The Theory of Deferred Action: Purposive Design as Deferred Systems for Emergent Organisations

  • Nandish V. Patel
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 28)


The theory of deferred action explains the effect of emergence on organisation and systems design. It is applied to conceptualise information systems capable of responding to changing environments that cause systems and organisations to be emergent. These deferred information systems are based on the deferred model of reality that reflects emergence and enables appropriate responses as deferred action whilst pursuing predetermined goals.


Complexity Emergence Emergent Organisation and Systems Deferred Information Systems Dynamical Environment Feedforward Mechanism Theory of Deferred Action 



Information systems


Information technology


Small- and medium-sized enterprises



I am grateful to Mr. Dinesh Joshi for his conceptualisation of deferred action as the feedforward mechanism. It arises from his MBA Business Project on deferred action as a basis for strategically managing IT systems outsourcing. It is a most valuable contribution to the development of the theory.


  1. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dron, J. (2005). Epimethean information systems: harnessing the power of the collective in e-learning. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 4(4), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory development. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elliman, T., & Eatock, J. (2005). Online support for arbitration: designing software for a flexible business process. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 4(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregen, K. (1982). Toward transformation in social knowledge. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  10. Markus, L. M., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(2002), 179–212.Google Scholar
  11. McMillan, E. (2004). Complexity, organisation and change. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller-Schloer, C. (2004). Organic computing – On the feasibility of controlled emergence. CODES+ISSS’04, September 8–10, 2004, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  13. Nyame-Asiamah, F., & Patel, N. V. (2010). Informing knowledge management systems design and evaluation with the theory of deferred action. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 6(2), 191. ISSN: 1832-3669.Google Scholar
  14. Patel, N. V. (2005). Sustainable systems: Strengthening knowledge management systems with deferred action. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 4(4), 344–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patel, N. V. (2006). Organization and systems design: Theory of deferred action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Patel, N. V., Eldabi, T., & Khan, T. M. (2010). Theory of deferred action: Agent-based simulation model for designing complex adaptive systems. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(4), 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. RAE (1996, 2001). Research Assessment Exercise. Accessed 24 June 2010.
  18. Ramrattan, M., & Patel, N. V. (2010). Web-based information systems development and dynamic organisational change: The need for development tools to cope with emergent information requirements. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23(2–3), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Truex, D. P., Baskerville, R., & Klein, H. (1999). Growing systems in emergent organizations. Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Truex, D. P., Baskerville, R., & Travis, J. (2000). Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 10, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Journal, 3(1), 36–59.Google Scholar
  22. Walsham, G. (2006). Doint interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weick, K. E. (2004). Rethinking organisational design. In R. J. Boland & F. S. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36–53). California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel Business SchoolBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK

Personalised recommendations