IS and IT
Regarding the concept of IS(information System), it must be said that its delimitation is a problematic, due to the diversity of existing definitions, due to the numerous names the concept is and has been given historically and, above all, due to the present uncertainty between this concept and that of Information Technology (IT). These confusions show the great complication of an organizational factor with different aspects, including technical, human and organizational.
Most definitions of IS include the functions this system carries out as part of the concept itself. Thus, for Anderson, Raeburn and Beddie (1992), an IS is a system which collects, records, stores and rearranges the data on the operations of a business, and then offers the results of this process to the suitable personnel of a corporation under the shape of information; this information will be used to facilitate an efficient management of the said business, to control its operations and as a basis for efficient action. In a nutshell, an IS must help corporations to make decisions.
In order to carry out these functions, the system must have a number of components;
According to Davis (1995) and Gremillion and Pyburn (1988), such components are: hardware, software, data, people and procedures. A longer list is provided by Turban, McLean and Wetherbe (1996), who quote hardware, software, databases, people, procedures, purposes, networks and social context. It can be observed that, among these elements, informatics components are a must, which is a source of confusion (for IS is equated to informatics, and, eventually, to IT); therefore, we suggest as an alternative list: information and data, people and supporting elements.
By information and data we mean the output and the input of these systems. Concerning people,The supporting elements are the physical resources used to carry out all the functions of the information system. Such resources may be informatics-based, but the nonfigurative view of IS leads us to emphasize that computers are just another support element, for which there are other mechanical or manual alternatives (telephones, filing cabinets… even pen and paper).
So as to underline this idea, it must be remembered that the concept of IS or MIS (Management Information Systems) was born before computers were, although computers have lead to a widening of this concept (Shave and Bhasckar 1982). Besides, it would be a mistake to describe IS from a merely informatic point of view, for it would mean disregarding its organizational and human dimension. In short, an IS cannot be effectively used and understood if these latter factors are ignored (Laudon and Laudon 1991a).
On the other hand, it must also be acknowledged that the controversy about the notion of IS results from its different definitions. Until a few years ago, the most frequently used academic term was MIS (Management Information System). However, MIS can also be called Organizational Information Systems, Computer Based Information Systems or simply IS (Ives, Hamilton and Davis 1980). Of all these names, IS is the most general one, for it specifies neither which users it is addressed to (CEO’s or not) nor which technology it requires (computers or otherwise) to transform data into information.
To make this terminology even more complex, IT is frequently used as a synonym of IS, as I mentioned above. This is due to the fact that, strictly speaking, IT concerns the technological component of an IS, as it includes hardware, databases, software networks and other resources suitable for information processing. As such, it may be seen as a subsystem of an IS (Turban, McLean and Wetherbe 1996) or, even better, as one of its components, which we discussed above as a supporting element.
The term IT was first referred to by Leavitt and Whisler (1958), who used it to describe the various developments appeared in different fields (from sociology to electronic engineering) sharing a concern for the systematic manipulation of information by individuals, groups or machines. The notion also included all the technologies and applications combining data processing and the storing power of computers with the possibility of distance transmission of telecommunications (Child 1987). Any technology based on informatics and telecommunications hardware and/or software would be included within this definition (Cooper and Zmud 1990).
http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/1655/4/The_performance_of_information_systems.pdf(viewed at 9/04/10)
What Is Organizational Culture?
Gareth Morgan has described organizational culture as: "The set of the set of beliefs, values, and norms, together with symbols like dramatized events and personalities that represents the unique character of an organization, and provides the context for action in it and by it." Beliefs and values are words that will pop up frequently in other definitions, as well. Norms might be described as traditions, structure of authority, or routines.
http://www.organizationalculture101.com/definition-of-organizational-culture.html (viewed at 12/04/10)
Organizational Culture and IS
The concept of organizational culture as a general for describing how things are done in a corporation is also interlinked with IS an IT aloso tells us about the behaviour of people in the face of IS.
By concerning the people who are the part of an IS, the culture of the organization will influenced the also will be influenced by the technicians (programmers) and Users (End-Users) Even they are within organization or individuals directly related to it are the part of the organization and cant b excluded from the analysis of organizational behaviour in the face of IT. In other words according to EI Saway(1985) “Culture Implicates”.
According to some other scholars like Pliski, Romn, Lee and Weber (1993) IS may have different prospect and meaning for different people in organization on different levels e.g. System Analyst will take in different way and End users will take it in different prospect.
So we can say users is also the part of IS and should play their role in implementation of IS . According to Ward (1987) technicians or programmers should build the system to manage information in which users are also have their interest not only for computers.
Unluckily, In most of cases IS is implemented with just only programmers (technicians) consideration and analysis not with users (end-users).it may cause operational level problems, culture conflict could arise with users if they have not been involved in implementation process Lin and Ashcraft (1990) also argued that end users have meaningful influence in accomplishment if IS because they are the part of the organizational culture.
http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/1655/4/The_performance_of_information_systems.pdf (viewed at 14/04/2010)
so we can say end users involvement is necessary in implantation process to minimize the conflict within and out of organizational culture.
Influence
Claver and et al presented a model for influence among IT, IS, and organizational culture (Figure1). This model is a good starting point to understand how information (whether suitable or not) is generated so that a firm may make decision. Regarding the data, If we bear in mind that IS is responsible for transformation them into information, It follows that the amount and quality of this data will be a key factor. Southem and Murray use the term "information-based culture" to express the need for all those involved in data collection to share the idea that an IS must be supported by a good data system. In addition to these It should be said that when these data are processed, ethical principles must be considered, which are in turn a result of the general culture existing in the firm.
Although Claver and et al focused on the qualitative and human side of the process, they admitted that a necessary prerequisite for a suitable implementation of an IS is the financial and technical feasibility of the acquisition or innovation of this IT. However strong the organizational interpretation within the culture may not be as visible as it might be initially expected.
In many studies about information technology and organizational culture, the technology under investigation is assumed to be a fixed artefact or a fixed form as deployed in a given setting. Many of these studies have neglected rarely acknowledged.
Early studies suggested that IT exerts specific impacts on organizations, thus causing changes in Organizational cultures, norms, structure, performance, and other business attributes in deterministic mode. Although this view is now largely rejected by most IS scholars. For example, in modern studies of GroupWare adoption, some authors have employed deterministic logic to explain how GroupWare impacts employee communication, collaboration, and productivity. Gallivan and Srite regarded these studies as deterministic, since they assume that certain outcomes will necessarily follow IT adoption, without considering managers’ or employees’ motives or their actions in shaping how the IT is used. Like earlier determinist studies, these authors assume that IT not only will have a pre-determined effect on the people and organizations adopting it, but largely independent of the context in which it is adopted how it is used or the specific intentions and actions of its users.
A second set of beliefs about the relationship between IT and Organizational Culture is that IT is a tool that can be leveraged to achieve whatever changes in organizational practice managers’ sabotage. The interaction perspective assumes that both the IT and the Organizational Culture are fixed in the short run. Researchers have cautioned managers to consider Organizational Culture as a binding constrain when implementing IT. The binding constrain view is illustrated by advice offered by Pliskin (1994). Who warned managers against trying to change a firm’s culture.
Organizational Culture and IS. A Specific Relationship
An organizational culture, as we argued above, consists in the values shared by the members of a firm; this is why there will be specific beliefs regarding any corporate structure and behaviour. When such beliefs are widely shared, the culture is said to be a strong or powerful one; however, when a certain value has been accepted by a very specific group just as the informatic department (for instance, the idea that an IS is a very important factor for a firm’s competitiveness), then it is said that there is also a subculture. We have introduced this distinction in order to underline that we shall mainly describe the dominant culture of a firm, for the two options we shall discuss (informatic and informational culture) affect the whole organization and may result in two different views of IT/IS within the activity of a firm.
Once these differences have been established, we may identify two organizational positions in the face of IT. A first, less complex one, would entail accepting that using IT is important for a firm (informatic culture); a second, more progressive one, envisages IT as the foundation for the creation of an IS enabling the firm to make correct decisions (informational culture).
The first one, an informatic culture, is easily identified by the members of a firm, for it is a material symbol of the culture; however, the informational culture is a much more complex one, for it includes the other one, but also the people -through the organizational behaviour-, the information and the data. There is no doubt that, when it is a shared value, an informational culture is more enriching for a firm’s competitiveness, because it is not only a resource (IT) but also a capability (IS). All these ideas are summarized in Figure 2.
As Figure 2 shows, an efficient transformation of IT into a suitable IS cannot take place without changing the informatic culture into an informational one. More specifically, it should be said that, more than changed, the set of values should be expanded; in such a way that an informational culture, in addition to informatic beliefs, should also have its own concept of support to IS in the process of supplying decision-making information.
A further important issue in Figure 2 is the analysis of how the informational vision will affect the global organizational culture (in Figure 2, it is the transformation of organizational culture (I) into (II). The answer is that all members of the firm must accept the usefulness of the informational culture. If these values generate a higher financial profit for a firm, they will be favourably received by CEO’s. In this line, Byrd and Marshall (1996) stress the important role played by culture within EIS (Executive Information Systems). At the same time, if they reduce anxiety and increase the satisfaction of users, IS technicians, and the whole organization, they will also be accepted.
Therefore, if these conditions are fulfilled, we could think that there will be a non traumatic modification (in the shape of an evolution) of the organizational culture through the informational values, towards a situation where the IS plays a more important role within corporate beliefs. Of course, the opposite process might also occur, and then the progressive incorporation of the IS into the firm’s structure would be a much more complex one. This leads us to the idea that any managerial decision improving culture in this way will allow a positive acceptance during the implementation of IS/IT within a firm.
In order to understand this favourable relationship between informational culture and the implementation of IT/IS, we cannot forget the advice by Romm, Pliskin and Weber (1995), who warn us that any cultural modification decision must be a long term one, whereas the implementation of IT/IS may be made in the short term, which increases the difficulty in case of disagreement between them. Nevertheless, in the last section we shall suggest some guidelines to achieve an integration.
Characteristics OfInformatic And Informational Culture
Once we have outlined the previous concept, I need to comment on in depth the characteristics of an informatic and an informational culture, in order to decide which kind of managerial intervention is required to transform the former into the latter.
An informatic culture can only see the need to make tactical or short term decisions in the IT area; therefore, its values lie in separating such technologies both from the firm’s strategic planning and from an IS generating strategic decisions. Other features of this culture are that the improvements created by IT are always measured in quantitative terms; the informatics department is seen as a cost center. As in this vision IT is a short-term concept, there is no investment plan in this area. This is why Mirvis, Sales and Hackett (1991) point out that firms may make mistakes when purchasing equipment, miscalculate the cost/profit benefit ratio or end up spending more and earning less than expected.
As a result of what we have described, the implementation of IT within the firm is only carried out by technical personnel, the users are disregarded and the senior management does not become involved in its development; everything is left to the informatics department and operations managers. This is clearly illustrated by the term "IT specialists culture", coined by Coombs, Knights and Willmott (1992).
Compared to an informatic culture, an informational culture goes much further, for it understands the usefulness of IS for strategic and tactical decisions (in the short, medium and long term). Besides, within this corporate values IT/IS is measured quantitatively (financial cost/profit ratio), but also qualitatively (usefulness for all members of the firm); the informatics department is seen not only as a cost center, but also as a profit-creating department. Of course, since there is also a long-term view, the IS also requires an investment plan.
Finally, within these corporate beliefs it is assumed that the implementation of IS/IT requires the intervention of technicians and users in an organization; the management must also be involved by monitoring the process.
Although their terminology differs from ours, Bensaou and Earl (1998) also have analyzed this idea, which they relate to the Western and Japanese way IT is managed.
I believe that it is excessively simplifying to establish country stereotypes, for in these qualitative issues each organization has its own situation (we cannot forget that a firm’s culture is like an individual’s personality). In other words, the idea is theoretically interesting, but it is difficult to draw generalizations from it.
As a consequence of all this, we can see that we are not dealing with two opposed cultures; rather, the informational culture represents a more advanced position than the informatic culture, in fact the first includes the second and goes beyond it, in order to better profit from IT through a useful IS which is valued and accepted by an organization; in this IS, training plays a crucial role, not only concerning technicians, but also users.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that between an informatic culture in its most strict meaning and an informational culture, with its clearly defined characteristics, there is a wide range of possibilities which may apply to any firm and it is necessary to know.
In some cases, there may not exist even a minimum informatic culture, for it is believed that IT resources are not useful to a firm; although this is exceptional in the marketplace, the possibility cannot be ruled out. In this way, a diagnosis of the values accepted by all the organizational members as regards IS/IT will reflect the position of the firm in this issue, and also how intense the effort must be until a fully profitable informational culture can be reached.
Implementing IS and cultural requirements
From what has been said so far, it follows that an informational culture is the one allowing a better usage and succesful implementation of an IS. However, not all organizations share these beliefs; therefore, in this section I will discuss the guidelines for an IS to be most efficient in a firm through technical usage, but especially through a clear motivation among the people related to them. This is a complex issue, which requires, to start with, the study of the factors of resistance to their implementation; then, we shall try to find ways to overcome these obstacles.
Thus, we may list the main reasons to oppose IS/IT by making a distinction between management and non management staff.
A. Non Management Staff
- It may involve routine processes, with the negative effects they entail (Walton 1989).
- An inadequate usage is likely to create communication barriers, because they isolate tactical users.
- In general, they may generate negative psychological processes, such as lack of commitment, motivation and satisfaction amongst the organization, as the firms become less dependent on these individuals and more dependent on the IS (Ives and Olson 1984; Markus and Robey 1983; Taggart and Robey 1981).
B. Management Staff
- It may create opposition as managers have to use a keyboard, which they consider a secretarial job.
- Managers may not see the IS as something useful, for the information it offers does not appeal to them.
- A non user-friendly IS may cause managers be afraid of making a fool of themselves by being unable to learn.
- Refusal will arise if it is felt that the IS may lead to an undesirable redistribution of power.
As a whole, whatever the level within the organizational hierarchy, the implementation of an IS may create "techno-stress" (Brod 1988), as a situation resulting from all these negative feelings.
A way to eliminate, or at least reduce, these obstacles, is by analyzing the culture and adapting it to the implementation of the IS. In this sense, Lu (1995) has pointed out that, if the existing culture emphasizes innovation and decision making in risk environments, the introduction of IS/IT will meet a lower opposition by all the organization.