ALIGNING INFORMATION SERVICES AND BUSINESS NEEDS: A

FRAMEWORK FOR MAPPING RESEARCH APPROACHES

Ragnvald Sannes, Ph.D. Candidate,Department of Information Management, Stockholm School of Economics,

and Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology (IMIT)

Box 6501, 113 83 Stockholm, SWEDEN

Telephone: (+46) 8 736 9451Telefax: (+46) 8 30 47 62Internet: IRS at HHS.SE

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the conceptual difficulties in studies of alignmentbetween business needs and information services. First, I discussapproaches to the alignment between business needs and informationservices, based on layered models of an organization. These models areused to develop a framework that serves the understanding of the researchproblem and how it is approached.

Second, a meta-framework based on Giddens’ theory of structuration isdeveloped. The role of the meta-framework is to explicate how theresearcher’s view on the nature of the phenomenon under study affects thedesign parameters of a study.

Third, the two frameworks are used to develop a general researchframework for mapping studies of the alignment between informationservices and business needs into a larger picture. Together. theseframeworks can be used to inform the formulation of research problem,choice of research design, and relating a study’s theoretical contributionsto other works. These frameworks contribute to identification andunderstanding of research issues and approaches to the usefulness ofinformation systems in business organizations.

1. INTRODUCTION

Research in the alignment between business needs and informationservices has not yet reached any conclusive results on the relationshipbetween use of information technology and business success. A largenumber of works argue for the positive effects on business of applyinginformation technology. Surveys in the UK and the US indicate that firmsleading in the use of information technology are more profitable than thefollowers (Earl, 1989:3).1 DeLone and McLean suggested a framework ofsix major categories of factors that contribute to success (DeLone andMcLean, 1992). Their study found 118 factors in total, leading the authorsto conclude: “it is apparent that there is no consensus on the measure ofinformation systems success” (DeLone and McLean, 1992:80). There is alsoperformed research on information systems failures (Lucas, 1975), andsurveys of user opinions that indicate that as much as 80% of all systemsdevelopment efforts are direct or partial failures (Mowshowitz, 1976;Vowler, 1991).

Empirical analyses reveal that information systems tend more often to be‘troublemakers’. Accordingly, ‘failure’ rather than ‘success’ is common in systemsdevelopment efforts. (Lyytinen, 1987:4)

Economists have argued that there is a productivity paradox regardinginvestments in information technology (Loveman, 1988; Roach, 1987). Theparadox is that there is no productivity impact of information technologyspendings in aggregate statistics. A recent study, however, found apositive relationship between spendings on information technology andreturn on investment (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1993). Their sample indicatesthat the paradox disappeared by 1991.

We have learned that changes in technology will lead to changes in otherelements of the organization (Chandler, 1962; Leavitt, 1965), and effectiveimplementation of information systems requires an integration of technicaland organizational aspects (Clark, 1989; Walton, 1989). The effects ofinformation systems are mediated by organizational structure,competence, and ability for change (Docherty and Stymne, 1993).

1 Earl refers to reports from the consultant firms Nolan, Norton & Co, and A. T. Kearney.

Still, surveys indicate that information systems managers perceiveintegration of the information systems functions and the line organizationas a key issue (Brancheau and Wetherbe, 1987; Dickson et al., 1984; Hartogand Herbert, 1986; Niederman et al., 1991).2 One explanation is that mostinformation systems development methods overlook these aspects(Lyytinen, 1987). The mediating factors are among the traditionalresponsibilities of the line manager (Rockart, 1988). Managers in the lineorganization therefore play a key role in aligning business needs andinformation services.

Business needs is used in this paper referring to people’s information needsin terms of accessing, processing and exchanging informationduring their work.

Information services refer to the services a person can draw upon to satisfyhis or her information needs. The services include technology (thetechnical infrastructure), functions (application systems and end-user tools), information (databases), and support on how to utilizethe information services.

This definition of business needs has two implications that I will explicatehere. First, the definition of business needs refers to the work-situation, butare not restricted to the task-level. Business needs may relate to specifictasks as well as business strategy formulation. The relationship betweenbusiness needs and information services therefore includes multiple levelsof the organization. This matter is discussed in the section 2: Alignmentand Organizational Levels.

Second, the concept of people’s information needs indicates that businessneeds are defined in a social context. The position taken here is that realityis a social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Giddens, 1984; Weber,1947). Therefore a thorough study should consider the social context wherepeople use information services to perform their part of the businessoperations. This issue is discussed in the section 3: Suggestions for a Meta-framework.

2 In neither study it was the top issue, but it was among the top ten in all studies.

2. ALIGNMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS

The purpose of the present section is to discuss how the concept ofalignment between business needs and information services is shaped bythe organizational level that is in focus. First, I will discuss several layeredmodels of organizations, and how these models are related to each other.Second, I continue with a discussion of approaches to align informationservices with business at each of the levels.

Layered Models of Organizations

Layered management systems are part of the hierarchical organization.Parsons differentiated three organizational levels: the technical level wherethe actual product of the organization is processed, the managerial levelwho mediates between the technical level and its immediate taskenvironment, designing and controlling the production system, and theinstitutional level that relates the organization to its environment byestablishing and maintaining organizational boundaries and securinglegitimacy (Scott, 1992:71; Thompson, 1967:10-13). Each level is discussedbelow and related to Anthony’s planning and control framework(Anthony, 1965), Porter’s value chain theory (Porter, 1985), andVenkatraman’s five levels of business transformation (Venkatraman, 1991;Venkatraman, 1994).

Decisions at the lower level (technical/operational) tend to be morerational than decisions at higher levels (Thompson, 1967). The decisionsituations can be characterized as either programmed or non-programmed(Simon, 1960:5-8).

The technical level is concerned with decisions of operational characterabout the organization’s internal affairs. The focus is on value activitiesand their linkages rather than the value chain itself. This level of theorganization is more like a closed system, sealed off from externaluncertainties (Thompson, 1967:11). Transformations at this level focus oninternal integration by redesigning linkages between value activities, or byimprovements in business functions (changes within value activities).Decisions are often programmable. The focus is on efficiency in the sense‘doing things right’ (Drucker, 1964:5).

The managerial level is concerned with tactical decisions aboutorganizational arrangements for internal operations as well as interactionwith customers and suppliers. Transformations at this level are concernedwith business process (re)design, in other words redesigning the valuechain. The decisions are more programmable than the strategic decisions,often semi-structured of nature (Keen and Scott Morton, 1978). The focus ison effectiveness related to systemic desirability (instrumental purposes)(Checkland and Scholes, 1990).

The institutional level is concerned with strategic decisions about theorganization and its environment. In terms of Porter’s theory, this level isrelated to define and position the organization in the value system. Interms of Venkatraman’s model, this level emphasizes business scope(re)definition and business network (re)design. Decision makers at thislevel interact with the environment, in an open system. The decisionsituation is non-programmable. The primary function is to secure that theorganization focus on ‘the right thing’ (Drucker, 1964:5), in other words,this level works to improve and maintain the effectiveness of theorganization and its cultural feasibility (institutional purposes) (Checklandand Scholes, 1990). Table 1 below summarizes and compares the levelsused by various authors.

Table 1: Comparison of organizational levels

Parsons Anthony Porter Venkatraman

Technical Operational Value Activities Internal integrationand Businessoperations

Managerial Tactical Value Chain Business processes

Institutional Strategic Value System Business network andBusiness scope

Organizational Levels and Information Services

The role of information services and their impact on the business differacross the three organizational levels. Therefore, the concept of alignmentis interpreted differently on each level, as discussed below.

Technical level alignment

At the technical level alignment between business needs and informationservices emphasize how information services meet the informationrequirements of specific tasks and support interdependence between tasks.The relevant measure of alignment is the extent to which the informationretrieved, processed, and presented fits the requirements of the task athand. Indicators in this area are related to the availability of theinformation services, the form of information retrieved versus informationused, and the ease-of-use in the given situation. These factors areinfluenced by the relationship between the work-situation and thesupporting information services. This relationship can be described in fourcategories: back-office support, front-office support, integrating, andenabling (Sannes, 1993).

Back-office support occurs when information services provide basic supportto an activity without being a direct part of it. Performing the activity andusing information services are separate activities. An example is salesrepresentatives on the road that write customer orders on order forms or anotebook at the customer’s place, and enters the order into an order-entrysystem later on.

Front-office support occurs when the information services are part ofperforming a task, but in a separate work step, for example by providinginformation that is necessary to perform or monitor operations. Anexample is when the sales representatives in the above example areequipped with a notebook computer and an information system thatsupports their activities. The sales representatives can search informationand enter orders directly into the system during customer visits.

An integrating relationship takes place when use of information servicesand performing the task are indistinguishable, they are one and the same.An example is an order entry function that receives orders on thetelephone and enters the information directly into the system. Thedifference from the sales representative example is that the primaryactivity for the order entry function it is to enter orders while the salesrepresentative is to sell. In other words, the relationship between aninformation system and a task must be related to the definition andboundary of a task.

Enabling relationships occur when the technical requirements of the task athand are based on information services. The activity is of a nature that it isimpossible or impractical to perform without information services. This isthe case when process innovations are based on information services. Anexample is when the customers place orders directly by on-line Audiotexor Videotex services.

The two categories back-office support and front-office supportrelationships are primarily related to changes within a value activity. Thecategories integrating and enabling while altering the nature of a task alsoreflect changes in linkages between tasks.

Managerial level alignment

At the managerial level alignment between business needs andinformation services emphasize the support to the business processes. Thefocal area is the fit between the information services and informationrequirements of internal operations and the interaction with customers andsuppliers.

As information services allow information exchange across time and spacethe principles for location of related tasks are altered. Location refers toboth geographical (spatial distribution of tasks) and organizationallocation (internal distribution of tasks), the latter referring to hierarchicallocation (where inside the organization tasks are performed) andinstitutional location (whether related tasks are internal or external to theorganization) (Hagström, 1991:2). In other words, information servicesmay enable a redesign of a firm’s value chain and its interface to otheractors in the value system.

Institutional level alignment

Information services can play several roles at the institutional level. First,information services can be embedded into the business network and forma basis for partnerships and joint ventures. Second, information servicesmay enable new businesses, widening or changing the scope of thebusiness. Third, they can serve managers with information about andanalyses of their environment, and thereby support them in strategicdecisions.

Alignment at the institutional level reflects how the information servicessupport or shape the desired position of the business vis-à-vis itsenvironment.

Approaches to Alignment

The above discussion has illustrated that alignment has a differentmeaning for each organizational level. Now, I want to discuss approachesto alignment between information services and business needs. Theliterature suggests several mechanisms for alignment, including linked orintegrated strategies and strategic planning (Earl, 1993; Earl, 1989;Henderson and Venkatraman, 1989; Marchand and Horton, 1986; Parsons,1983; Pyburn, 1983; Synnott, 1987; Vitale et al., 1986); aligning theinformation services function with the business organization (Earl andVivian, 1993; Earl and Feeny, 1994; Feeny et al., 1992; Henderson, 1990);and integration of business processes and information services (Davenportand Short, 1990; Davenport, 1993; Hammer, 1990; Keen, 1991; Wiseman,1988).

Literature on strategic planning for information systems commonly arguesthat the purpose of the information systems plan or strategy is to identifyinformation systems that meet the needs of the business (Earl, 1993; Earl,1989; Marchand and Horton, 1986; Pyburn, 1983; Synnott, 1987; Vitale et al.,1986). Empirical research indicates that this approach is of limited value(Goodhue et al., 1992; Lederer and Sethi, 1988; Lederer and Sethi, 1992).Integrated planning, an approach where business planning andinformation systems planning are performed simultaneously and theprocesses are indistinguishable (Synnott, 1987), has earned some empiricalmerits (Earl, 1993). This kind of approaches usually aims to supportalignment at the strategic level. The lack of empirical merits indicates thatalignment at the strategic level is insufficient for alignment at the lowerlevels.

Alignment between the information services organization and the businessorganization emphasize mechanisms that integrates or links the twoorganizations closer together. Partnership between the informationservices organization and the line managers can be described in terms ofthe context and actions of the relationship (Henderson, 1990). Partnership incontext refers to the degree of mutual benefits, commitment, and

predisposition that determine the expected durability of the relationship.Partnership in action reflects the ability to influence the factors that influencethe day-to-day working relationship. These factors are the amount ofshared knowledge, the degree of mutual dependency on distinctivecompetencies and resources, and the need for organizational processlinkage.

IT successes generally reflect an effective relationship between business managersand Information Services managers and their staffs. (Keen, 1991:214)

Keen’s view is commonly held among researchers (Boynton et al., 1992;Keen, 1991; Rockart, 1988). Also, a good relationship between linemanagement and information services management is regarded to impactthe ability to successfully exploit information technology in the business(Earl and Feeny, 1994; Feeny et al., 1992; Keen, 1991).

I view efforts to create partnership as a mechanism to achieve alignment atthe managerial level. Several studies have suggested that managerialalignment is a prerequisite for alignment at the strategic level (Earl andFeeny, 1994; Feeny et al., 1992; Henderson, 1990; Pyburn, 1983). On theother hand, it can be difficult to distinguish between the managerial leveland the technical level for partnership in action (the day-to-day workingrelationship).

Integration of business processes and information services is a recentapproach. Information services may be built into the thrusts that supportor shape the business’ competitive strategy (Wiseman, 1988).3 A widerscope is to analyse the impact of information technology on the businessrealities and form directions for the use of information services (Keen,1991). A third approach in this category is business process redesign,viewing information technology as a primary enabler for business processinnovation (Davenport and Short, 1990; Davenport, 1993).Theseapproaches are framed as related to the managerial level, although severalof the success stories are concerned with the technical level, for examplethe Ford Motor Company account payables case (Hammer, 1990).

3 Wiseman’s theory of strategic thrusts simplifies the multiplicty of possible strategic actions byreducing them to five basic actions: differentiation, cost, innovation, growth, and alliance.

A Framework for Alignment

The major lesson to be learned from the above discussions is thatalignment between business needs and information services is a trickyconcept. First, business needs and information services can be aligned atthe technical, managerial, and institutional level. There are no agreed uponunderstanding of alignment for any of the levels. Second, alignment can beachieved by integrating business planning and information systemsplanning, by integrating information services into business processes, or byestablishing partnerships that integrate the information servicesorganization with the business organization. The framework proposedhere (table 2) is a contribution to the development of a conceptualunderstanding of alignment between business needs and informationservices.

Table 2: A framework for aligning business needs and information services

Organizational level Description of alignment Approaches to achieve alignment

Technical Fit between informationservices and businessactivities.

Information services enableautomation and redesign of businessactivities.

Managerial Fit between informationservices and businessprocesses.

Partnership between the informationservices organization and the lineorganization.

Institutional Fit between informationservices and the businessstrategy.

Integration of information systemsstrategies and business strategies.

A strength of this framework is that it is a comprehensible concept ofalignment between business needs and information services. The majorweakness is that the framework does not include the time dimension. Thetime dimension will complicate the issue of alignment for each level,especially regarding assessment of alignment. Innovation theory can beused to model the life cycle of information services, from idea totermination.4 But, this is beyond the aims of this paper.

The framework facilitates the formulation of an operational definition ofalignment, and suggest the appropriate organizational level. But it also

4 I regard the six phase view of the IS implementation process (Kwon and Zmud 1987) and theframework for information-technology related innovation (Larsen 1993) as useful models for aninformation service’s life cycle.

indicates that studies limited to one level is of limited value as achievementof alignment includes efforts on all three levels, and that efforts at one levelmay influence the degree of alignment at another level. Furthermore, theapproaches to alignment emphasize structural changes (business activities,organizational integration, and strategy integration) while the discussionof these approaches includes aspects of human interaction as social context(task definition and boundary) and interpersonal relationships(partnership in action). Therefore, the alignment framework is insufficientto guide research design, and some of these difficulties will be resolved inthe following section.

3. SUGGESTIONS FOR A META-FRAMEWORK

In the introduction I argued that business needs are defined in a socialcontext. The purpose of this section is to develop a meta-framework for thesocial context where people use information services. Giddens’structuration theory will be drawn upon in general, and the concept ofduality of structure in special (Giddens, 1984; Giddens, 1993). The meta-framework is formed in the intersection between the research area and theperceived nature of the phenomenon, that is, the epistemological5 andontological6 position.

Human Action in Organizations

The epistemological and ontological issues are related to how the conceptsof action, meaning and subjectivity should be specified (Giddens, 1984:2).Human beings cannot help attribute meaning to their world and his or heractivities, being a purposive agent (Giddens, 1984:3) or taking purposefulaction (Checkland and Scholes, 1990:2). Both Giddens and Checklandbelieve that cognition, the process of attributing meaning, is based on, andat the same time creating experience-based knowledge. The same idea hasbeen applied in information systems, arguing that the transformation of

5 Epistemology: The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods and validation. TheConcise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, eighth edition, 1990 (Allen 1990).

6 Ontology: The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. The Concise OxfordDictionary of Current English, eighth edition, 1990 (Allen 1990).

data into information is based on the existing knowledge structure, that is,the semantic background (Langefors, 1973:249).

These arguments are in line with the subjectivist position of Max Weber,arguing that “the object of cognition is the subjective meaning-complex ofaction.” (Weber, 1947:101). But they do not, as Weber did, reject aninstitutionalized social world. Society has a dual character of objectivefacticity and subjective meaning, making reality a social construction(Berger and Luckmann, 1967:18). Giddens deal with this dualism in hisduality of structure, referring to a recursive ordering of social practices.Human agents reproduce, through their activities, the conditions thatmake these activities possible. Social systems exhibit structural propertiesthat are produced and reproduced through the interaction of humanactors, rather than as having structures (Orlikowski and Robey, 1991:147).

The Duality of Structure

Structure, as recursively organized sets of rules and resources, is out of time andspace, save in its instantiations and co-ordination as memory traces, and ismarked by an ‘absence of the subject’. The social systems in which structure isrecursively implicated, on the contrary, comprise the situated activities of humanagents, reproduced across time and space. Analysing the structuration of socialsystems means studying the modes in which such systems, grounded in theknowledgeable activities of situated actors who draw upon rules and resources inthe diversity of action contexts, are produced and reproduced in interaction.(Giddens, 1984:25)

The duality of structure refers to how we shape the world we live in at thesame time as it shapes us. Individuals draw on structural orinstitutionalized properties in their ongoing interactions, even as such usein turn reinforces the structural properties. The structural properties ofsocial systems are thus both the medium and outcome of the practices theyrecursively organize (Giddens, 1984). We create and recreate meaning,power and norms when we interact (Giddens, 1984:28-29; Giddens,1993:110). These elements are highly interdependent and difficult toseparate in practice, but can be treated distinctly for analytical purposes(Orlikowski, 1992). These three dimensions combined with a process focuson human agency and a structure perspective on institutionalizedproperties is the basis of Giddens’ framework. The six combinations arediscussed below, drawing upon (Giddens, 1984; Giddens, 1993) and(Orlikowski, 1992).

Human agency and meaning: Constitution and communication of meaning arefundamental to human interaction. Our stock of knowledge that we use togenerate meaning of human interaction is rooted in the language.Language forms the core of mutual knowledge that enable shared meaningand mediate communication. It is the core of the interpretive schemes wedraw on to make communication meaningful.

Institutionalized properties and meaning: The interpretive schemes alsorepresent structures of signification, that is typified schemes actors employto inform and define their interaction. As such, they represent social rulesof the context in which the interaction takes place.

Human agency and power: Power is understood as transformative capacity(Giddens, 1984:15). In an organizational setting this means that powerrefers to capabilities to accomplish outcomes. Exercise of power is mediatedby the resources human agents bring to and mobilize during interaction.Power can be exerted over authoritative resources (persons) and allocativeresources (objects or material phenomena).

Institutionalized properties and power: At the institutional level, power isreflected by structures of domination. All social systems are marked by anasymmetry of authoritative and allocative resources.

Human agency and norms: Here, norms are conventions or rules governingwhat is accepted or “appropriate” actions. Prevailing cultural norms oftenexpress normative sanctions that guide interaction.

Institutionalized properties and norms: Norms constitute structures oflegitimation whereby a moral order is articulated and sustained throughrituals, socialization practices, and tradition.

The three fundamental elements of interaction – meaning, power andnorms – are interrelated at the structural level and in the realm of humanaction. For example, the exercise of power (in accomplishing an outcome)requires competent communication, which in turn are based on a mutualstructure of signification. In addition, the domination over resources mustbe perceived as legitimate order or including capability to use normativesanctions. Hence, structure might be both constraining and enabling(Giddens, 1984:25).

A fundamental concept in understanding the duality of structure isintegration. Giddens emphasizes two forms of integration that areespecially important in the production and reproduction of social practices:social integration and system integration. Integration may be understood asinvolving reciprocity of practices between actors or collectives (Giddens,1984:28).

Social integration means systemness in face-to-face interaction and is anecessary condition for reinforcement of social practices. It refers toreciprocity between actors in social interaction (Giddens, 1984:28). Socialintegration is part of all social interaction and is a prerequisite formeaningful communication, the exercise of power, and use of sanctions. Itis the basis for human agency.

System integration refers to connections, that is, reciprocity between actorsor collectives, across time and space. System integration presupposes socialintegration (Giddens, 1984:28). System integration is the production andreproduction of institutionalized properties – structures – across time andspace.

Structuration is the process that ties the structural integration of systems tothe social integration of human interaction (Giddens, 1993:131). This is invirtue the duality of structure (Giddens, 1984:376). Structuration isinstitutionalization, in the sense of creating and maintaining a social orderor pattern (Berger and Luckmann, 1967:54; Jepperson, 1991:145; Meyer andRowan, 1977). The duality of structure is summarized in table 3 below.

Table 3: Dimensions of the duality of structure

Duality of meaning Duality of power Duality of norms

Structure (institutionalproperties)

Structure ofsignification

Structure ofdomination

Structure oflegitimation

Modalities (mediators) Interpretive schemes Resources Norms

Interaction (humaninteraction)

Communication Excercise of power Sanction

Adapted from (Giddens, 1984:29) and (Orlikowski, 1992:148)

The dimensions listed in table 3 is an analytical framework providing threeelements; meaning, power, and norms; and two perspectives; structuresand interaction. Further, it includes the mediator between the perspectivesfor each element. Neither the framework, nor the structuration theory,

informs about the phenomenon under study. Rather, it represents a theoryabout the nature of social interaction that can be used to support thediscussion and selection of relevant theories.

Information services are embedded in a social context and hence carrysocial meaning (Winograd and Flores, 1986). Information services thereforeinclude institutionalized properties, and may be approached from astructural perspective. Viewed as structure, information services areembedded in the social context that shapes human action. On the otherhand, human interaction shapes and reshapes the social context, andinformation services can therefore also be studied from an interactionperspective. Further, information services also are a medium of humaninteraction as people use them to communicate (either ‘directly’, forexample, by electronic mail, or ‘indirectly’, for example, by sharinginformation in an application system), and can be studied from a mediatorperspective. These perspectives will be discussed briefly below.

The duality of structure and structuration theory is an attempt to integrateobjectivity and subjectivity (Giddens, 1984). The difference betweensubjectivist and objectivist approaches to social sciences can be addressedin four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, humannature and methodology (Burell and Morgan, 1979). I will use thesedimensions to describe how Giddens succeeds in this effort in thefollowing discussion.

Information Services and Structure

In the structural perspective, information services are viewed astechnology. Technology is a term that differs in scope in organizationalstudies. It has been broadly defined by organization theorists as includingnot only the hardware used in performing work but also the skills andknowledge of workers, and even the characteristics of the object on whichwork is performed (Scott, 1992:227). Others have focused on technology ashardware, that is, the equipment, machines, and instruments that humansuse in productive activities. In this latter sense, technology is restricted tomaterial artifacts, that is, various configurations of hardware and software(Orlikowski, 1992).

The broad position corresponds to the definition of information servicesused in this paper. The narrow position includes the infrastructure, theapplication systems, and the end-user tools. In this report, I will use theterm information technology when I refer to technology in the narrow sense.The narrow scope, referring to information technology, is part of thestructural properties of the organization. This structure may putconstraints on, as well as enable, human interaction and the performanceof work. The broad scope, referring to information services, includes anadditional element in ‘soft’ services in terms of support on how to useinformation services. This support may be organized in a structuralarrangement, and can be viewed as a part of the organizational structure.But, these arrangements are also a matter of human interaction reflectingasymmetries in knowledge, competence, and skills.

The nature of integration in this perspective is system integration, that is,structures that sustain over time. Technology is an exogenous factor thatdetermines or constrains the behavior of individuals and organizations(Markus and Robey, 1988). This view is known as the technologicalimperative (Markus and Robey, 1988), and technology-push theories (Dosi,1984; Zmud, 1984). Leavitt and Whisler’s classical article about the impactof information technology on the nature of managerial jobs is an exampleof this perspective (Leavitt and Whisler, 1958). Another example is foundin Simon’s discussion of how the computers will recentralize decisionmaking (Simon, 1960).

The institutionalized properties of technology represent realism (orobjectivism) in the ontological dimension. The epistemology is positivistic,as the structural perspective emphasizes properties of the world that arehard and external to the individual. The institutionalized properties shapehuman action and the view on human nature implied by this perspective isdeterminism. Investigation of the structural properties is served bynomothetic methodologies that focus upon relationships and regularitiesbetween the structural properties. The institutionalized properties in thesense of technology characteristics become the research subject, and theinformation technology itself the corresponding research object. As thefocus is on characteristics that sustain over time, the description will be ofstatic nature. The nature of the explanation will be general relationshipsbetween structural properties of the technology.

Information Services and Human Interaction

In the interaction perspective, information services are viewed in terms ofhow the social context in which human interaction takes place forms theinstitutionalized properties. While the structural perspective focuses onhow the institutionalized properties of technology influence human action,the interaction perspective emphasizes how human action influences thesocial construction of technology.

This perspective is in line with the organizational imperative which holdsthat human actors design information systems to satisfy organizationalneeds for information (Markus and Robey, 1988). Another label for thisperspective is demand-pull theories (Dosi, 1984), or need-pull theories(Zmud, 1984). Information services are the product of human action(Orlikowski, 1992). First, the services are designed and developed byhuman action. As a consequence, the information services are not onlyembedded in the social context (as in the structural perspective), but thesocial context is also built into the information services. Second, whendeveloped, the social context of the use situation influences the extent towhich a new information service is adopted and diffused. Users maymodify the institutionalized properties of the information services overtime as they gain experience with the services.

The interaction perspective emphasizes the distinction between the narrowscope of information technology versus the broader scope of informationservices. Information technology is a fixed supportive structure whileinformation services are enacted in human interaction. This means thatthere is a shift in focus from structural properties to the enactment ofhuman action, and the world is conceived as created by individualcognition. Therefore, the ontology of the interaction perspective issubjectivism (nominalism). To understand the alignment betweeninformation services and business needs this perspective emphasizes thesocial context where human action is carried out, and the actors’ point ofview. The epistemology is anti-positivism. Hermeneutics is an example ofan anti-positivistic approach. Because human action is enacted, and socialintegration is a prerequisite for system integration, the view of humannature is voluntaristic, as explained by the organizational imperative. Thenatural research subject is related to the individual work-situation, and theresearch object is the use of information services. The use of information

services is viewed as a process. The description will be dynamic. Thenature of explanation is unique processes.

Information Services as Mediating Human Interaction and

Institutionalized Practices

In the mediator perspective, information services are viewed as a mediumof human interaction. Being used by people, they mediate their action(Orlikowski, 1992). First, people may communicate directly in terms ofdata exchange and electronic mail. Here, information technology serves asa communication media in the same sense as face-to-face communication,telephone, letters, etcetera. Second, the use of information services is likelyto influence the performance of the work, otherwise they will not be used.7

In this sense, information services mediate the output of human effort.

This perspective holds that the use and consequences of informationtechnology emerge from complex social interactions, which is an emergentperspective on technology (Markus and Robey, 1988). Dosi’s concept oftechnological trajectories is similar to this perspective. It is based on Kuhn’sideas and views technical progress in terms of technical paradigms andrevolutions (Dosi, 1984). In the push-pull theory, the interaction betweentechnology development and organizational change occur when a needand a means for resolving this need is simultaneously recognized Zmud,1984 #61. The push-pull theory, and the technological trajectories, arenarrow accounts of the emergent perspective as they ignore the dynamicsif the relationship created by interaction over time. Therefore, theyoverlook that the same technology can lead to different outcomes becauseit becomes a social object whose meaning is defined by the context of itsuse (Barley, 1986). In short, technology is an institutional process (Burnsand Stalker, 1961:27).

The emergent perspective represents a mutual-adaptation-over-time viewon the relationship between technology, organizational arrangements, andhuman interaction. It does not rule out neither the technological nor theorganizational imperatives, rather, it integrates them in a larger social

7 Following from Giddens’ assumption about the purposive agent and Checkland’s notion ofpurposeful action.

context. In that respect, we can say that the emergent perspective mediatesthe two other perspectives.

The mediator perspective moves the discussion beyond the dichotomyobjectivism versus subjectivism. A consequence of this position is thatinformation services both include institutionalized properties and areinterpreted in a social context (Kling and Iacono, 1989). The ontology canbe described as a socially constructed reality of subjective meaning andobjective ‘facts’. The concern is neither the ‘objective’ structural propertiesnor the subjective meaning of information services. The focal area is theprocess of institutionalization. Phenomenology and etnomethodologyinclude epistemologies that are feasible for such studies. In thisperspective, it is no longer a choice between technology and organizationaltasks as the object, or structural properties and the context of human actionas subject. Both are needed, as the focus is on how these interact over time,that is how institutionalized properties are created and reproduced byhuman action across time and space discontinuities. Therefore, bothvoluntaristic and deterministic assumptions about human nature areincluded in this perspective. In Giddens’ terminology, the mediatorperspective focuses on the relationship between social integration andsystem integration, in other words, the process of structuration (Giddens,1984:28). Therefore, the natural research subject is the interaction betweeninformation technology (structure) and the performance of work (humanaction). The research object is reproduced (social) practices in the use ofinformation services. Consequently, the description of observation has toinclude both structures drawn upon and the process of use. Theexplanation will emphasize the relationship between structures andprocesses, explaining the process of structuration.

A Meta-Framework for Information Services in Organizations

The discussion in this section has illuminated the methodologicalconsequences of choosing perspective when studying information servicesin organizations. The general characteristics of the three perspectives aresummarized in table 4. I will emphasize that the perspectives are presentedas ideal types and that research efforts seldom can be described by thecharacteristics of only one perspective. The purpose of the ideal types is toemphasize the differences between the perspectives rather than thesimilarities. I will argue that the mediator perspective is different from

research that fails to address one of the other two perspectives correctly.Such research does not fit any of the ideal types. The value of this meta-framework is that it describes the three perspectives implicit instructuration theory in dimensions that characterize a research strategy.These perspectives and their description can be used to inform and refinethe framework for alignment between business needs and informationservices developed in section 2. This will be done in the next section.

Table 4: A meta-framework for studying information services in organizations

Dimension Structure perspective Interaction perspective Mediator perspective

Structurationmechanism

System integration Social integration Interpretive schemes,resources, and norms

Ontological position Objective reality Subjective reality Socially constructedsubjective meaningsand objective ‘facts’

Epistemologicalposition

Positivism Anti-positivism,hermeneutics

Phenomenology,etnomethodology,action frame ofreference

Human nature Deterministic Voluntaristic Both

Methodology Nomothetic, search forgeneral laws

Ideographic, subjectiveaccounts

Seeking objectivestructures andsubjective actions

Perspective ontechnology

Technologicalimperative

Organizationalimperative

Emergent perspective

Research subject Technologycharacteristics

The individual worksituation

Interaction betweentechnology and thework situation

Research object Information technology The use of informationservices

Reproduced practices

Description Static Dynamic Integration betweenstatic and dynamic

Nature ofexplanation

General structures Unique processes The relationshipbetween structuresand processes

4. ALIGNMENT BETWEEN BUSINESS NEEDS AND INFORMATION

SERVICES – CONSEQUENCES OF PERSPECTIVE AND LEVEL

The discussion will be centered around the three perspectives introducedabove; structural, interaction, and mediator, and the three organizationallevels introduced in section 2; technical, managerial, and institutional.

Alignment in the Structural Perspective

Alignment in the structural perspective represents a rational view onalignment. A study in this perspective conceptualizes alignment betweenbusiness needs and information services as the fit between the functionsprovided by information technology and the structural arrangements inthe organization. A pitfall with this perspective is the technologicalimperative, emphasizing information technology as an enablingtechnology with objective properties. Consequently, such studies mayeasily become studies of what the technology can do, given its technicalproperties.

On the institutional level, studies in the structural perspective conceptualizealignment as the fit between information services and the businessstrategy. The fit may be tapped by the link between business strategy andthe information technology strategy; as the number or magnitude of socalled strategic information systems; or by the match between the businesspotential and information technology opportunities. The focus is onobservable structural properties.

On the managerial level, alignment refers to the fit between themanagement, planning and control systems of the organization and theinformation services. The fit may be measured by the fit betweenmanagement’s need for control information and the information providedby the information services.

On the technical level, alignment refers to the direct match betweeninformation services and the work organization. This dimension can bemeasured by the fit between the functions provided by the informationservices and the work operations performed.

Studies performed from a structural perspective will seek to explain howstructural aspects of the business are matched by the structural propertiesof information technology. The explanations will be static, and not captureanything about the transformative capacity of the organization to createand maintain alignment over time. Such studies will present ‘snap-shots’ ofthe organization. Longitudinal studies will result in comparison ofdifferent structural ‘states’, without examining the processes where theprocesses evolve. Such studies are feasible for descriptive statistics andstatistical modeling that describe correlation among variables.

Alignment in the Interaction Perspective

In the interaction perspective, alignment is conceptualized in terms of howthe use of information services matches the work situation. Assuming thatthe information services are socially constructed, they are regarded asinterpreted in the user situation. Therefore, the structural characteristics ofthe information technology as well as the organization can be ignored. Incase they are included, they are viewed from the organizationalimperative, where information technology is designed to meetorganizational information needs.

On the institutional level, studies in the interaction perspectiveconceptualize alignment as the extent to which use of information servicessupports or shapes business strategies. The focus is on how use ofinformation services influences the interaction with the environment. Thiscan be measured by examining how information services are used tosupport communication between the firm and its external stakeholders(customers, suppliers, authorities, etc.).

On the managerial level, alignment refers to the fit between the informationservices and the communication processes of line management. This fitmay be measured by the amount of communication served by informationservices, related to the amount of communication where such support isfeasible and desirable.

On the technical level, alignment refers the fit between practices supportedby information services and the desired practice of the individual. Anindicator of this fit is the observed script-variability across individuals for aspecific task.

Alignment in the Mediator Perspective

Alignment in the mediator perspective emphasizes how informationservices mediate human interaction. As such, it focuses on howinformation services are institutionalized in the organization, and how theinstitutional properties influence how the information services are used.Research from this perspective would be concerned with how informationservices diffuse in the organization, how their use and form areestablished, etcetera. One example of this perspective is a study in

communication genres (Yates and Orlikowski, 1992). Another is Barley’sstudy of CT-scanners (Barley, 1986).

On the institutional level, studies in the mediator perspective emphasizehow use of information services may lead to emergent business practices,and alignment refers to how these of practices are in line with desiredbehavior, strategies, etcetera.

On the managerial level, use of information services influencecommunication patterns, power, and norms. Alignment at this level refersto the fit between evolving practices compared to the systemic desirabilityof these practices.

On the technical level, alignment reflects the process of evolving workpractices where use of information services matches the informationrequirements of a specific task.

A General Research Framework

The above discussion of each perspective and level form the basis for ageneral research framework concerned with the study of alignmentbetween business needs and information services. The framework issummarized in table 5. The general framework maps different focuses inrelation to perspective and level implied by the approach. The immediatevalue of the framework is to illustrate the value of using structurationtheory to inform the design of research tasks.

Table 5: A general research framework

Structure perspective Interaction perspective Mediator perspective

Technicallevel

Information technologyand task structure

Information services inthe social context of thework situation

Information services asshaped by or shaping thework situation

Manageriallevel

Information technologyand management controlsystems

Information services andmanagerialcommunication

Information services and(re)structuring ofcommunication, powerand norms.

Institutionallevel

Information technologyand business strategy

Information services andexternal interaction

Information services andthe emerge of businesspractices (strategies).

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper provides three frameworks that can be used to inform thedesign of a study concerned with alignment between business needs andinformation services. The first framework distinguishes between alignmentat various organizational levels (table 2). It also includes some approachesto achieve alignment, related to each organizational level. The secondframework is based on Giddens’ structuration theory and describes designimplications for each of the three perspectives implied by Giddens’ theory.The third map the general orientation of research efforts characterized byorganizational levels and perspective. Together, these three frameworkscan be used to map research designs into the larger picture, describingwhat a study is as well as what it is not.

The work with these frameworks is by no means finished with this paper.Further work has to include the time dimension. Innovation theory wassuggested as an approach to model the life cycle of an information service.All three perspectives can be further enlightened by broadening thediscussion to include theory on coordination and interdependencies.However, the value of general frameworks will always be limited. Generalframeworks can never substitute the development of a sound theoreticalbasis for a study. What they can do, is to facilitate development of a theoryby providing a broader picture to map studies and their contributions.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. E., ed. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Eighthed., London: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Anthony, R. N., Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis,Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Barley, Stephen R., “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidencefrom Observation of CT Scanners and the Social Order of RadiologyDepartments�”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, March,1986, pp. 78-108.

Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas, The Social Construction ofReality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, New York: AnchorBooks, Doubleday, 1967.

Boynton, Andrew C., Jacobs, Gerry, and Zmud, Robert W., “WhoseResponsibility is IT Management?”, Sloan Management Review,Summer, 1992, pp. 32-38.

Brancheau, James C. and Wetherbe, James C., “Key Issues in InformationSystems Management�”, Management Information SystemsQuarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1987, pp. 23-45.

Brynjolfsson, Erik and Hitt, Lorin, “Is Information Systems SpendingProductive? New Evidence and New Results”, in The FourteenthInternational Conference on Information Systems in Orlando, FL,edited by Janice I. DeGross, Robert B. Bostrom, and Daniel Robey,pp. 47-64, 1994.

Burell, Gibson and Morgan, Gareth, Sociological Paradigms andOrganisational Analysis: Elements in the Sociology of Corporate Life,Hants, U.K.: Gower Publishing Company, 1979.

Burns, Tom and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovation, London:Tavistock, 1961.

Chandler, Alfred D., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of theIndustrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1962.

Checkland, Peter and Scholes, Jim, Soft Systems Methodology in Action,Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.

Clark, Kim B., “What Strategy Can Do for Technology”, Harvard BusinessReview, November-December, 1989, pp. 94-98.

Davenport, Thomas H. and Short, James E., “The New IndustrialEngineering: Information Technology and Business ProcessRedesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1990, pp. 11-27.

Davenport, Thomas J., Process Innovation: Reengineering Work throughInformation Technology, Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press,1993.

DeLone, William and McLean, Ephraim, “Information Systems Success: TheQuest for the Dependent Variable”, Information Systems Research,Vol. 3, No. 1, 1992, pp. 60-95.

Dickson, Gary W., Leitheiser, Robert L., Wetherbe, James C., and Nechis,Mal, “Key Information Systems Issues for the 1980's”, ManagementInformation Systems Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1984, pp. 135-159.

Docherty, Peter and Stymne, Bengt, “Mediators of IT-Effectiveness�”,Paper presented to the OECD-NSF Workshop on The ProductivityImpacts of Information Technology Investments, Charleston, South-Carolina, November 11-13, 1993, 1993, pp.

Dosi, Technical Change and Industrial Transformation, MacMillan, 1984.

Drucker, Peter F., Managing for Results: Economic Tasks and Risk-TakingDecisions, New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Earl, Michael J., Management Strategies for Information Technology,London: Prentice Hall, 1989.

Earl, Michael J., “Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning�”,Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1993,pp. 1-24.

Earl, Michael J. and Feeny, David F., “Is Your CIO Adding Value?�”, SloanManagement Review, Spring, 1994, pp. 11-20.

Earl, Michael J. and Vivian, Philip, The Role of the Chief InformationOfficer: A Study of Survival, Egon Zehnder International, 1993.

Feeny, David F., Edwards, Brian R., and Simpson, Keppel M.,“Understanding the CEO/CIO Relationship�”, ManagementInformation Systems Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1992, pp. 435-448.

Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory ofStructuration, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.

Giddens, Anthony, New Rules of Sociological Method, Second ed.,Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.

Goodhue, Dale, Kirsch, Laurie J., Quillard, Judith A., and Wybo, Michael,“Strategic Data Planning: Lessons From the Field�”, ManagementInformation Systems Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1992, pp. 11-34.

Hagström, Peter, “The 'Wired' MNC: The Role of Information Systems forStructural Change in Complex Organizations”, Doctoral Dissertation,Stockholm School of Economics, Institute of International Business,1991.

Hammer, Michael, “Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate�”,Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1990, pp. 104-112.

Hartog, C. and Herbert, M., “1985 Opinion Survey of MIS Managers: KeyIssues�”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4,1986, pp. 351-361.

Henderson, John C., “Plugging Into Strategic Partnerships: The Critical ISConnection�”, Sloan Management Review, Spring, 1990, pp. 7-18.

Henderson, John C. and Venkatraman, N., Strategic Alignment: A ProcessModel for Intergrating Information Technology and BusinessStrategies, MIT, CISR Working paper No. 196, 1989.

Jepperson, Ronald L., “Institutions, Institutional Effects, andInstitutionalism”, in The New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 143-163.Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Keen, Peter G.W., Shaping the Future: Business Design ThroughInformation Technology, Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press,1991.

Keen, Peter G. W. and Scott Morton, Michael S., Decision Support Systems:An Organizational Perspective, Addison-Wesley Series on DecisionSupport, ed. Peter G. W. Keen and Charles Stabell. Reading, MA.:Addison-Wesley, 1978.

Kling, Rob and Iacono, Suzanne, “The Institutional Character ofComputerized Information Systems�”, Office: Technology andPeople, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989, pp. 7-28.

Kwon, Tae H. and Zmud, Robert W., “Unifying the fragmented models ofinformation systems implementation”, in Critical issues in informationsystems research, ed. Richard J. Boland and Rudy A. Hirschheim, 227-251. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Langefors, Börje, Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, Fourth ed.,Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1973.

Larsen, Tor J., “Organizational Information Technology Related Innovation:A Framework for Mapping and Development of Research Issues�”,NOKOBIT 1993, June, 1993, pp. 46-67.

Leavitt, Harold J., “Applying Organizational Change in Industry:Structural, Technological, and Humanistic Approaches”, in Handbookof Organizations, ed. Jim G. March, 41-48. Chicago, IL.: RandMcNally, 1965.

Leavitt, Harold J. and Whisler, Thomas L., “Management in the 1980s�”,Harvard Business Review, November-December, 1958, pp. 41-48.

Lederer, Albert L. and Sethi, Vijay�, “The Implementation of StrategicInformation Systems Planning Methodologies�”, ManagementInformation Systems Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1988, pp. 445-461.

Lederer, Albert L. and Sethi, Vijay, “Root Causes of Strategic InformationSystems Planning Implementation Problems�”, Journal ofManagement Information Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, pp. 25-45.

Loveman, Gary W., An Assessment of the Productivity Impact onInformation Technologies, MIT, Management in the 1990s WorkingPaper #88-054, 1988.

Lucas, Henry C., Why Information Systems Fail, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1975.

Lyytinen, Kalle, “A Taxonomic Perspective of Information SystemsDevelopment: Theoretical Constructs and Recommendations”, inCritical Issues in Information Systems Research, ed. Richard J. Bolandand Rudy A. Hirschheim, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Marchand, Donald A. and Horton, Forrest W., Infotrends: Profiting fromYour Information Resources, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.

Markus, M. Lynne and Robey, Daniel, “Information Technology andOrganizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research�”,Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, 1988, pp. 583-598.

Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian, “Instituionalized Organizations: FormalStructure as Myth and Ceremony�”, American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 83, No. 2, 1977, pp. 340-363.

Mowshowitz, A., The Conquest of Will: Information Processing, Reading,MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1976.

Niederman, Fred, Brancheau, James C., and Wetherbe, James C.,“Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s�”,Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1991,pp. 475-500.

Orlikowski, Wanda J., “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Conceptof Technology in Organizations�”, Organization Science, Vol. 3, No.3, 1992, pp. 298-327.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Robey, Daniel, “Information Technology and theStructuring of Organizations�”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2,No. 2, 1991, pp. 143-169.

Parsons, Gregory, “Information Technology: A New CompetitiveWeapon�”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1983

Porter, Michael E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and SustainingSuperior Performance, New York: The Free Press, 1985.

Pyburn, Philip J., “Linking the MIS Plan with Corporate Strategy�”,Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1983,pp. 1-14.

Roach, Steven, America's Technology Dilemma: A Profile of theInformation Economy, Special Economic Study, Morgan Stanley,1987.

Rockart, John F., “The Line Takes the Leadership: IS Management in aWired Society�”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, 1988, pp. 57-64.

Sannes, Ragnvald, Business Managers' Involvement in InformationMangement Issues: Matching Business Needs and InformationServices, Stockholm School of Economics, Thesis proposal 1993.

Scott, W. Richard, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems,Third ed., Englewoods Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1992.

Simon, Herbert A., The New Science of Management Decision, New York:Harper and Row, 1960.

Synnott, William R., The Information Weapon: Winning the Customers andMarkets with Technology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action, New York: Mc Graw-Hill,1967.

Venkatraman, N., “IT-Induced Business Reconfiguration”, in TheCorporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and OrganizationalTransformation, ed. Michael S. Scott Morton, 122-158. New York:Oxford University Press, 1991.

Venkatraman, N., “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From Automationto Business Scope Redefinition�”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35,No. 2, 1994, pp. 73-87.

Vitale, Michael R., Ives, Blake, and Beath, Cynthia M., “LinkingInformation Technology and Corporate Strategy: An OrganizationalView”, in The Seventh International Conference on InformationSystems in San Diego, CA., 1986 , pp. 265-276.

Vowler, J., “A Risky Investment that Business Has to Make�”, ComputerWeekly, Vol. 6, November, 1991.

Walton, Richard E., Up and Running: Integrating Information technologyand the Organization, Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press,1989.

Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, Translatedby Henderson, A.H. and Parsons, Talcott. New York: The Free Press ofGlencoe, 1947.

Winograd, Terry and Flores, Fernando, Understanding Computers andCognition: A New Foundation for Design, Norwood, NJ.: AblexPublishing Corporation, 1986.

Wiseman, Charles, Strategic Information Systems, Homewood, IL.: Irwin,1988.

Yates, Joanne and Orlikowski, Wanda J., “Genres of OrganizationalCommunication: A Structurational Approach to StudyingCommunication and Media�”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 17, No. 2, 1992, pp. 299-326.

Zmud, Robert W., “An Examination of 'Push-Pull' Theory Applied toProcess Innovation in Knowledge Work�”, Management Science,Vol. 30, No. 6, 1984, pp. 727-738.