Advertisement

A Summary and Review of Galbraith’s Organizational Information Processing Theory

  • Clemens Haußmann
  • Yogesh K. Dwivedi
  • Krishna Venkitachalam
  • Michael D. Williams
Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 29)

Abstract

This chapter reviews Galbraith’s original theory of organizational information processing and its proposed advancements. Original theory version describes uncertainty, especially task uncertainty, as the determinant of an organization’s structure. Four strategies are proposed to solve the organizational design problem: creation of slack resources and creation of self-contained tasks reduce the need for information processing. Investment in information systems and creation of lateral relations are strategies to reduce this uncertainty by increasing the capability of information processing but also has its limitations. Interpersonal characteristics as well as interdepartmental and interorganizational relations determine the organizational design problem, not just task uncertainty. Therefore, equivocality has to be reduced besides uncertainty. The additional factors are presented and integrated in a new model based on the original theory. The relevance of organizational information processing theory in the context of IT is demonstrated by practical examples, for explanation, justification, and integration of IT. Theoretical basis can be used to disclose possible reasons for problems and different outcomes which are arising in the case of IT adaptation.

Keywords

Organizational Information Processing Theory Review Advancement Information Systems 

Abbreviations

CNC

Computerized numerical control

ERP

Enterprise resource planning

IS

Information systems

IT

Information technology

OIPT

Organizational information processing theory

References

  1. Ahmad, S., Schroeder, R. G., & Mallick, D. N. (2010). The relationship among modularity, functional coordination, and mass customization: Implications for competitiveness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anandarajan, M., & Arinze, B. (1998). Matching client/server processing architectures with information processing requirements: A contingency study. Information & Management, 34(5), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyres, N. S. (1999). The impact of information technology on coordination: Evidence from the B-2 ‘stealth’ bomber. Organization Science, 10(2), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bensaou, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Configurations of interorganizational relationships: A comparison between U.S. and Japanese automakers. Management Science, 41(9), 1471–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, K., Aytes, K., & Chidambaram, L. (2001). Media effects on the development of cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups – An analysis of results from two longitudinal studies. Information Technology & People, 14(2), 122–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chou, S.-W., & Chang, Y.-C. (2008). The implementation factors that influence the ERP (enterprise resource planning) benefits. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, R. B., & Wolfe, R. A. (2005). Information processing model of information technology adaptation. An intra-organizational diffusion perspective. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 36(1), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairbank, J. F., Labianca, G., Steensma, H. K., & Metters, R. (2006). Information processing design choices, strategy, and risk management performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 293–319.Google Scholar
  12. Flynn, B. B., & Flynn, E. J. (1999). Information-processing alternatives for coping with manufacturing environment complexity. Decision Sciences, 30(4), 1021–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gattiker, T. F. (2007). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and the manufacturing-­marketing interface: An information-processing theory view. International Journal of Production Research, 45(13), 2895–2917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. (1985). Implementing new technology. Harvard Business Review, 63(6), 102–110.Google Scholar
  17. Morton, N. A., & Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28(5), 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2008). The joint influence of technology uncertainty and interorganizational interaction on external technology integration success. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. The Free Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zmud, R. W. (1979). Individual differences and MIS success: A review of the empirical literature. Management Science, 25(10), 966–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clemens Haußmann
    • 1
  • Yogesh K. Dwivedi
    • 1
  • Krishna Venkitachalam
    • 2
  • Michael D. Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.Strategy and Marketing Section, Cardiff Business SchoolCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  3. 3.School of Business and EconomicsSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations