Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information Systems Flexibility in Organizations: Conceptual Models and Research Issues

  • Research Paper
  • Conceptual Models
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to be effective and efficient, an information system (IS) needs to be flexible, that is, it must be capable of accommodating business and technological changes. Though the importance of flexibility in information systems is acknowledged by many studies, the different components of IS flexibility are not yet well understood. This paper addresses the different components for building flexibility in information systems. Based on a review of the literature, four conceptual models are presented and the different components of the models are discussed. The models will serve as a basis to: (i) assess the capability of an IS to respond to business and technological changes; (ii) identify and measure the different dimensions of IS flexibility; and (iii) develop managerial guidelines on how to manage flexibility in an information system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff R.L. (1967). Management Misinformation Systems. Management Science, 14(4):147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter A.E. (2000). IT Leaders Require Strategy, Flexibility. Computerworld, May 8, p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athey S. and Schmutzler A. (1995). Product and Process Flexibility in an Innovative Environment. Rand Journal of Economics, 26(4):557–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami H. (1992). The Emerging Flexible Organization: Perspectives from Silicon Valley, California Management Review, Summer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benamati J. and Lederer A.L. (2001). Coping with Rapid Changes in IT. Communications of the ACM, 44(8):83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieberstein N., S Bose, M Fiammante, K Jones and R Shah (2006). Service-Oriented Architecture Compass, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd T.A. and Turner E.D. (2001). An Exploratory Analysis of the Value of the Skills of IT Personnel: Their Relationship to IS Infrastructure and Competitive Advantage. Decision Sciences, 32(1):21–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd T.A. and Turner D.E. (2000). Measuring the Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure: Exploratory Analysis of a Construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3):187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarthy B.S. (1997). A New Strategy Framework for Coping with Turbulence, Sloan Management Review (Winter), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra C.U. (1993). Teams, Markets, and Systems. Business Innovation and Information Technology., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooprider J.G. and Henderson J.C. (1991) Technology-Process Fit: Perspectives on Achieving Prototyping Effectiveness. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3):67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnton G. and Giacoletto S. (1989). Towards an Enterprise Information Model. DEC, Geneva, Switzerland, GD & SD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dess G.G. and Beard D.W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52-73.

  • Dixon J.R. (1992). Measuring Manufacturing Flexibility: An Empirical Investigation. European Journal of Operations Research, 60(2):131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duclos L.K., Vokurka R.J. and Lummus R.R. (2003). A Conceptual Model of Supply Chain Flexibility. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103(5-6):446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan N.B. (1995). Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure: A Study of Resource Characteristics and Their Measure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3):187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eardley A., Avison D. and Powell P. (1997). Developing Information Systems to Support Flexible Strategy. Journal of Organisational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7(1):57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J.S. (1991). Strategic Flexibility for High Technology Maneuvers: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Management Studies, 28(1):69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans N. (1999). Flexibility, Adaptability Are Key to E-Business. Internet Week, Vol. 16.

  • Fitzgerald G. (1990). Achieving Flexible Information Systems: The Case for Improved Analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 5(1):5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald G. and Siddiqui F.A. (2002). Business Process Reengineering and Flexibility: A Case for Unification. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems. 14(1):73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazelle E. H. (1986). Flexibility: A Strategic Response in Changing Times. Industrial Engineering, 18(3):17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer J. and Karhade P. (2004). A Framework to Assess the Impact of Information Systems on the Flexibility and Performance of Business Processes, 38th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, (HICSS-38).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer J. and Schober F. (2006). Information Systems Flexibility and the Cost Efficiency of Business Processes. Journal of the Association for Information System, 7(3):122–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington R.J., Lemak D.J., Reed R. and Kendall K.W. (2004). A Question of Fit: The Links among Environment, Strategy Formulation and Performance. Journal of Business and Management, 10(1):15–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg B. and Jonsson S. (1978). Designing Semi-Confusing Information Systems for Organizations in Changing Environments. Accounting Organisations Society, 3(1):47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper M.D. Complexity: The Weed that Could Choke IS. Computerworld. Framingham: Jul 8, 1996. 30(28):37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn P. (2001). Automatic Computing: IBM’s Perspective on the State of Information Technology. IBM White Paper, T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J. (1992). The Organizational ‘Fit’ of Information Systems. Journal of Information Systems, 2(3):3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives B. and Mason (1990). Can Information Technology Revitalize Your Customer Service? Academy of Management Executive, 4(4):52–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalote P. (2000). CMM in Practice: Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanellis P. and Paul R.J. (2005). User Behaving Badly: Phenomena and Paradoxes from an Investigation into Information Systems Misfit. 17(2):64–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannellis P., Lycett M. and Paul R.J. (1999). Evaluating Business Information Systems ‘Fit’: From Concept to Practical Application. European Journal of Information Systems, 8(1):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert R. and Peppard J. (1993). Information Technology and New Organisational Forms: Destination but No Road Map? Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2(3):180–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee G and Xia W (2005). The Ability of Information Systems Development Project Teams to Respond to Business and Technology Changes: A Study of Flexibility Measures. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee G. (2003). The Flexibility and Complexity of Information Systems Development Projects: Conceptual Frameworks, Measures, and Empirical Tests. Published Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw A.D. and Volberda H.W. (1996). On the Concept of Flexibility: A Dual Control Perspective, Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 24(2):121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy M. and Powell P. (1998). SME Flexibility and the Role of Information Systems. Small Business Economics. 11(2):183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mensah (1989). Evaluating Information Systems Projects: A Perspective on Cost-Benefit Analysis. Information Systems, 14(3):205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan T (1990). What Chief Executives and Senior Managers Want from Their IT Departments, MIS Quarterly, 14(1):15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray J.P. (2000). Reducing IT Project Complexity, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, 16(3):30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler D.A. and Tushman M. (1979). A Congruence Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behaviour. in D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, and J. M. McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational Psychology, (3rd ed.), 442–458. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overby S. (2001). Quick Change Artists. CIO, August 15, 90-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanisamy R. and Sushil (2003). Achieving Organizational Flexibility and Competitive Advantage Through Information Systems Flexibility: A Path Analytic Study. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 2(3):261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel N.V. and Irani Z. (1999). Evaluating Information Technology in Dynamic Environments: A Focus on Tailorable Information Systems. Logistics Information Management, 12(1):32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell P. (1993). Information Technology and Business Strategy: A Synthesis of the Case for Reverse Causality, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2, 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad C.K., and Krishnan M.S. (2002). The Dynamic Synchronization of Strategy and Information Technology. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(4):24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy S.B. and Reddy R. (2002). Competitive Agility and the Challenge of Legacy Information Systems, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(1):5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey D. and M.C. Boudreau (1999). Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2):167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochester J.B. (1989). Building More Flexible Systems. I/S Analyser, 27(10):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V., Bharadwaj A. and Grover V. (2003). Shaping Agility Through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2):237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R. (1995). Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition. Strategic Management Journal 16(5):135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M and Cule P (2001) Identifying Software Project Risks: An International Delphi Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4):5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott K. (1998). Battle Complexity to Add Profitability. Information Week. Vol. 700, September 14, 18ER.

  • SEI (1994). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving Software Process, Addison-Wesley, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi A.K. and Sethi S.P. (1990). Flexibility in Manufacturing: A Survey. The International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems. 2, 289–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau K., E. Lim and Z. Shen (2001). Mobile Commerce: Promises, Challenges, and Research Agenda. Journal of Database Management, 12(3):4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soa C., Sia S.K. and Tayyap, J. (2000). Cultural Fits and Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution? Communications of the ACM, 43(4):47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil (1997). Flexible Systems Management: An Evolving Paradigm, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(4):259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil (2000). Situation-Actor-Process Options: Mapping and Enhancing Flexibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3):301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil (2001). Flexibility Metaphors. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(2):569–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigg R.H., Moran T.P. and Halasz F.G. (1987). Adaptability and Tailorability in Note Cards. in Bullinger, H. J. and Shackel, B. (Eds), Proceedings of the Second IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Interact ‘87), 1–4 September, Stuttgart, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton D.M. (1994). The Management of Manufacturing Flexibility, California Management Review, 36(2 Winter):72 89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda H.W. (1996). Toward the Flexible Firm: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments, Organization Science, 7(4):359–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting R. (2003). Money Machines. Information Week, Nov. 3, 34–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitten J.L. Bentley L.D. and Dittman K.C. (2001). Systems Analysis and Design Methods, McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schwartz School of Business and IS, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada, B2G 2W5

    P. Ramaraj

Authors
  1. P. Ramaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Ramaraj.

Additional information

P. Ramaraj is Associate Professor at the Department of Information Systems of the Gerald Schwartz School of Business and Information Systems, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada. His research papers appeared in the Long Range Planning (LRP), Journal of Enterprise Information Management (JEIM), Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS), Journal of Computer Information Systems (JCIS), Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Journal of Electronic Government, International Journal of Global Management Studies, Journal of Services Research, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management and Fortune Journal of International Management. Prior to his current appointment, he had more than a decade of teaching, research, and consulting experience in U.S.A, Malaysia, and India. He received his PhD in information systems from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi, India. His research interests include ERP acquisition planning, knowledge management, enterprise systems flexibility, information systems flexibility, e-business information systems planning, e-governance planning, and Internet business models.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramaraj, P. Information Systems Flexibility in Organizations: Conceptual Models and Research Issues. Global J. Flexible Syst. Manage. 11, 1–12 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396574

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396574

Keywords

Search

Navigation