Electronic Markets

, Volume 20, Issue 3–4, pp 229–240 | Cite as

The difficulty of studying inter-organisational IS phenomena on large scales: critical reflections on a research journey

General Research

Abstract

We argue that certain theoretical commitments that underpin much existing Inter-organisational Information Systems (IOIS) research at small scales become untenable when IOIS are studied at the scale of whole industries and over time periods greater than individual implementation projects. We make this argument by a detailed analysis of the problems we encountered when applying conventional research design methods in the early stages of a five year international comparative study of IOIS in pharmaceutical supply chains in four countries. We found that the large scale of our unit required a move away from the construction of discrete variables (dependent and independent) as well as from input-output process logic, to an alternate modelling approach derived from Structuration Theory and Practice Theory. We illustrate the revelatory power of this new lens by applying it to two cases. The paper will be of interest to IOIS researchers because we have systematically worked out the reasons for difficulties that limit IOIS research to unit and time scales smaller that the actual phenomenon. Because we refused to limit our own research object in this way, we ventured further into these problematic areas than others.

Keywords

Inter-organisational Information Systems (IOIS) Research design IS theory Structuration theory Practice theory Pharmaceutical industry 

JEL Classification

I11 - Analysis of Health Care Markets 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first and the third author would like to acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant number 1328/2-2.

References

  1. Barrett, M., & Walsham, G. (1995). Using IT to support business innovation: a case study of the London insurance market. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(2), 3–21.Google Scholar
  2. Child, J. (2000). Theorizing about organization cross-nationality. In J. L. C. Chen & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management, 13 (pp. 27–75). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. Christiaanse, E., & Huigen, J. (1997). Institutional dimensions in information technology implementation in complex network settings. European Journal of Information Systems, 6(2), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copeland, D. G., & McKenney, J .L. (1988). Airline reservation systems—lessons from history. MIS Quarterly, September 1988, 353–370.Google Scholar
  5. Damsgaard, J., & Lyytinen, K. J. (1998). Contours of diffusion of electronic data interchange in Finland: overcoming technological barriers and collaborating to make it happen. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 7, 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damsgaard, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2001). The role of intermediating institutions in the diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): how industry associations in the grocery sector intervened in Hong Kong, Finland, and Denmark. The Information Society, 17(3), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society—outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gregor, S., & Johnston, R. B. (2001). Theory of interorganizational systems: Industry structure and processes of change. In Proceedings of 34th Annual Hawaii Conference on Systems Sciences, 7, January 3–6, 2001, Maui, Hawaii, Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  9. Higgins, A., & Klein, S. (2011). The living lab methodology: Infrastructures for multi-organisational innovation. In Y.-H. Tan, N. Bjørn-Andersen, S. Klein, & B. Rukanova (Eds.), Accelerating global supply chains with IT-innovation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organizations: adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnston, R. B., & Gregor, S. (2000). A theory of industry-level activity for understanding the adoption of interorganizational systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(4), 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klein, S., Schellhammer, S., Reimers, K., & Riemer, K. (2008). Evolutionary paths of Inter-organizational Information Systems (IOIS). Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE 2008), Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, June 20–21, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning—legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Malone, T. W., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., & Wigand, R. T. (2003). The evolution of vertical IS standards: Electronic interchange standards in the US. In: Proceedings of the workshop on standard making: A critical research frontier for information systems. Seattle, WA, December 12–14, 2003, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar
  17. Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., Wigand, R. T., & Minton, G. (2006). Standards, collective action and IS development—vertical information systems standards in the US home mortgage industry. MIS Quarterly, 30, Special Issue on Standards and Standardization, pp. 439–465.Google Scholar
  18. Martinsons, M. G. (2008). Relationship-based e-Commerce: theory and evidence from China. Information Systems Journal, 18, 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: on the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practice—a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reimers, K., & Johnston, R. B. (2008a). Explaining persistence and resilience of inter-organisational information systems: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland, June 9–11, 2008.Google Scholar
  24. Reimers, K.; & Johnston, R. B. (2008b). The use of an explicitly theory-driven data coding method for high-level theory testing in IOIS. Proceedings of the Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Paper 184, December 15–17 2008, Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Reimers, K., & Li, M. Zh. (2008). Interaction of technological and institutional change in the development of an electronic commerce system in China’s pharmaceutical distribution chain—a transaction cost perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics (HEALTHINF), Funchal, Portugal, 28–31 January, 2008.Google Scholar
  26. Reimers, K., Johnston, R. B., & Klein, S. (2004). The shaping of inter-organisational information systems: Main design considerations of an international comparative research project. In: Proceedings of the 17th Bled eCommerce Conference “eGlobal”, Bled, Slovenia, June 21–23, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. Reimers, K., Johnston, R. B., & Klein, S. (2008). Theorizing evolution of inter-organizational information systems on long timescales. In: Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, Vol. 8, Article 31.Google Scholar
  28. Reimers, K., Johnston, R. B., & Klein, S. (2009). Understanding resilience and evolution of IOIS in the Australian pharmaceutical distribution industry. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Conference on Information Systems, December 16–18 2009, Phoenix.Google Scholar
  29. Reimers, K., Johnston, R. B., & Klein, S. (2010). Toward a theory of IOIS variance—a new framework for studying inter-organisational information systems. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, 1(3), 26–45.Google Scholar
  30. Robey, D., Im, G., & Wareham, J. D. (2008). Theoretical foundations of empirical research on interorganizational systems: assessing past contributions and guiding future directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(9), 497–518.Google Scholar
  31. Rodon, J., Pastor, J. A., Sesé, F., & Christiaanse, E. (2008). Unravelling the dynamics of IOIS implementation: an actor-network study of an IOIS in the seaport of Barcelona. Journal of Information Technology, 23, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Short, J. E., & Venkatraman, N. (1992). Beyond business process redesign: redefining Baxter’s business network. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1992, 7–21.Google Scholar
  33. Steinfield, C. W., Markus, M. L., & Wigand, R. T. (2005). Exploring interorganizational systems at the industry level of analysis: evidence from the US home mortgage industry. Journal of Information Technology, 20(4), 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teo, H.-H., Wei, K.-K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19–49.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (2002). Communities of practice—learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Reimers
    • 1
  • Robert B. Johnston
    • 2
  • Stefan Klein
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Innovation, Technology & OrganisationUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations