes)
between reality, perceptions of reality, and representations of perceptions
of reality” (Lundeberg, 1996, p. I:9-I:10); “This book is based on the idea
of social construction of reality” (Lundeberg, 1993, p. 75); “Reality is pri-
marily a mental phenomenon” (ibid.); “… if you want to perceive reality
as it is, you must perceive other persons’ perceptions of reality” (ibid.).
The above sentences have been selected to illustrate the use of language
and coverage of topics of a whole text, not to test consistency between
these statements as such. As we can see, the ground covered in these pres-
entations of the framework ranges from the concrete, practical, personal,
normative and action-urging to the abstract, complex, impersonal and theo-
retical. In fact, most presentations of the framework have to date been
geared primarily at a student/practitioner audience, with a secondary
research audience certainly not being neglected. That the language is in
large parts geared towards practitioners partly explains, I believe, some
inconsistencies between statements seemingly conveying epistemological
positions (as indicated above and as discussed by Nissen, 2003): To a cer-
Mähring 215
3
The creation of I-graphs for determining information needs actually relies on a
principle similar to the levels of abstraction: information precedence graphs build
on a principle of alternate sequencing of information units and information proces-
ses (Lundeberg and Andersen, 1974, ch. 2).
4
The OSI model can be likened to a logical levels model of communication proto-
cols (see Zimmerman, 1980; Miller, 1981).
5
For discussions of the ISAC methodology and its influence, see Nilsson (1995)
and Iivari & Lyytinen (1998).
216 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Thus, highly consistent with the evolution from earlier work with informa-
tion systems methodology and business process design, the initial purpose
of the Lundeberg framework was, in my view, primarily to provide tools
for analyzing situations and processes concerning focused and planned
organizational change, primarily related to information and information
technology (Lundeberg, 1993).
However, even from early on (ibid.), the framework also came to include
elements that focused self-reflection by the “user” of the framework, the
organizational actor(s) employing the models in the framework in organi-
zational settings. As such, the framework is also positioned as (what I call)
“a cognitive toolbox” for IT-related change, with a strong focus on indi-
viduals and on processes of social interaction.
While not expressly positioned as such by the originator, models in the
Lundeberg framework were also soon to be used as analysis models in
research within information management (e.g. Mårtensson & Mähring,
1992). Although this may seem to be a purpose closely related to the origi-
nal, the difference is in fact fundamental and largely ignored: It requires of
the framework as well as the researcher(s) to span the distance between
practicable action and academic research in one stretch. It also, most
likely, leads the researcher to use practical constructs, rather than research
constructs, in attempting to build theory (for a discussion on theory build-
ing, see Lee, 2003)6. This observation brings us to the uses of the frame-
work and how these uses have evolved over time.
Examples of Uses
and Avenues for Further Development
The framework has been used in teaching and learning in academic envi-
ronments for over 15 years. Several hundred majoring students have used
the framework in “real life” projects in organizations, as part of a majoring
course in information management at the Stockholm School of Economics.
Course ratings for this course have been consistently excellent and many
students have testified to the learning effects of using the framework.
Important in this context is that the framework has been learnt through
action-based learning, i.e. problem-based learning taking place in actual
organizational settings and with one of several purposes being to influence
actual organizational practices. The framework has also been used in
6
Lee (2003) uses the terms first-level constructs and second-level constructs.
Mähring 217
model in this study may also have limited the identification of causal rela-
tionships, especially since chains of X-models were not used. For example,
the X-model in this application does not readily help determine the impact
on actual lead times of executives’ attitudes towards lead times (since
attitudes are classified as a type of outcome), only the impact on lead times
of their interest in and demands on lead times (ibid., ch. 10).
In Mähring (2002), the levels model is related to the use of Strauss & Cor-
bin’s (1990) concept “levels of analysis”. This concept is used to develop a
model of multiple levels of analysis for a case study of project governance.
The model distinguishes between the information system under develop-
ment, project work, project management, project governance (the primary
level of analysis), corporate IT governance, the organization and the envi-
ronment. Although inspired by the abstraction levels model, these levels of
analysis basically constitute a systems levels model, where the “degree of
abstraction” is of lesser importance.
Mårtensson (2001) also constructs a framework for analysis based on
models from the Lundeberg framework, in this case a model that classifies
the foci of management processes in terms of levels (person, business,
information) as well as process characteristics (preparing, performing,
evaluating). Like Nilsson (1999), this model is used to structure the pres-
entation and analysis of data. Mårtensson (2001) also uses two levels of
change and learning as part of framing and explaining a key finding,
namely a distinct difference between execution-oriented management pro-
cesses and development-oriented management processes (ibid., pp. 288-
291). Clearly an example of abstraction levels, this model is also highly
influenced by Argyris’ & Schöns’ (e.g. 1995) model of single-loop and
double-loop learning.
Westelius (1996) exhibits perhaps the most extensive use of models from
the Lundeberg framework in a research study to date. This study uses the
X-model to build an a priori overview model of a type of change process
(development and implementation of principles of managerial accounting
and control). This a priori model is then used to guide interviews. Fur-
thermore, an X-model is used to depict the research process (ibid., p. 39).
Another model in the framework (a perspectives model not discussed
above) is used to build understanding of how project managers and other
actors utilize perspectives of different stakeholder groups in accounting
change. Further, a levels of abstraction model is used to target how
involved actors focus concrete output, such as measurements and descrip-
tions, while paying less attention to the uses of measurements and descrip-
tions (second level) and effects of the use (third level).
Mähring 219
It might be that the use of the framework as a tool for theory building has
been less frequent and perhaps harbors the most potential for future
research undertakings. To discuss this, however, I first need to briefly con-
vey what the words “theory”, “model” and “framework” are intended to
mean in this context.
Theory, here, means “a statement of relations among concepts within a set
of boundary assumptions and constraints” (Bacharach, 1989). Adding to
this, a theory would normally consist of a number of statements and the
statements would aspire to some degree of generality, e.g. being valid over
a certain range of specific instances (Sutherland, 1975; Weick, 1989).
The word model can denote as least two different things. It can either denote
a research model, often depicting causal relationships between phenomena,
but sometimes depicting e.g. a temporal/sequential ordering of phenomena
or events (cf. Mohr, 1982; Langley, 1999). A research model depicts key
aspects of a theory but does not by itself constitute a theory (it rarely cap-
tures all the relationships between concepts, nor a comprehensive view of
boundaries and constraints). A conceptual model, on the other hand, might
provide a view, a perspective on a certain type of phenomenon. It need not
directly depict a theory but can be related to one or several theories. Its aim
is often to provide guidance for practical action or to convey a worldview.
The Lundeberg framework consists of conceptual models, not research
models and in the above research examples, these models were often used to
code or structure data. (the other frequent use of models in the above exam-
ples was as a basis for creating a framework for analysis.)
Finally, I here see a framework as either a high-level model aimed at con-
veying a worldview or a set of conceptual models with similar purpose.
(Yes, this means that the boundary between higher-level conceptual mod-
els and frameworks is somewhat blurred.) For example, the MIT Manage-
ment in the 90s research program (Scott Morton, 1991) used a framework
consisting of five concepts or entities: people, tasks, structure, technology
and management processes – all interrelated. Based on a model commonly
known as “Leavitt’s diamond” (Leavitt, 1965), this framework can be seen
as a guidance for the research program; part of a worldview (thus possible
part of the definition of boundaries of a theory) but not a theory or model
subjected to (or even possible to subject to) testing.
Unlike a theory or a research model, which can be subjected to scrutiny
e.g. through falsification, a conceptual model or a framework does not
constitute a well-defined knowledge claim, and thus cannot be subjected to
scrutiny, at least not in the same way as a theory and not with the purpose
Mähring 221
model, which could easily be used to depict both types of sequences men-
tioned above, would seem well suited as a tool for structuring a process the-
ory in this vein. Use of the X-model would also facilitate increased attention
to “interfaces” between phases, e.g. between episodes and events.
While this example provides an instantiation of how theory building may
occur with the help of one conceptual model, the question remains how a
researcher can benefit from using a conceptual framework, such as the
Lundeberg framework, in building theory? The following steps indicate a
possible route of some generality:
• Determine areas where use of the framework is likely to support con-
tradiction of existing theory. This requires a literature review of the
research area in question.
• On the basis of the generic Lundeberg framework, develop a “substan-
tive” analysis framework for the specific problem area and support that
framework through use of reference theories (e.g. communication the-
ory, systems theory, theories on learning) that are consistent with the
specific framework, as well as existing, proprietary theory from the
specific research area.
• Use the reference theories, proprietary theories and the substantive
framework to design a study that attempts to falsify proprietary theory
in the targeted topic area.
• Revise the substantive framework in accordance with findings and pro-
pose both the specific findings and the revised framework as research
contributions.
In the use of the framework for research purposes in general, and for the-
ory building in particular, I would especially like to stress the importance
of linking specific instantiations of the framework extensively to theory.
While these are some ideas for developing the research use of the Lunde-
berg framework, there are surely other possible paths to do so. Herein,
however, the time has come to conclude the discussion.
Concluding Remarks
The above discussion reminds us that intellectual structures, including
models and frameworks, shape our thinking even as we reshape these
structures through applying them. Methods, models and frameworks thus
focus, guide and restrict our vision and attention, thereby having subtle and
Mähring 223
References
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (1994) Tolkning och reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi
och kvalitativ metod {Interpretation and Reflection: Philosophy of Science and
Qualitative Method}, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Andersson, M. (2002) “Developing Professional Services in Project-Intensive
Organizations: An Information Management Perspective”, unpublished disser-
tation proposal, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
Andersson, M. (2003) “PRIO: Verksamhetsutveckling i projektintensiva organisa-
tioner” {PRIO: Business Development in Project-Intensive Organizations},
SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, No. 2003:03,
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm. http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/abs/
hastba2003_003.htm
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1995) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and
Practice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989). “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 496-515.
Mähring 225
Background
In his research Mats Lundeberg has focused on how people use informa-
tion technology in business processes. (Lundeberg, 1995, 1996) One con-
tribution from this research he calls “A Multilevel Approach to Informa-
tion Management.” I will call this the “ML approach”.
In his presentations of the ML approach Lundeberg (1995, 1996) refers,
among other sources, to Argyris and Schön (1978), Bateson (1972, 1979),
Berger and Luckmann (1966), and Watzlawick et al. (1967). This indicates
his familiarity with other research traditions than the Anglo-Saxon, logi-
cal/empirical (LE), one. LE advocates an ideal of arriving at objective truth
of an observer-independent reality. The sources mentioned above all work
within a Continental, hermeneutic/dialectic (HD) tradition and beyond.
This tradition advocates an ideal of a community of observers/investigators
arriving at an intersubjective, coherent truth regarding some domain of
observation/interaction. LE traditions presuppose it is possible strictly to
separate theory from practice. HD traditions perceive theory and practice
as dialectically related. With respect to causation LE researchers look for
linear causal chains. HD researchers look for mutual and longer recursive
chains of determination. Nissen (2002) gives a brief overview of the two
traditions. It builds on an extensive study of their metascience in Rad-
nitzky (1970).
Both traditions comprise a number of schools (Radnitzky, 1970). The most
extreme of these Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have called objectivism and
subjectivism. All of the sources for the ML-approach mentioned above
stand far from subjectivism. The authors behind them even seem open to
go beyond the HD tradition. One emergent alternative intended to over-
come the myths of objectivism and subjectivism has been presented briefly
230 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
in Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and more extensively in Lakoff and Johnson
(1999). They call their alternative an experientialist one.
Lundeberg in his presentations, surprisingly, only applies to a limited
extent what researchers from HD traditions write. Lundeberg (1995, 1996)
also sometimes writes in a way that leads readers to perceive him as
applying LE traditions in contradiction to HD traditions. Here I will argue
that the ML approach would gain from better coherence in what it fetches
from different traditions. This I will do by reflecting upon what I call the
ecology of the ML approach. Before I address that issue I will discuss two
other issues. First, I will discuss some problems encountered by research-
ers, who mix methods originally developed within different traditions.
Second, I will present how I have understood the ML approach by study-
ing Lundeberg (1995, 1996).
The text in Figure 1 follows Berger and Luckmann (1966). The dialectic,
however, also applies to parts of societies like business enterprises and
smaller business units. After presenting their fundamental dialectic the
authors write:
It may also already be evident that an analysis of the social world
that leaves out any one of these three moments will be distortive.
One may further add that only with the transmission of the social
world to a new generation (that is, internalization as effectuated in
socialization) does the fundamental social dialectic appear in its
1
The book by Berger and Luckmann originally appeared in 1966. It has later been
reprinted repeatedly. My page references go to a Pelican Book reprinting from
1984.
Nissen 233
fors then suggests a way out of this apparent dilemma. What does Lange-
fors’ resolution of this dilemma entail? Does his resolution hang together
with other sources like Berger and Luckmann (1966)?
By his fifth presupposition Lundeberg (1995) distinguishes between
2
ongoing inseparable processes and partial descriptions of these . In this
context he also proposes a general model for describing “all processes in
business firms” (ibid., p. 86). Below I will discuss some implications of
this claim.
2
Its wording seems strange to me. It separates “personal behavior” and “task
activities” from interacting people of flesh and blood. This seems to contradict the
main message of the fifth presupposition.
Nissen 235
3
particularly in the Vienna school of unified science . An alternative could be
to resolve Langefors´ dilemma by ideas from Berger and Luckmann (1966).
That might avoid assumptions which contradict each other.
3
A group of scientists and mathematicians who, starting in the 1920s and under
the leadership of Moritz Schlick, met regularly to discuss the foundations of
mathematics and natural science. According to them, scientific knowledge is the
only kind of factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be
rejected as meaningless. (Also cf. Radnitzky, 1970, Vol. I, 22-24.)
4
Readers not familiar with the ML approach should acquaint themselves with it
by reading Lundeberg (1995, 1996).
236 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
have drawn Figure 2a and b. These I have adapted from figures in Bateson
(1979) on pages 209 and 213 respectively.
Figure 2a) logical levels of inquiry and theorizing, b) logical levels of control.
Figure 3. Beer’s Viable Systems Model. Adapted from Leonard (1994, p. 354).
stands for a business activity. Such activities are recursively coupled to the
present environment by flows of persons, material, and data5. They are
6
also coupled to their respective management functions , albeit only by
flows of data. People in operations or management have to interpret these
data. In cases of IT-artefacts handling or producing such data, the inter-
pretation has been performed beforehand by people developing the arte-
facts7.
An operation, its coupling to some relevant part of the present environ-
ment, and to its management function constitute the first level of recursion.
Seen from a higher level what has to be controlled is a number of opera-
tions working concurrently. Beer calls this system of operations and their
management “system 1”. However, these operations generally are, to some
extent, interdependent. This calls for a special control function, which I
called “coordination” above. This coordinating function Beer calls “system
2”. It is needed to ensure that the different elements of system 1 act in
harmony. This means that it prevents uncontrolled oscillations between
various operations in system 1. Still, the different operating units within
system 1 and their management are in the model perceived as largely
autonomous. They have their own relations with the “external” environ-
ment.
The control function called system 3 is ultimately responsible for the
“internal” stability of the organization. Many data flows connect it down-
ward in Figure 3. By this I intend to indicate that system 3 is predomi-
nantly alert to what is shown below it in Figure 3. The more limited
exchange of data with higher policy levels prevents these from becoming
flooded with data. This system has to take up management tasks when
decisions have to be made from perspectives of two or more operating
units. Two-way communication about resource bargaining can furnish an
example.
5
In Figure 3 all transmission of what often is called “messages” has been rendered
as data. This I have done in order to focus on the fundamental importance of
interpretation before data can inform directly or mediated via a data processing
program. The commonly used conduit metaphor hides this fact. It makes people
wrongly believe information and knowledge can be sent like packages over
technical links. Lakoff and Johnson, (1980, pp. 206, 231) argue why the conduit
metaphor misleads.
6
A management function will exist even in the case an operation is performed by
a self-steering group.
7
What is said for interpretation of data as this level is valid for such interpretation
at higher levels, too.
Nissen 243
8
The steps might be seen as steps “outward”. The order follows the order of the
previous text. Hence their order should not be taken as an order to follow in any
particular situation.
Nissen 245
in Argyris and Schön (1978) and Argyris (1990). I offer openly expressing
and handling conflicting views as a second step to a broader context.
The ML approach presupposes organizations trying to make good use of
information technology put on the market. However, these organizations
have to do so in an environment of powerful suppliers with (partially)
other goals. The existing ML approach does not alert its users to this fact.
In Figure 3 information technology is only implicit by the fact that today
data processing and transmission often gets a lot of technical support. No
presupposition is made as to the purpose of this support. This I count as a
third step in broadening the context.
The ML approach explicitly stresses the need to distinguish data and
information in coherence with Langefors (1993). However, in Lundeberg
(1995, 1996) the author does not seem to follow this advice consistently.
Langefors’ resolution to avoid the trap of solipsism induces descriptions of
“reality” in a fact language of LE close to the ideas of unified science of
the members of the Vienna circle. Here, this paper offers the option to
resolve Langefors’ dilemma by building on Berger and Luckmann (1966).
Figure 1 and the comments to it indicate how this fourth step of broaden-
ing the context could avoid invoking contradictory presuppositions from
LE and HD.
Lundeberg (1995, p. 86, Figure 3) presupposes that “all processes in busi-
ness firms can be described by this model.” His figure shows a (hierarchi-
cal) input-output model. His models, illustrating the existing ML approach,
apply this pattern. Of course a researcher may decide only to produce hier-
archical input–output models for describing business processes. However,
I doubt the fruitfulness of always sticking to this kind of model. As a fifth
step to broaden the context I suggest other models and metaphors also
being applied. As an example I have sketched Beer’s VSM model. This
model also indicates some features hidden by hierarchical input-output
models. They hide recursive loops. They also hide, or at least do not put
any focus on, time constants important to avoid dangerous oscillations in
dynamic systems.
The ML approach repeatedly stresses distinguishing levels of logical typ-
ing. Only a hierarchy of members of a class, the class and of classes of
classes, etc. seems implied. Bateson’s (1972, 1979) distinction between
logical types generated by shifting the focus of observation is briefly
quoted (Lundeberg, 1995, p. 86) but then ignored. Bateson’s (1972, pp.
177-193), arguing about different abstract levels of communication and
meta-communication, presents these as another case of logical typing.
246 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Finally, Bateson (1979, pp. 216-217) argues for a distinction between two
logically different types of learning. He subsumes all his examples of logi-
cal typing under one heading. This he does as part of his efforts to find
“patterns that connect.” He does not state them as the same phenomena.
Explicitly to recognize all three of Bateson’s examples of logical typing I
offer as a sixth step to broaden the context of the ML approach.
In presenting Beer’s VSM I broadened the concept of the total environ-
ment to include the organization studied, too. This I did to alert model
users that our common “internal” – “external” distinction might become
misleading. This I offer as a final and radical seventh step of broadening
the context of the ML approach.
This paper has offered and argued for a number of steps to broaden the
context of applying the ML approach. A number of supplementary per-
spectives have been offered viewing the context of organizations using and
supplying information technology. This I have done in the spirit of
Bateson’s (1979) argument that two descriptions are better than one.
References
Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organiza-
tional Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Per-
spective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Ballantines Books, New York.
Bateson, G. (1979) Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, Wildwood House, Lon-
don.
Beer, S. (1994) Beyond Dispute: The Invention of Team Syntegrity, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester.
Berger, P. & T. Luckmann (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge, Doubleday Anchor Books, New York.
Dahlbom, B. (Ed.) (1995) The Infological Equation: Essays in Honour of Börje
Langefors, Department of Informatics, School of Economics and Commercial
Law, Göteborg, Sweden.
Dittrich, Y., Floyd, C. & Klischewski, R. (Eds.) (2002) Social Thinking – Software
Practice, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind
and its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books, New York.
Nissen 247
Blanksida
— 15 —
Information Management:
Defining Tasks and
Structuring Relationships
Dietrich Seibt
Introduction
The appearance of “Information Management” (abbreviated “IM”) as a
management concept for planning, design, development, implementation,
controlling, etc. of “Information Systems” (abbrev. “IS”) can be seen as a
reaction to, or a consequence of, new “Information and Communication
Technologies” (abbrev. “ICT”), which arrived approximately at the end
of the Seventies (Synnott, 1981; Synnott & Gruber, 1981; Szyperski,
1981, Horton & Marchand, 1982). Interestingly enough the notion “IM”
has not found too much acceptance and usage since the beginning of the
Eighties. Other similar notions as “Information Resources Management,”
“Management of Information and Communication Technology and
Information Systems,” or “Information Systems Management” are also
quite common. Some writers concentrate on the strategic aspects of IM
only.
Most writers agree that IM has several dimensions. First it has a TASK
dimension: IM itself includes a large number of management tasks,
which have to be fulfilled to solve different kinds of problems associ-
ated with the usage of ICT to support organisations – especially
firms/companies – to achieve their goals and to do their business effi-
ciently and effectively. On the one hand IM has to decide, which tasks
of the organisation should be supported by ICT and by the development
of IS. Secondly IM has a TECHNOLOGY dimension. In many compa-
nies IM is responsible for a huge number of technical questions. These
must be answered to ensure successful development, operating, admini-
stration and maintenance of the technical parts of all IS which are run-
ning within a company. On the other hand IM uses ICT to a large extent
to fulfil its own tasks. Thirdly IM has an ORGANISATION dimension.
IM has to decide on structures and processes of the organisation, which
250 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
fit best with the technological solutions for the benefit of the company:
i.e. for the sake of achieving company goals. In most organisations IM
acts as an organisational unit – as an institution – which is responsible to
fulfil the above mentioned IM-tasks. Fourthly IM has a PERSON
dimension. Not only organisation structures and processes, but also
individual persons, groups etc. must fit within ICT-solutions. Some
writers integrate “organisation” and “person” aspects under the dimen-
sion “organisation.”
“Information Systems” are complex phenomena. They will be successful
for their owners, if they are designed, implemented and managed as man-
machine-systems – as socio-technical systems – consciously considering
their specific organisational contexts. Each organisation has many of such
IS in different stages of their “lives.” IM has to make sure that the four
above mentioned dimensions fit together for each IS during its whole life-
time (see Leavitt, 1965).
Follow
Goals Goals Change
Up
Studies
Studies
• “Information-Function”
• “Information-Infrastructure.”
Each company has its individual “Information-Function,” i.e. the entirety
of tasks, which are related to information and communication as economic
goods. The concept of the Information-Function comprises not only man-
agement tasks but also service tasks and other tasks in the fields of ICT-
employment, which can not be seen as management.
Additionally each company has its individual “Information-Infrastructure,”
i.e. the entirety of systems (hardware, software, etc.), resources, proce-
dures, regulations etc. for the purpose of production, dissemination and
usage of information.
The Information-Function has potentials/capabilities which can be
employed to achieve the strategic goals of the company. Heinrich states
that the top goal of IM is to build up an Information-Infrastructure, by
which the potentialities/capabilities of the Information-Function can be
transformed into company success (Heinrich, pp. 20ff). Effectiveness and
efficiency are formal objectives, which should guide all IM-activities. Like
other areas of management (e.g. Human Resources Management, Logis-
tics-Management, etc.), IM is a cross-functional type of management.
Heinrich, who describes his IM-approach as “management-centred,” dif-
ferentiates three layers of IM (Heinrich, 2002, pp. 22–23):
• Strategic IM
• Administrative IM
• Operative IM
The three layers represent a hierarchical approach. The first layer “Strate-
gic IM” concentrates on the holistic view of the Information-Infrastructure.
The second layer “Administrative IM” (tactically oriented tasks) engages
in the various components of the Information-Infrastructure. The third
layer “Operative IM” concentrates on operating and maintaining the
Information-Infrastructure. Most of the tasks of this third layer are not
management tasks but service tasks. Figure 2 shows the tasks of the three
layers (Heinrich, 2002). One difficulty is the fact that each of Heinrich’s
IM tasks is bound to only one of the three layers. In reality many IM tasks
have to be fulfilled across more than one layer, e.g. the tasks of planning,
controlling, auditing and the tasks of technology management, human
resources management and business process management.
The support of IM-tasks by methods, techniques and tools is important
enough for Heinrich to introduce the field of “Information Engineering” as
254 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
a special field of IM. The second half of his book on Information Man-
agement (Heinrich 2002, pp. 339 ff.) therefore is devoted to:
• “Strategic Information Engineering,”
• “Administrative Information Engineering,” and
• “Operative Information Engineering”
Operative
Layer Production Management
Problem Management
User Service
In fo r m a tio n F u n c tio n
p la n n in g
g o a ls S tra te g ic
In fo r m a tio n M a n a g e m e n t
In fo r m a tio n
In fo r m a tio n In fra s tru c tu re
S y s te m s
P la n n in g ANSW BASY PERS SONST
Wollnik’s Three-Layer-Model
of Information Management
Wollnik, who developed and published his IM-model in 1987/1988, also
presents a three-layers-model. He sees “Employment and Usage of Infor-
mation” as “the upper level” of IM (see Figure 4). Processes of employ-
ment and usage of information are interwoven e.g. in the processes of
decision-making, reporting, coordination and communication, accounting
and auditing (Wollnik, 1988, p. 37). The “middle level of IM” comprises
the “Layer of Information and Communication Systems.” Wollnik uses
the short term “Information System” for a variety of objects:
256 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
L a ye r o f In fo rm a tio n U s a g e
a n d E m p lo ym e n t
R e q u e s ts / O rd e rs S u p p o rt E ffo rts
L a ye r o f In fo rm a tio n a n d
C o m m u n ic a tio n S ys te m s
R e q u e s ts / O rd e rs S u p p o rt E ffo rts
Process of
Purpose of Internal Information Purpose of External Information
Information
Usage & Employment Usage & Employment
Usage
Management of
Directon Execution- Knowledge- Decision- Transaction- Service- Product-
Information
of Operations oriented oriented oriented oriented oriented oriented
Usage &
Employment Planning
Management of Internal Information Management of External Information
Organization
Usage & Employment Usage & Employment
Controlling
Handling
Infrastruc- Provision, Supply, Operating, Steering, Application
Direction tures Allocation of Systems Administrating of Systems Development
Management of of Operations
Infrastructure Planning Management of
Management of Provision Management of Operating
Developing Application
Organization of Technologies & Technologies &
Systems & Information
Information Resources Information Resources
Controlling Resources
Figure 5. Wollnik´s Seven IM-Areas of Action (see Wollnik, 1988, pp. 39–43)
Seibt’s Four-Columns-Concept
of Information Management
In their book of 1986 Marchand and Horton emphasize five historical
stages of IM. In the early Sixties IM started as “Management of Program-
ming or Programmers” and as “Management of Paperwork.” In the late
Eighties – after less than 30 years – in their opinion IM had reached the
fifth stage, which they characterised as “Management of Information
Employment for Strategic Purposes” (Management of Strategic Informa-
tion Usage) (see Marchand/Horton, 1986).
Most of the changes in the perception of IM in companies have been
evoked by technological enhancements and changes. ICT was the trigger,
which has brought about new ideas on how to employ ICT to support stra-
tegic planning and how to increase business success. Certainly the advent
of a whole bunch of Network-Technologies, combined with the Internet
and the technology of Personal Computers for decentralized as well as cen-
tralized ICT-solutions, had the greatest influence on the growth of support
capabilities for all kinds of managers, experts, organisation units etc. Other
ICT-based developments, which already arrived in the late Eighties, but
which have been improved continuously since that time are:
• New Computer Architectures and new Operating Systems (e.g. client-
server architectures, browser architectures)
• New Programming Languages (e.g. object oriented languages)
• New Methods and Tools for Software Design and Development (e.g.
modelling tools)
• New Architecture of Application Software Systems (e.g. standardized
application software architectures for certain business branches)
• Technology of Knowledge Based Systems (e.g. Technology of Artifi-
cial Intelligence Systems and Expert Systems)
260 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
• Controlling the Success of • Controlling the Success of Development and • Controlling Success of • Controlling Organization Success
Computers & Networks Usage Maintanance Processes Information and Knowledge and Enhancement of ICT-Based
• Controlling the Success
Supply & Employment Processes Succes-Factors
Informationsystems
Idea 1
Strategic planning is needed not only as a global strategic planning of
company goals, but has to be done by all organisational units which in
principle act as independent “players” – as entrepreneurs in market places
– delivering various kinds of services and components to various “clients”
within one company. This is true for the four sectors which are shown in
Figure 6 as “columns of IM.” Today in many situations the four sectors act
as independent outsourcers, consultants etc although they may have started
in the past as dependent departments within the company:
• Management of Networks and Computer Resources (column 1)
• Management of Information Systems Lifecycles (column 2)
• Management of Information and Knowledge Demand and Supply (col-
umn 3)
• Management of Enlarging Company Success and Enhancing ICT as a
Success Factor (column 4).
Idea 2
The classical dichotomy of the “Business Domain” and the “Technology
Domain,” within/or of one company (see Parker et al., 1988) should be
262 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Idea 3
Comparable to strategic planning as part of IM is the situation in the field
of architectures. Architectural Decisions and Management of Architectures
have become very important tasks in all columns of IM. Computer- and
network-architectures on one hand and standard application software
architectures on the other hand are at the same time interdependent and
independent factors. Both set long timeframes for top management deci-
sions. The same can be true for implementation and usage of Data Ware-
houses, Knowledge Management Systems, and various kinds of data mod-
els, functional and process models, which belong to the third column and
which condition the processes of information and knowledge supply
through the whole company.
Idea 4
Each IM-column has its own controlling problems and tasks. The objects
of the first column are computers, networks, all kinds of ICT-equipment
etc. Control in this column has to concentrate on technical goals which are
pursued by configuration- and installation-processes, and by running tech-
nical subsystems. The objects of the second column are IS in the specific
organisational context of a company or of a department in a company.
Controlling in this second column has to concentrate on the economic,
organisational, personal, etc. aims of the users of one specific IS, con-
cerning the question: does this IS support its users to fulfil their specific
local tasks in their company. Additionally controlling in the second col-
umn has to concentrate on the effectiveness and the efficiency of the life-
cycle-processes of one specific IS. The objects of the third column are the
processes of information and knowledge supply for all kinds of users in the
company. Controlling in the third column means controlling the success of
these supply processes. Different criteria with different measures and dif-
ferent assessments have to be combined to achieve the controlling pur-
poses in each of the four columns.
Seibt 263
Idea 5
The core of “Management of IS-Life-cycles” is supported by a “Concept
of Project Phases.” It stands at the centre of the process of Steering and
Controlling IS-Development. Many authors limit their analyses and rec-
ommendations to the process of application software development and to
the implementation of technical components. They neglect the tasks of
planning, designing, developing, and implementing the organisational and
personal components of a specific IS. An Information System is a socio-
technical system (people to be integrated with machines), which has to be
embedded in a specific organisation. This can only be successfully
achieved by performing a concurrent and equal process of implementing
all components from the very beginning to the end of the life-cycle of the
Information System (see Seibt, 1997, pp. 431 ff.). From this view several
consequences should be drawn for the definition of IM tasks in IS-devel-
opment (see Figure 7):
Idea 6
The stream of IM-activities designed to perform operative system devel-
opment should be structured in at least a “preliminary project” and a “main
264 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Idea 7
Project phases should be considered as blocks of work which can be per-
formed sequentially or concurrently. The concept of project phases should
be combined with mile-stone-logic. Mile-stones can be introduced phase-
independent. As many mile-stones can be inserted in the course of phases
as are needed to achieve consensus between the parties (“players”), par-
ticipating in the process of system development.
Idea 8
Concepts of project phases should be custom-tailored to each specific IS-
development. The technological, organisational and personal conditions of
an IS-development-process always constitute a specific environment, to
which a specific configuration of IM-tasks must be found and adapted.
This form of custom-tailoring is not restricted to the first phase of a project
but is a continuing process of adjusting IM-activities to the ever changing
external and internal conditions of each specific IS-development.
Idea 9
IS-development starts with global holistic design considerations and pro-
ceeds to a detailed holistic design of the IS. This generates the “bracket,”
from which the detailed design activities for technical, organisational and
for the personnel-components of the IS can be performed. After the reali-
sation of all components, integration of all components should take place
(see Figure 7). Before delivery of the new IS to routine operations it has to
be tested and consolidated very carefully as totally integrated system.
Idea 10
The concept of project phases gets consistency by three cross-sectional,
respectively “cross-phases”, types of activities:
Seibt 265
Management Tasks
Management of the - Supply
of IM
Information Economy - Demand
in the Company - Usage
- Personel of IM
Management of - Storage
- Controlling as
- Processing
IM-Tasks Information - and
- Communication
Communication -Technology - Bundles of ICT
Plan product
offerings Business Challenges
Establish sales Coordination problems
targets
Develop change
M
Management
from rapid growth
Manual process
strategy
New initiatives from
competitors
Private Web sites
Desktop
Information Business
T IS S
computers
Apparel Buying
Network Technology System Solution
O
Retailers Access benefit plans Increase revenue
Retail Purchase supplies
customers Organization Broadcast messages
Employees
Review designs
Figure 9. Laudon and Laudon’s Integrated Framework for Describing and Analys-
ing Information Systems (example here: GUESS. GUESS Annual Report March
2000; see Laudon and Laudon, 2002, p. 3)
In their introduction the authors explain that they use an “Integrated Frame-
work for Describing and Analyzing Information Systems.” This portrays IS
as always being composed of “Management,” “Organisation,” and “Tech-
nology” components (see Laudon and Laudon, 2002, p. XXV). The authors
(p. 78) cite Leavitt (1965) and his model of four components/dimensions of
an IS. They stress that, according to this model, in order to implement (busi-
ness) change all four components must be changed simultaneously. Their
“Organisation” pattern does include structural as well as human aspects.
They use hundreds of real world examples: i.e. company cases, illustrating
the management, organisation, and technology issues in their chapters. Not
only the “Window On Boxes Technique”, but also their “Management
268 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Wrap-up Overviews of Key Issues” at the end of each chapter, take these
patterns as a point of focus to make the reader aware of what Laudon and
Laudon feel is most important. As Figure 9 shows, the emphasis is on the
problems of building information systems. Existing business challenges are
causes to develop new IS, which enable new business solutions. Manage-
ment, Technology and Organisations are the driving factors for new IS,
which enable more efficient and effective business solutions, which again
cause new (positive or negative) business challenges.
Part Two of Laudon and Laudon’s book is devoted to “Information Tech-
nology Infrastructure” with three chapters on “Managing Hardware Assets,
Software Assets and Data Resources.” Part Four concentrates on “Man-
agement and Organisational Support Systems for the Digital Firm,” with
two chapters on “Managing Knowledge: Knowledge Work and Artificial
Intelligence” and “Enhancing Management Decision Making.” This part is
clearly engaged in IM-tasks, which Wollnik and Krcmar would assign to
the “Layer of Information and Knowledge Usage and Employment.”
Some Conclusions
Comparing the six concepts of IM, which have been described here, the
following conclusions can be accentuated:
• The concepts have different points of emphasis but they are not contra-
dictory. In this respect the concepts complement each other.
• Different points of emphasis evolve, since the authors of the concepts
want to achieve different results. Some examples: One of Lundeberg’s
concerns is to apply IM not only to the development of IS but also to
(re-) shaping business. One of Seibt’s concerns is to stress the value
chain character of the relationships between the four columns of IM and
to open the view for a broad acceptance of outsourcing as part of IM.
• Without exception, all concepts are suited to serve as patterns to ana-
lyse and to model the reality of Information Management in companies.
Most of the concepts “prove” this ability by having been used to ana-
lyse and model real world IM-cases in companies, which are described
in books and articles.
• The power of a concept for a binding (re-) construction and (re-) shap-
ing of the “Gestalt” of Information Management Structures in a real
world company is much harder to measure and to evaluate. Binding
construction and shaping of IM-Structures mostly will be the result of
Seibt 269
References
Benjamin, R.I., Dickenson, C. & Rockart, J.F. (1985) “Changing Role of the Cor-
porate Information Systems Office”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 177–99.
Heinrich, L.J. (2002) Informationsmanagement. Planung, Überwachung und
Steuerung der Informationsinfrastruktur, 7th ed., Oldenbourg, Munich and
Vienna.
Heinrich, L.J. & Burgholzer, P. (1987) Informationsmanagement. Planung,
Überwachung und Steuerung der Informationsinfrastruktur, 1st ed.,
Oldenbourg, Munich and Vienna.
Horton, F.W. & Marchand, D.M. (1982) Information Management in Public
Administration. An Introduction and Resource Guide to Government in the
Information Age, Information Resources Press, Arlington, Virginia.
Krcmar, H. (2000) Informationsmanagement, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin.
Laudon, K.C. & Laudon, J.P. (2002) Management Information Systems: Manag-
ing the Digital Firm, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Leavitt, H.J. (1965) “Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural,
Technology and Humanistic Approaches,” in March, J.G. (ed.) Handbook of
Organizations, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1144–1170.
Lundeberg, M (1993) Handling Change Processes – A Systems Approach, Stu-
dentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Marchand, D.A. & Horton, F.W. (1986) Infotrends. Profiting From Your Infor-
mation Resources, Wiley, New York.
Mertens, P. & Plattfaut, E. (1986) “Informationstechnik als Strategische Waffe,”
Information Management, Heft 2, pp. 6–17.
Parker, M.M., Benson, R.J. & Trainor, H.E. (1988) Information Economics.
Linking Business Performance to Information Technology. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
270 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Introduction
Most academic disciplines within the broad field of management or eco-
nomic sciences developed within the context of a country or a region.
Examples are accounting, marketing, and industrial relations. They are
working to be international. The academic discipline of information sys-
tems (or whatever name may be used in different universities or different
countries) became international very quickly. Several conditions facilitated
this development, and it has been remarkable in its scope and impact. Mats
Lundeberg is one of the academics who have nurtured the international
discipline of information systems. It is appropriate to honor that contribu-
tion on this occasion.
I have been fortunate to have been a part of many of the developments that
helped the formation of an international community of information sys-
tems scholars. This article describes my perception of some of the critical
decisions and events that helped build the international network. Since it is
also a personal journey, I often mention personal involvement and personal
experiences. I recognize that the description is limited by my own experi-
ence. It is not complete; I may have missed some critical contributions.
Rather than being a complete historical account, this article is my view.
The article discusses the name issue and why it took time for information
systems to develop an identifiable, well-defined international community.
It then focuses on seven critical events or developments that made it pos-
sible to have an international academic discipline for information systems.
These are the development of computing devices, the use of English as the
common language for computing-related disciplines, the formation of the
International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) and its Techni-
cal Committee 8 (Information Systems), international efforts by scholars in
several countries, locating the IFIP TC8 working conferences internation-
ally including the Manchester Conference sponsored by WG8.2, the found-
274 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Critical Development 1:
Development of Computing Devices
After World War II, there was interest in many universities around the
world in the design and development of computing machinery. Well-
known efforts took place at the University of Pennsylvania and Massachu-
278 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
reports. Applying computers to the same processes did not create an aca-
demic interest.
There was interest in computers in schools of administration and manage-
ment, but the focus was mainly on the computer as a tool for analytical
models and sophisticated analysis. Almost every major management
school had one or more faculty who taught some elements of computer
technology. I observed that development first hand. My first book, Intro-
duction to Electronic Computers (1965), was directed not at a new disci-
pline but the general business students. I believed they should understand
something about computer technology and its use in business. Langefors
began as Professor of Information Systems in Sweden in the same year and
published his Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems (1966). My sec-
ond book, Computer Data Processing (1969) had much more emphasis on
how the computer is used for data processing and other business applica-
tions. Note these books were 10 to 15 years after the first use of business
computers.
Critical Development 2:
The Use of English as the Common Language for
Computing-Related Disciplines
A common language is very important in building an international com-
munity of scholars in a discipline. Greek, Latin, German, and French have
provided such a common language for various communities at different
times in history. The development of computers, although occurring in dif-
ferent countries, had major developments in the US and the UK. This
encouraged the use of English as the language for the computing field. As
will be noted later, English was adopted as the language for the Interna-
tional Federation for Information Processing (IFIP). At the same time,
there was a general recognition by scholars and business leaders of the
value of an international language. English became the common language
of international commerce and of research and education in many fields.
The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries had taught English as an
important second language; the English emphasis was further increased
during the period when computing was developing and the field of infor-
mation systems was beginning to emerge.
The common language of English has meant that international conferences
on computing and information systems can be held at almost any location
in the world, research is freely exchanged across boundaries, and text-
280 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
books and trade books are made available internationally. For example, the
Swedish ISAC methodology developed by Mats Lundeberg and others was
published in English, Information Systems Development – A Systematic
Approach (1981). Information systems instruction and research in Sweden
illustrate the importance of a common international language. Any English
language book needed for instruction in Sweden can be used without
translation.
I was fortunate to write a significant book in the field in 1974 with second
edition in 1985 (with Margrethe Olson). Many rank the book as a defining
book for the field. It was used throughout the world by scholars who now
form the nucleus of the discipline. The book, Management Information Sys-
tems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development (1974, 1985),
outlines the major concepts employed in the field and their relationship to
the structure of systems and management of the function. A revision today
would add concepts and modify some of the structure that is defined, but it
has been noted as a classic textbook in the field. Similarly, Börje Langefors
Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems (1966) was important for the
development of the discipline in the Scandinavian countries.
Critical Development 3:
The Formation of the International Federation for
Information Processing (IFIP) and its Technical
Committee 8 (Information Systems)
In the early development of computing and its use in organizations,
national organizations were forming, but there was no accepted interna-
tional forum. The United Nations provided the impetus for the formation
of an international information processing organization. UNESCO spon-
sored the first World Computer Conference in 1959 in Paris (five years
after the first business uses). This was followed by the organization in
1960 of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP).
IFIP is a non governmental, nonprofit umbrella organization for national
societies working in the field of information processing (essentially a so-
ciety of societies).
Technical work, which is the heart of IFIP’s activity, is managed by a
series of Technical Committees (TCs). Each member society (usually
identified with a country) may appoint a representative to the governance
committee for each technical committee. There are currently 12 technical
committees. Each technical committee forms working groups. Individuals
Davis 281
The reason I count this conference as very important is its role in opening
up the discussion of the different research paradigms. Most of the
researchers in North America at that time tended to emphasize a positivist
approach to research with experiments, surveys, hypothesis testing, and so
forth. Many of the Europeans were doing post-positivist, interpretive
research. The conference opened the minds of many of the conferees and
helped open the field of information systems to a variety of research para-
digms. Currently, there is reasonable acceptance of the following:
• Positivist, hypothesis testing, data-based research
• Interpretive research including research based on case studies
• Design science research
The IS research literature clearly defines the first two; the third is less well
defined. Design science research (the term used by Smith and March) is
based on the research paradigms of engineering and Computer Science. In
design science, designing and building a new, novel artifact such as a
computer application program, development methodology, or model is a
contribution to knowledge. In general, information systems research pub-
lications have expected that an artifact will not only have been built but
will also be tested to demonstrate proof of concept or value of the artifact.
Critical Development 6:
The Founding of the International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS)
As mentioned previously, early researchers in information systems had
disciplines to which they belonged. Their conferences often provided
opportunities to present information systems research. This was especially
true of management science, operations research, and decision sciences.
The IFIP working groups on information systems focused on information
systems but tended to be around narrow topics. There was no general,
well-accepted, high quality information systems conference.
The first Conference on Information Systems (later renamed as the Inter-
national Conference on Information Systems or ICIS) was held in 1980 in
Philadelphia (hosted by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsyl-
vania). The second was held in Boston hosted by Harvard and MIT. A
major sponsor was the Society for Information Management, a society for
CIOs. The conference included a doctoral consortium. ICIS began as a
North American conference but grew quickly to a high quality interna-
tional conference. It was held in Copenhagen in 1990 and has been held
286 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
four times outside North America in the past eight years. A major feature
is a high quality, invitational doctoral consortium with a mix of doctoral
students from different countries.
ICIS is high quality based on acceptance rates of about 15 percent. Printed
proceedings were produced from 1980 until 2000 and on CD-Rom from
1996 through 2000. Starting with 2001, conference proceedings are only
available online. Searchable past proceedings are available to all members
of AIS from www.aisnet.org.
There has existed a very open attitude at ICIS to subgroups within the
field. Several subgroups hold conferences immediately preceding or
immediately following ICIS. Examples are the Workshop on Information
System Economics (WISE), the Workshop on Information Technology
Systems (WITS), IFIP WG8.2, and several others.
References
Design Science in IS
March, S.T. & Smith, G.F. (1995) “Design and Natural Science Research on
Information Technology”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 251-
266.
that this kind of systems development incurred a very low level of real
innovation. The automated systems did not improve the operations of the
enterprise in significant ways.
resources, they quickly were adopted into roles as regular systems profes-
sionals.
It has also been suggested that the meticulously engineered methodologies,
with heavy emphasis upon strict and consistent formalism, simply
appeared far too complex for the user society, especially when it involved
large system projects. Undoubtedly, the mind-set of the developers of the
(presumably) user-friendly methods was probably quite different from that
of the average information system user. The overwhelming complexity and
strict formalism simply led to a situation of methodological over-kill.
At present, it seems that the whole idea of an ideologically rooted user
democracy, as introduced some twenty years ago, is fading away. Trade
unions are presently, wisely enough, more preoccupied with major, struc-
tural changes in the enterprise. Present experiences indicate that even in
such matters, unions seem to accept a rather moderate level of influence,
especially in times when the economy slows down. However, a pragmati-
cally based user control is more important than ever. To the extent that
user involvement may enhance the quality of the final systems, or provide
opportunities for real innovation in the way the enterprise operates, user
involvement is still of crucial importance. It certainly is a paradox that due
to the ever increasing magnitude and complexity of systems, it seems as if
we are slowly returning to the early days of data processing, when only
specially assigned and competent persons were the only ones being given
responsibility for design and development of systems. Such persons may
also be external to the enterprise, acting as consultants on long time con-
tracts, alien to the internal users. This may becomr still worse when the
company decides to acquire and use standard applications which are totally
foreign to the user environment. In this way, information systems tend to
have a character of standard commodities, thereby totally transforming and
potentially degrading the role of the information systems users.
were presented and how easily the customer could interfere with the sys-
tem, were also all of crucial importance.
Gradually, such observations have led to an emerging research interest in
improving the quality of the interaction between information systems and
customers. Initially, this research was rooted in marketing environments,
but gradually it also spread into the information system world. Only a few
years after this interest arose, we have seen a rapid development of more or
less powerful concepts and even emerging methodologies for designing so
called Customer Relationship Management Systems (CRM). This coin-
cides with a more encompassing development of new ways of doing busi-
ness, facilitated by Internet technology; the so-called e-business, that
already a few years after the term was coined appeared in the title of
numerous text-books, and rapidly penetrated the marketplace.
The e-business world is realised by information systems. These systems
connect customers in the role of information system users with the enter-
prise or the public agency. In the same way as for internal system users, it
is obvious that systems supporting e-business must meet the demands and
behavioural peculiarities of external users. This challenge however, repre-
sents quite a different task. While internal users were reasonably few and
were generally available not only for consultations, but also for mobilisa-
tion into systems planning, the external users are generally of a signifi-
cantly different character.
In addition to this, the users are much more numerous. E-commerce com-
panies may have thousands of customers; the largest global companies
count them in millions. Furthermore they are generally far more heteroge-
neous. They may be recruited from any part of society, and have most
divergent personal traits. The old concept of designing a user profile is in
many cases far more difficult than for internal system users, because the
latter group normally is well recorded.
References
Langefors, B. (1966). Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, Studentlit-
teratur, Lund, Sweden.
Langefors, B. (1968). System för företagsstyrning {Systems for Corporate Con-
trol}, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Lundeberg, M. (1993) Handling Change Processes: A Systems Approach, Stu-
dentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
Lundeberg, M. & Andersen, E.S. (1974) Systemering – Informationsanalys {Sys-
tems Engineering – Information Analysis}, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
— 18 —
Introduction
The advent of new information technologies has led some information
systems researchers to investigate the emergence of new organizational
forms. Often their usage of the term “virtual” serves to signal what they
see as new. Examples include virtual teams, virtual libraries, virtual mar-
kets, virtual communities, and virtual corporations. It is safe to say that any
particular virtual team, virtual library, virtual market, virtual community,
or virtual corporation did not exist twenty and even ten years ago; in this
sense, one can say that it is new. Yet this is different from saying that the
organizational form – of which a particular virtual team, virtual library,
virtual market, virtual community, or virtual corporation is an instantiation
– is new. This has led me to wonder: are “new” organizational forms nec-
essarily new?
I am deliberately using the word instantiation with its database meaning: a
given database schema stays the same across time and across situations
while it is the data populating the schema, and not the schema itself, that
changes. The data populating a database schema at a single point in time is
an instantiation of the schema. Instantiations of the database schema come
and go. A recently appearing instantiation is what we would correctly per-
ceive as new. On the other hand, the database schema or, in this analogy,
the organizational form, would stay the same. In this perspective, the
organizational form endures. If there is any merit to this line of thinking –
the thinking that organizations enabled by information technology do not
necessarily take new organizational forms, but are instantiations of old or
existing organizational forms – then we as scholars and practitioners can
enjoy a good measure of relief in realizing that what we have already
learned and theorized about organizations would still apply.
306 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Building Theory
The philosophy of science, history of science, and sociology of science
have offered numerous insights about how theorizing can, cannot, does,
and does not proceed. Reviewers and editors of my manuscript submis-
sions to journals sometimes resist the insights that I take from these fields.
They and other scholars subscribe to a conception of science different from
the one I have learned from the philosophy, history, and sociology of sci-
ence.
An aspect of science on which I disagree with many of my colleagues is
how to build a theory. The popular conception of how to build a theory
goes something like this: a researcher, who can be working alone, collects
data and then develops a theory based on the data. In this depiction of
building theory, data are the raw material and theory is the product. The
more data one collects, the better the resulting theory is. However, this
conception of how to build a theory is wrong because what it depicts is
infeasible. For an explanation of this, consider the following rows of data
(Figure 1):
2.1, 3.5, 4.3
1.9, 3.7, 4.1
2.2, 3.8, 4.4
Figure 1.
Lee 307
The data could be what a researcher inputs into a statistical software, such
as SAS, SPSS, Minitab, or even Excel, where each row represents a data
point. Next, consider the following theoretical propositions (Figure 2):
Figure 2.
What an Organization Is
Schools of business have paid much attention to a phenomenon that they
call “organizations.” Teaching and research in business schools deal with
business firms, which readily fall under the dictionary definition of the
word “organization.” Therefore it would logically follow that organiza-
tions, being their own category of phenomenon, would require their own
dedicated area of study, which in turn would mean that they also require
their own theories. Moreover, this conclusion would follow with greater
emphasis in situations involving new organizational forms that are seem-
ingly appearing on the horizon. This, in a nutshell, is a conventional wis-
dom about organizational research.
I disagree with this instance of conventional wisdom. Consider what eve-
ryday people in the everyday world see in terms of their everyday common
sense. For instance, suppose that managers, executives, consultants, and
journalists see what they call “new types of firms” and “new kinds of
organizations.” Just because everyday people in everyday life see some-
thing that they consider to be new does not necessarily mean that scientific
theory should conceptualize the phenomenon in the same way.
Our research must, of course, account for the everyday meanings and beliefs
that everyday people have. Everyday meanings and beliefs play the role of
what the philosopher and phenomenologist Alfred Schutz (1962-66) calls
“first level constructs.” The theories that researchers create, following the
methodological rules of science, are what Schutz calls “second level con-
structs.” The second-level constructs making up a scientific theory need to
account for the first-level constructs of everyday understandings, but the
second-level constructs, in following the rules of science, need not be
beholden to, and may transcend, the everyday understandings of everyday
people in the everyday world. What everyday people, such as managers,
executives, consultants, and journalists see is not necessarily what scientific
researchers see. What is a “new” organizational form to a manager, execu-
tive, consultant, or a journalist need not necessarily be a “new” organiza-
tional form to a scientific researcher. What a native sees need not be what
the anthropologist sees. Indeed, for an illustration, I will momentarily
digress to an example involving ethnography. It is an illustration I use in a
doctoral seminar course that I teach annually.
In that course, my students and I cover numerous topics, one of which is
ethnography. I consider ethnography to be the most important qualitative
approach in business-school research. I assign to my students a short book
by Frederic O. Gearing (1970) that I first read when I was a doctoral stu-
Lee 311
dent more than 20 years ago. It is a book about the Fox Indians in Iowa,
which is a state in the central part of the United States. Gearing contrasts
and compares what he, from his perspective as a scientist, calls the white
man’s social structure and the Fox Indian’s social structure.
The Fox Indian’s social structure is different from the white man’s social
structure. What a white man calls “first cousins” is what a Fox Indian calls
“brothers and sisters.” This is because the white man’s social structure is
father-centric while the Fox Indian’s social structure is grandfather-centric.
In a society where the paternal grandfather provides the anchoring point in
the social structure, all the grandchildren bear the same relationship to him.
Hence, this calls for the same label to designate these grandchildren posi-
tions in the social structure (i.e., “brothers and sisters”), where any addi-
tional “first cousin” differentiation would make no sense.
In general, Gearing describes social structure as a more-or-less fixed
hierarchy of roles, where people move into and out of the roles over time.
And even though the people change, the social structure itself endures
and remains intact. Furthermore, each role has a set of behavioral rules or
norms attached to it which do not wholly determine how an occupant of
the role behaves, but nonetheless endow the role with certain opportuni-
ties and constraints that shape the actions and thoughts of the role’s
occupant. The social structure can and does change, but it changes more
slowly than the turnover of people in it. Social structure is a concept that
Gearing uses as a scientist. A companion concept to social structure is
“culture,” which Gearing describes as referring to the shared meanings,
shared codes, shared beliefs, or shared expectations that the Fox Indians
themselves have about the typical actions in which an individual Fox
Indian is allowed to engage in when he or she is occupying this or that
particular role in the social structure. For Gearing’s scientific concepts of
culture and social structure to be valid, the Fox Indians themselves need
not approve of them, nor even be aware of them in the first place.
One of the lessons I draw from Gearing is this: what everyday people see
is one thing, what scientific researchers see is another thing, and there need
not necessarily be any one-to-one correspondence between them. Everyday
managers can see what they think are organizational forms – old or new –
but researchers can choose to see these things in a different way. This les-
son has relevance to my discussion about organizations and organizational
forms.
I have sometimes asked undergraduate and MBA students, “what is an
organization?” More often than not, they answer “an organization is peo-
312 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
for the text. In this way, the reader (the technology user) takes over the
text, where the resulting meaning of the text can diverge extensively from
whatever was intended by the text’s author (the technology designer).
Ricoeur describes this as appropriation.
Text, as a form of information technology, has enabled the existence of
some organizations. The existence of text is a necessary condition for the
existence of some organizations, such as libraries and universities. For
certain other organizations, the existence of text might not be necessary,
but without text, these organizations could not operate in ways that we
would recognize; examples of such organizations are banks and courts of
law. I consider libraries, universities, banks, and courts to be examples of
organizations enabled by information technology, where the information
technology is text. When libraries, universities, banks, and courts first
appeared, they were certainly new instantiations of organizations, but
would their first appearance necessarily indicate the appearance of new
organizational forms? Also deserving consideration is the possibility that
they may be considered instantiations of old or already known organiza-
tional forms, whereupon old or already existing ethnographic theory,
political theory, economic theory, psychological theory, information the-
ory, sociological theory, structuration theory, and so forth, would still
apply.
Do different organizations, in general, necessarily require their own sepa-
rate and different theories? If we see them as examples of phenomena for
which we already have theories, then the answer would be that they do not
require new or different theories. At the same time, even though there
would be large, existing bodies of theory already available to us research-
ers, there would still be much work to be done. Earlier, I said that this is
want Kuhn calls “normal science”, where the new research would consist
of the arduous and challenging work of refining, articulating, and other-
wise further developing existing theory so as to be able to explain organi-
zations enabled by information technology.
My discussion of information technology now leads to the next concern:
what is meant by an information system and how is an information system
different from information technology?
What Information Is
To characterize what information is, I will build on the example of text as
an information technology. I regard text – which I operationally define as
numbers and words in written form – as data. I define knowledge as the
understanding that a person has. (I also acknowledge the existence of what
many information systems scholars call “organizational knowledge,”
316 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
where I use the term “culture” to refer to this.) And I define information as
the knowledge that a person forms from data.
Even though the information systems discipline has made earnest
attempts to distinguish information, data, and knowledge from each
other, most of these attempts seem to have made no difference. Informa-
tion systems researchers often appear to use the three terms inter-
changeably. My overall impression is that information systems research-
ers have a tendency to fall back on the idea that information is something
sent, received, processed, and stored, where the operant analogy com-
pares information to a physical object. Indeed, a recent article by Eliza-
beth Davidson (1999) shows how the concept of data warehousing does
not clearly differentiate data, information, and knowledge. She reveals
the physically-oriented or physical-centric conception of data in data
warehousing, where data are seen and treated as if they were physical
inputs to a manufacturing process, the resulting products of which subse-
quently require storage and distribution.
Again, there are some basic points that are useful. As for data being a form
of text, I suggest that the large body of research in hermeneutics – which is
the academic field that devotes itself to the interpretation of text – prom-
ises to have a large repository of insights that are just waiting to be used by
the information systems discipline. As for what information is – or a per-
son’s formation of meaning from data or other text – I suggest that psy-
chology, symbolic interactionism, ethnography, and again hermeneutics,
all also have large repositories of insights that are just waiting to be used
by information systems researchers. As for knowledge – the understanding
that a person has – there is much that is still waiting to be applied from the
classic book The Social Construction of Reality, by Thomas Berger and
Peter Luckmann (1966). The subtitle of this book is, significantly, A Treat-
ise in the Sociology of Knowledge. The phenomenological sociology of
Alfred Schutz – who was, by the way, the teacher of Thomas Berger and
Peter Luckmann – contains a treasure-trove of insights about knowledge
that knowledge-management research and information systems research in
general also have yet to use.
As members of the community of scholars, we have accessible to us a rich
infrastructure of theory about data, information, and knowledge, where this
is an infrastructure of theory that we do not need to re-invent. Instead we
can develop, articulate, and improve it as part of our larger effort in devel-
oping theories that explain the behavior of organizations enabled by
information technology.
Lee 317
Testing Theory
No discussion about theorizing and building theories is complete without
some commentary on how to test theories. In my experience as an editor,
reviewer, and reader of published research, I have seen that a basic point
about testing theory has been largely forgotten.
Many researchers proceed as if the validity of a scientific theory can be
properly established through induction, which refers to process of some-
how inducing a theory from data. However, given the earlier lesson that
theory cannot be induced from data, induction is not an appropriate way to
test a theory. There is also the problem that induction allows the ad nau-
seam accumulation of consistent observations to support it – a situation
that Karl Popper (1965) dramatically illustrates for Adlerian psychology,
Marxist historiography, and astrology.
This directs our attention to the procedure of testing a theory deductively
instead of inductively. I conceptualize deductive testing as follows. Once a
theory has been formulated, a researcher can instantiate it in this or that
laboratory setting, field setting, or sampling frame. This means that the
theory, once instantiated, allows the researcher to deduce from the theory
what she should, and should not, observe in the given setting, provided that
the theory is correct. Positivist researchers would call these expected
observations “predictions”, but the positivist conception of this (“predic-
tions”) is a special case, not the general case, of deductive scientific test-
ing. Indeed, in one of his books, Michael Agar (1986) poses the device of
“strips” which I regard as an ethnographic manifestation of deductive
testing. The hermeneutic circle, as Klein and Myers (1999) explain in their
article, may also be argued to involve deductive testing.
Actual observations contradicting the expected observations would cast
doubt on the theory’s validity, whether the theory is positivist or interpre-
tive. However, actual observations consistent with the expected observa-
tions would only be that: they would only be consistent with the theory and
could not definitively prove it to be true; at best, the theory could be said
to be true for the observed circumstances. Hence a researcher is allowed
only to accept a theory tentatively as “confirmed” or “corroborated”, but
never conclusively as “true”. In a way, the instantiation of a theory is a
particularization of the theory in a particular setting. This reasoning is
deductive in the sense that the researcher deduces statements (describing
details about what should or should not be observed) from a theory (when
applied in a particular setting).
318 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
The organizations that are emerging today and that are enabled by new
information technologies – are they necessarily new organizational forms,
or might they be like the steel ball that we happen to see, for the first time,
swinging in a pendulum, when previously we have only been accustomed
to seeing steel balls falling from the tops of buildings? How can we deter-
mine whether or not what we see is in fact a new phenomenon and, hence,
whether or not it requires a new theory? To answer this, I propose the fol-
lowing procedure.
• First, start with the premise that research on organizational forms
enabled by information technology can profitably begin with current
theory.
• Second, if current theory is true, then our instantiation of it in an actual
setting would lead us to expect to observe some things, but not others.
• Third, if the observations that we end up making do not match the
observations that the theory led us to expect, then the door would be
open to the possibility that current theory is wrong, incomplete, or oth-
erwise deficient and that perhaps the organizational form is indeed
something new.
• Fourth, if eventually the community of researchers judges the existing
theory to be wrong, it would still be useful (and some would say, indis-
pensable) for providing the needed basis or the starting point from
which to develop the new theory about the new organizational form.
Finally, if we were to give such a primary, foundational role to existing
theory in the way that I am suggesting, would this mean that the informa-
tion systems discipline is subsidiary to the older, so called “reference dis-
ciplines”? To the contrary, in the same way that physics has contributed to
the engineering disciplines and in the same way that all the engineering
disciplines have developed their own scholarly research distinct from
physics, I see the following: I still see the older behavioral sciences and
design sciences as able to contribute to the information systems discipline,
but more importantly, I see that the information systems discipline is
already in the process of developing scholarly research distinct from the
older behavioral and design sciences, not only through the path of normal
science but also through the path of revolutionary science. For this reason,
I reject the term “reference discipline” and use the term “contributing dis-
cipline” instead. The scholarly study of information systems, originating
from the existing behavioral and design disciplines as its starting point, is
undergoing autonomization and is making contributions to theory tran-
scending what the older disciplines have had to say.
320 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
In this essay I have considered the matter of building and testing theories
for new organizational forms enabled by information technology. Instead
of focusing on what might be new, I have returned to some old fundamen-
tals about these basic points: building theory, what an organization is, what
an information technology is, what an information system is, and testing
theory. By taking these fundamentals seriously, we need not reinvent the
wheel when we proceed to develop better theory about new organizational
forms enabled by information technology.
References
Agar, M. (1986) Speaking of Ethnography, Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
California.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor Press, New York.
Davidson, E. (1999) “What’s in a Name? Exploring the Metaphysical Implications
of Data Warehousing in Concept and Practice”, Journal of End User Comput-
ing, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 22-32.
Gearing, F.O. (1970) The Face of the Fox, Aldine, Chicago, Illinois.
Klein, H. & Myers, M. (1999) “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating
Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23,
No. 1, pp. 67-93.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977) The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition
and Change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Popper, K. (1965) Conjectures and Refutations, Basic Books, New York.
Ricoeur, P. (1991) “The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a
Text” in P. Ricoeur (Ed.) From Text to Action, Northwestern University Press,
Evanston, Illinois, pp. 146-167.
Schutz, A. (1962–66) “Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences” in
Collected Papers (edited by M. Nathanson), M. Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 48-
66.
— 19 —
Introduction
Patterns! To see through the miasma and perceive the patterns in the
world. As researchers, this is our fundamental task. The types of patterns
we see, the ways in which we characterize and describe them, and the
quality of the theories we build to explain and predict them will largely
determine the contributions we make as scholars to our disciplines and to
knowledge more generally.
In this chapter of this book, which honors Mats Lundeberg as a researcher,
teacher, colleague, and friend, I want to focus on the sorts of patterns that I
believe lie at the core of the information systems discipline. Teasing out
and explaining patterns in information systems phenomena have always
been the focus of Lundeberg’s work – from his early work on the ISAC
methodology (Lundeberg et al. 1981) to his later work on business pro-
cesses (Lundeberg 1992, 1993). In my own pursuit of patterns in informa-
tion systems phenomena, Lundeberg often has reminded me astutely that it
is people’s perceptions of the world that ought to be the basis for our iden-
tifying, characterizing, and theorizing about the patterns that interest us in
our discipline.
Figure 1 depicts the fundamental argument I make in this chapter. Basi-
cally, I contend that the identification of novel patterns in phenomena pro-
vide the substance for articulating new, basic theories. These theories, in
turn, enable a discipline to establish its own separate, distinct identity or
place among other disciplines. Having a distinct identity contributes to the
longevity of a discipline.
1
I am indebted to my colleague, Paul Bailes, for helpful discussions on the subject
matter of this chapter.
322 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
In the next section, I argue that patterns in phenomena are the foundation
of theory building and science. I distinguish between basic sciences and
applied or engineering sciences. I provide reasons for my wanting to
establish information systems as a basic science rather than an applied or
engineering science. Subsequently, I discuss the sorts of phenomena where
I believe novel patterns might be found to provide a basis for building
new, basic theory in the information systems discipline. In particular, I
argue that information systems-related phenomena and not information
technology-related phenomena will manifest these patterns. Finally, I pre-
sent a brief summary of my arguments and some conclusions.
physics are needed to evaluate the likely flight performance under various
conditions of alternative designs for a plane. Theories from psychology are
needed to evaluate whether alternative designs for a plane are likely to
meet with the approval of passengers. In essence, the package of theories
is used to account for why planes that are designed according to the pre-
cepts of the methodology are likely to be more successful (at least in terms
of certain criteria).
In my view, the defining characteristic of a basic science is that its mem-
bers have developed one or more powerful, general theories to account for
the patterns of behaviour in the things that are the focus of the science.
These theories must be substantive, original contributions. They cannot
simply be adaptations or extensions of theories from other disciplines. Of
course, what constitutes a substantive, original theoretical contribution is a
social and sometimes a political matter. The community of scientists in
general make a judgement. In due course, it acknowledges that a particular
discipline has “ownership” of a certain theory. Alternatively, it simply
ignores any aspirations of ownership that the members of a discipline
might hold for a theory. The community might conclude that the theory is
either not substantive or it is primarily an adaptation of a theory already
“owned” by another discipline. Judgements about the substance and own-
ership of theories are rarely, if ever, formal, overt affairs. Rather, they are
“observed” via the actions taken over time by the community of scientists
(primarily, I suspect, through the way researchers in other disciplines cite
the theory).
Note that basic science are often hybrid sciences in the sense they contain
both basic and applied-science elements. Researchers who work under the
ambit of the science have developed fundamental, basic theories to account
for some of the phenomena that interest them. At the same time, they bor-
row theories from other disciplines to account for other types of phenom-
ena that interest them. Theories that are both intrinsic to and extrinsic to
the science are needed to account for the breadth of phenomena that com-
mand the attention of researchers who affiliate with the science.
For many scholars, whether they work within a basic science or an applied
or engineering science is unimportant. Both types of science clearly have
important roles to play in assisting humans to deal with the world. For
some of us, however, working with basic science is important. Inherently,
we find development and testing of basic theory to be more intellectually
satisfying than adapting or extending basic theory to an applied problem.
Some of us are also concerned about the longevity of the disciplines in
which we work. Applied sciences are “fragile” for a number of reasons.
324 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
First, they lack a distinct “identity”. As such, they often fall victim to poli-
tics or apathy when “turf wars” or resource battles occur in the organiza-
tional contexts in which they operate. Second, the applied problems that
are their focus may disappear or become relatively unimportant. For
example, technological advances may render the problems irrelevant or
uninteresting. Third, demonstrating progress within an applied or engi-
neering science is often more difficult. Relative to basic sciences, there-
fore, members within them often experience more difficulty attracting
resources to support their research. Finally, some of us might hanker after
academic respectability. We value the “intellectually tough, analytic, for-
malizable, and teachable” subject matter often associated with the natural
or basic sciences (Simon 1981, p. 130).
Patterns are inextricably linked to judgements about the value of a theory
and the ownership of a theory. For example, one basis for evaluating the
value of a theory is the importance of the pattern it purports to explain or
predict. Patterns that are manifested in the behaviour of many things are
likely to be deemed more important (the value we ascribe to generality in
science). Thus, theories that provide powerful accounts of these patterns
are likely to be judged as valuable. On the other hand, patterns that appear
localized to only a few things in the world are likely to be deemed rela-
tively uninteresting (although this is not always the case). Thus, theories
that account for these specific patterns are likely to be judged by scientists
as having low value.
The identification of new patterns in the behaviour of things is often the
precursor to the articulation of important theoretical work and ultimately
“property rights” in this work being assigned to the discipline whose
members undertake it. Moreover, new theories sometimes enable us to
“see” the patterns that have been our focus manifested elsewhere. They
open our eyes to phenomena that previously were hidden from us. As more
instances of the patterns are identified, the importance of the theory that
accounts for them will grow. As a result, the “identity” of the discipline
whose members developed the theory will become more firmly estab-
lished.
In short, if we are seeking to establish the “identity” of a discipline by
establishing property rights to a powerful, general theory, our choice of the
phenomena on which to focus is critical. If we choose phenomena that can
be accounted for satisfactorily by theories already developed by other dis-
ciplines, our own discipline will remain an applied discipline – a discipline
that borrows theories from other disciplines. If, on the other hand, we
somehow manage to choose phenomena that are not well explained or pre-
Weber 325
I have reflected on different patterns of this type at some length, and I can-
not identify any that might provide the foundation for new theory. Existing
theories (e.g., psychological, social, and economic theories) seem to pro-
vide an adequate account for the patterns I have been able to identify. To
the best of my knowledge, research that examines patterns manifested in
human interaction with information technology uses existing theories or
adaptations thereof to account for the patterns. For example, witness the
extensive use of the theory of planned behaviour or theory of reasoned
action or adaptations of these theories to account for user adoption and
deployment of various forms of information technology.
Consider, also, other forms of technology that humans have developed –
for example, automobiles, electric toothbrushes, and mobile phones. To the
best of my knowledge, we have not had to develop new, basic theory to
account for patterns of behaviour associated with humans’ use of these
technologies. For example, we do not have a theory of the electric tooth-
brush – a new, basic theory that had to be developed specifically to
account for the patterns of behaviour that became apparent in human’s use
of their electric toothbrushes. In this regard, I have also questioned senior
colleagues in disciplines like sociology, anthropology, psychology, and
economics about whether they know of such theories. They have been
somewhat bemused by questions. Nonetheless, they have been unable to
point to a theory of the type I was seeking.
In essence, if we are to develop new, basic theory to account for the inter-
actions of humans with information technology, we first have to identify
patterns of behaviour where extant theories fail – in other words, theories
from disciplines like psychology or sociology are unable to explain or pre-
dict satisfactorily the patterns of behaviour that are our focus. If we can
identify such patterns, of course they must also be “interesting” in the
sense we deem them important for some reason.
A second type of pattern associated with information technology that
might be our focus is one associated with the technology itself. Specifi-
cally, we might be concerned with giving a particular type of information
technology certain characteristics or properties so that it “behaves” in par-
ticular ways. For example, we may find that if we design an information
technology along certain lines, it works more effectively or efficiently or it
is more robust when component failure occurs.
I believe we have some notable examples of new, basic theories that have
been developed to account for this second type of pattern. Compiler theory
was developed to translate human-oriented languages into machine lan-
Weber 327
guages in effective and efficient ways. The need for compiler theory arose
because of the special computational properties of information technology
– properties that were not present (at least to the same extent) in prior
forms of technology. A programmer who knows compiler theory will be
capable of producing a much higher-quality compiler than a programmer
who has no knowledge of the theory. Admittedly, compiler theory is an
adaptation and extension of prior theories of computational linguistics that
have their home in the discipline of linguistics. The enhancements made to
these basic theories by researchers whose focus was compilers has been
sufficiently extensive, however, for “property rights” on the theory to be
ascribed to them rather than linguists.
Another example of a new, basic theory that has been developed to
account for this second type of pattern associated with the information
technology itself is the theory of normalization. Codd’s (1970) seminal
work on data normalization fundamentally changed how databases are
designed and implemented. It also laid the foundation for the development
of new types of information technology – namely, relational database man-
agement systems and relational database machines. Again, the theory of
data normalization was an adaptation and extension of the theory of rela-
tions developed within the discipline of mathematics. The enhancements
made to the theory of relations have been sufficiently substantive, how-
ever, that property rights to the theory of data normalization have been
ascribed to database researchers rather than mathematics researchers.
With this second type of pattern associated with information technology,
therefore, we have evidence that new, basic theories have been needed.
From one perspective, it might be argued that new patterns emerged as a
result of the special properties of information technology (computational
properties) relative to prior technological artifacts that humans had inven-
ted. From another perspective, it might be argued the patterns were already
present in phenomena associated with some previous forms of technology.
They became more salient with information technology, however, and thus
they commanded the attention of researchers in ways that had not occurred
before. Also, theoretical lenses that had been used or were being developed
to better understand and predict phenomena associated with information
technologies perhaps allowed researchers to see these patterns in richer,
more-perspicacious ways.
I believe we have evidence, therefore, of new, basic theory being needed to
account for novel (or perhaps more-salient) patterns manifested in phe-
nomena associated with humans’ needs to make information technology
behave in certain ways. From our perspective as members of the informa-
328 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
the system whose states and state changes the information system is sup-
posed to track. Historically, these patterns have been the focus of research-
ers concerned with conceptual modelling – building graphical models of
an application domain as a basis for developing information systems to
support users who work in the domain.
While substantial work has been done on conceptual modelling methods,
much of it is atheoretical. Indeed, lack of theory resulted in conceptual
modelling research falling into disrepute – a problem that researchers on
conceptual modelling have found difficult to shrug off. Wand and I saw
the absence of theory, however, to be an important opportunity to build
theory in relation to the representational phenomena that we believe lies at
the heart of information systems. In this light, we have worked to articulate
and test basic theory about the nature of good or faithful representations.
We have used and adapted a theory of ontology developed by Bunge
(1977) as the basis for our work. In this regard, like other information sys-
tems research, we are borrowing a theory from another discipline (philoso-
phy) to account for the phenomena that are our focus. In the case of con-
ceptual modelling, however, we believe Bunge’s ontological theory will
have to be extended and adapted markedly for it to provide powerful
explanations and predictions of conceptual modelling phenomena. Prior
research on conceptual modelling suggests the sorts of ways that Bunge’s
theory needs to be extended and enhanced. Ultimately, we hope that the
“value-add” of the theoretical work done in the information systems disci-
pline will lead other disciplines to ascribe ownership of the new theoretical
contributions to the information systems discipline. Of course, only time
will tell. For the moment, however, Wand and I believe that information
systems researchers have a rich agenda of work on conceptual modelling
that can be undertaken (Wand & Weber 2002).
As with patterns of the first type, perhaps patterns of the second type exist
that provide a basis for developing new, basic theory in the information
systems discipline. Once more, I hope this is the case because the identifi-
cation of more patterns would lay the foundation for a richer, more-
diverse, more-interesting and potentially more-important discipline. For
the moment, however, I am unable to identify such patterns.
References
Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R.W. (2003) “The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline:
Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties”, MIS Quar-
terly. Vol. 27, No. 2, June, pp. 183-194.
Bunge, M. (1977) Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 3: Ontology I: The Fur-
niture of the World, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
Codd, E.F. (1970) “A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks”,
Communications of the ACM. Vol. 13, No. 6, June, pp. 377-387.
Lundeberg, M. (1992) “A Framework for Recognizing Patterns When Reshaping
Business Processes”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. Vol. 1,
No. 3, pp. 116-125.
Lundeberg, M. (1993) Handling Change Processes: A Systems Approach, Stu-
dentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.
332 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
1984 and his teaching and research focuses information strategies, electro-
nic business, knowledge management and inter-organisational learning. He
is extensively involved in executive education, has published four text-
books and performs industry assignments. He is chairman of IFIP WG 3.4.
(mr@cs.uta.fi)
Dietrich Seibt, Professor, Director of the Department of Information Sys-
tems & Information Management, University of Cologne, Germany.
Dietrich Seibt has authored and edited several books on information man-
agement and written numerous book chapters and articles. His research
focuses areas that include management of information and information
systems, multimedia telecommunications applications, electronic com-
merce, and e-learning systems. (seibt@wi-im.uni-koeln.de)
Åge Sørsveen, Consultant, teacher and researcher, Oslo, Norway. Åge
Sørsveen has decades of experience in organisational (including IT-
related) change and development of models, frameworks and learning
approaches in this field. He is author of Ledelse pa norsk (Norwegian
Leadership) with Erling Andersen and Ingeborg Baustad. (aage.sorsveen@
idrettsforbundet.no)
Gösta Steneskog, M.Sc., researcher and management- and IT-consultant.
He is involved in research, consultation, and knowledge transfer in the area
of Business Process Development, with a special focus on Process Man-
agement, Project Management and Information Technology. He has
worked in several positions at IBM and other corporations. Gösta has been
involved in European research projects and published in several books.
(gosta.steneskog@procman.se)
Bo Sundgren, Professor, Department of Information Management, Stock-
holm School of Economics, Sweden. He received his PhD from the Uni-
versity of Stockholm in 1973 with the thesis “An Infological Approach to
Data Bases”. His main research interests are conceptual modelling, ana-
lytical information systems, and metadata systems, and he has published
numerous books and papers on these topics. At present he shares his time
between academic research and a position as senior advisor to the man-
agement of Statistics Sweden, and he has also undertaken numerous tasks
related to statistical information systems on the international arena.
(Bo.Sundgren@hhs.se)
Alexander Verrijn-Stuart, originally a physicist, worked for the Royal/
Dutch Shell Laboratory and then had an international career with Shell in
computing and planning, before being appointed Professor of Computer
Science at Leiden University in 1970 (emeritus 1991). His publications
338 Exploring Patterns in Information Management
Download Information
All chapters in this book can be downloaded
in electronic form from:
www.hhs.se/im/exploringpatterns
EFI Publications
Information on the full range of publications from
the Economic Research Institute is available from:
www.hhs.se/efi
Blanksida
Blanksida