Improvisation in Information Systems Development

  • Jørgen P. Bansler
  • Erling C. Havn
Chapter
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 143)

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of extemporaneous action and bricolage in designing and implementing information systems in organizations. We report on a longitudinal field study of design and implementation of a Web-based groupware application in a multinational corporation. We adopt a sensemaking perspective to analyze the dynamics of this process and show that improvisational action and bricolage (making do with the materials at hand) played a vital role in the development of the application. Finally, we suggest that this case study provides an occasion to reconsider how we conceptualize information systems development (ISD).

Keywords

Web-based groupware information systems development sensemaking improvisation bricolage 
Download to read the full chapter text

References

  1. Andersen, N. E.; Kensing, F.; Lassen, M.; Lundin, J.; Mathiassen, L.; Munk-Madsen, A.; and Sørgaard, P. Professional System Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. Bansler, J. P., and Bødker, K. “A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis: Design in an Organizational Context,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (11:2), 1993, pp. 165–193.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, F. J. “Coda: Creativity and Improvisation in Organizations: Implications for Organizational Learning,” Organization Science (9:5), 1998, pp. 558–560.Google Scholar
  4. Ciborra, C. U. “Crisis and Foundations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Limits of Models and Methods in the Information Systems Discipline,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (7), 1998, pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
  5. Ciborra, C. U.; Braa, K.; Cordelia, A.; Dahlbom, B.; Failla, A.; Hanseth, O.; Hepsø, V.; Ljungberg, J.; Monteiro, E.; and Simon, K. A. From Control to Drift., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Cockburn, A. Agile Software Development, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Cunha, M. P.; Cunha, J. V.; and Kamoche, K. “Organizational Improvisation: What, When, How and Why,” International Journal of Management Reviews (1:3), 1999, pp. 299–341.Google Scholar
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M., and Tabrizi, B. N. “Accelerating Adaptative Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly (40), 1995, pp. 84–110.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald, B. “An Empirical Investigation into the Adoption of Systems Development Methodologies,” Information & Management (34), 1998, pp. 317–328.Google Scholar
  10. Gasson, S. “A Social Action Model of Situated Information Systems Design,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems (30:2), 1999, pp. 82–97.Google Scholar
  11. Hatch, M. J. “Exploring the Empty Spaces of Organizing: How Improvisational Jazz Helps Redescribe Organizational Structure,” Organization Studies (20:1), 1999, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
  12. Hatch, M. J. “Jazzing Up the Theory of Organizational Improvisation,” Advances in Strategic Management (14), 1997, pp. 181–191.Google Scholar
  13. Hatch, M. J. “The Vancouver Academy of Management Jazz Symposium: Jazz as a Metaphor for Organizing in the 21 st Century,” Organization Science (9:5), 1998, pp. 556–568.Google Scholar
  14. Highsmith, J. Agile Software Development Ecosystems, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchins, E. “Organizing Work by Adaptation,” Organization Science (2:1), 1991, pp. 14–39.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
  17. Lanzara, G. F. “Between Transient Constructs and Persistent Structures: Designing Systems in Action,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems (8), 1999, pp. 331–349.Google Scholar
  18. Lanzara, O. F. “Ephemeral Organizations in Extreme Environments: Emergence, Strategy, Extinction,” Journal of Management Studies (20), 1983, pp. 71–95.Google Scholar
  19. Louridas, P. “Design as Bricolage: Anthropology Meets Design Thinking,” Design Studies (20:6), 1999, pp. 517–535.Google Scholar
  20. Mathiassen, L. “Reflective Systems Development,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (10:1/2), 1998, pp. 67–118.Google Scholar
  21. Miner, A. S.; Bassoff, P.; and Moorman, C. “Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly (46), 2001, pp. 304–337.Google Scholar
  22. Mirvis, P. H. “Variations on a Theme: Practice Improvisation,” Organization Science (9:5), 1998, pp. 586–592.Google Scholar
  23. Moorman, C., and Miner, A. “The Convergence Between Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing (62), 1998a, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  24. Moorman, C., and Miner, A. “Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory,” Academy of Management Review (23:4), 1998b, pp. 698–723.Google Scholar
  25. Myers, M. D. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems,” MISQ Discovery, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. Orlikowski, W.J. “Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated Change Perspective,” Information Systems Research (7:1), 1996, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. J., and Gash, D. C. “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations,” ACMTransactions on Information Systems (12:2), 1994, pp. 174–207.Google Scholar
  28. Peplowski. K. “The Process of Improvisation,” Organization Science (9:5), 1998, pp. 560–561.Google Scholar
  29. Perry, L. T, “Real Time Strategy: Improvising Team Based Planning for a Fast Changing World,” Organizational Dynamics (22), 1994, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
  30. Perry, L.T. “Strategic Improvising: How to Formulate and Implement Competitive Sstrategies in Concert,” Organizational Dynamics (19:4), 1991, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
  31. Stake, R. E. “Case Studies,” in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2 nd ed.), London: Sage Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
  32. Truex, D. P.; Baskerville, R.; and Klein, H. “Growing Systems in Emergent Organizations,” Communications of the ACM (42:8), 1999, pp. 117–123.Google Scholar
  33. Truex, D.; Baskerville, R.; and Travis, J. “Amethodical Systems Development: The Deferred Meaning of Systems Development Methods,” Accounting, Management & Information Technology (10), 2000, pp. 53–79.Google Scholar
  34. Walsham, G. “Interpretive Case Sstudies in IS Research: Nature and Method,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1993, pp. 74–81.Google Scholar
  35. Weick, K. “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Man Gulch Disaster,” Administrative Science Quarterly (38), 1993a, pp. 628–652.Google Scholar
  36. Weick, K. “Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis,” Organization Science (9:5), 1998, pp. 543–555.Google Scholar
  37. Weick, K. “Organizational Redesign as Improvisation,” in G. P. Huber and H. W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993b, pp. 346–379.Google Scholar
  38. Weick, K. “Sensemaking as an Organizational Dimension of Gobal Change,” in J. Dutton and D. Cooperrider (Eds.), The Human Dimensions of Global Change, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.Google Scholar
  39. Weick, K. Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. Weick, K. “Sensemaking in Organizations: Small Structures with Large Consequences,” in J. K. Murnigham (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993c.Google Scholar
  41. Weick, K. “Technology as Equivoque: Sensemaking in New Technologies,” in P. S. Goodman and L. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jørgen P. Bansler
    • 1
  • Erling C. Havn
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of DenmarkDenmark

Personalised recommendations