Skip to main content
Log in

An empirical evaluation of existing IS change theories for the case of IOIS evolution

European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

The phenomenon of inter-organizational information systems (IOIS) evolution has not yet been adequately researched and understood. We present and analyse empirical data from a case in which electronic ordering in the Australian pharmaceutical industry evolved over a 30-year period from closed to quasi-open systems. We analyse this revelatory case using a practice-theoretical framework to make visible the phenomenon of IOIS evolution. An essential characteristic of this framework is the distinction between and symmetrical treatment of material, normative and ideational structures within the practices that constitute the IOIS. Against the findings of this case study, we then evaluate two promising models of long-term IS change, namely Porra's (1999) Colonial Systems model and Lyytinen and Newman's (2008) Punctuated Socio-technical IS Change model. These models are selected as highly elaborated IS exemplars of two classes of theories of organizational change, namely evolutionary and dialectical theories. We find that these two models can only partially explain our findings. Finally, we make suggestions for developing more comprehensive theoretical models within these two classes of IS change theories. In practical terms, our paper shows that the transformation from closed to open IOIS may require adoption of longer time frames than are usually assumed and closer attention to norms and rationales usually neglected in IS projects.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrett S and Konsynski BR (1982) Inter-organization information sharing systems. MIS Quarterly 6 (5), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson P and Rowe F (2001) ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue: perceived understanding, perceived leeway; and the nature of task-related conflicts. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 32 (4), 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker GC and Star SL (2000) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braa J, Hanseth O, Heywood A, Mohammed W and Shaw V (2007) Developing health information systems in developing countries: the flexible standards strategy. MIS Quarterly 31 (2), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash JI (1985) Interorganizational systems: an information society opportunity or threat? The Information Society 3 (3), 199–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaye ALM (1995) The sponsor-adopter gap – differences between promoters and potential users of information systems that link organizations. International Journal of Information Management 15 (2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celeste R and Cusack BA (2006) EPCglobal standards in the pharmaceutical industry: toward a safe and secure supply chain. Journal of Pharmacy Practice 19 (4), 244–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway KM and Perrin R (2008) The evolution of ebusiness in healthcare. In eBusiness in Healthcare: From eProcurement to Supply Chain Management (Hbner U and Elmhorst MA, Eds), pp 157–176, Springer, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland DG and Mckenney JL (1988) Airline reservation systems – lessons from history. MIS Quarterly 12 (3), 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David PA (2001) Path dependence, its critics and the quest for ‘historical economics’. In Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present (Garrouste P and Ioannides I, Eds), pp 15–40, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (2006) The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin, London, first published in 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch L and Schüßler E (2012) Theorizing path dependence: a review of positive feedback mechanisms in technology markets, regional clusters, and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, available online since 6 September 2012.

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N and Gould S (1972) Punctuated equilibrium: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In Models in Paleobiology (Schopf J, Ed), Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhoomand AF (2000) The structural impact of information technology on the air travel distribution industry. Communications of the AIS 4 (Article 13).

  • Fedorowicz J, Gogan JL and Ray AW (2004) The ecology of interorganizational information sharing. Journal of International Technology and Information Management 13 (2), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud R, Kumaraswamy A and Karnoe P (2010) Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies 47 (4), 760–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger M and Goldschmidt A (2009) Marktliche und regulative Bestimmungsfaktoren für den Preis und den Absatz von Medikamenten. In Gesundheitswirtschaft Deutschland: Die Zukunftsbranche (Goldschmidt A and Hilbert J, Eds), pp 218–235, Wikom, Wegscheid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society – Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granados NF, Kauffman RJ and King B (2008) How has electronic travel distribution been transformed? A test of the theory of newly vulnerable markets. Journal of Management Information Systems 25 (2), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1994) Business groups. In Handbook of Economic Sociology (Smelser N and Swedberg R, Eds), pp 453–475, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green SE, Li Y and Nohria N (2009) Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: a rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. The Academy of Management Journal 52 (1), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth O (2000) The economics of standards. In From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures (Ciborra CU et al, Eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R and Taylor R (2005) Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Affairs 24 (5), 1103–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland CP and Lockett G (1993) Forms of association in business markets: the impact of inter-organizational information systems. In Advances in International Marketing (Sharma DD, Ed), Vol. 5, pp 125–143, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston HR and Vitale MR (1988) Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. MIS Quarterly 12 (2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanellis P and Paul RJ (1997) On the nature of inter-organisational information systems and the issue of adaptability. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1997.

  • Kaufman F (1966) Data systems that cross company boundaries. Harvard Business Review 44 (1), 141–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence TB and Suddaby R (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In Handbook of Organization Studies (Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB and Nord WR, Eds), pp 215–254, Sage, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi PM and Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization 18 (3), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and Newman M (2008) Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), 589–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Newman M and Al-Muharfi AR (2009) Institutionalizing enterprise resource planning in the Saudi steel industry: a punctuated socio-technical analysis. Journal of Information Technology 24 (4), 286–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire S and Hardy C (2009) Discourse and deinstitutionalization: the decline of DDT. The Academy of Management Journal 52 (1), 148–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone TW, Yates J and Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM 30 (6), 484–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Tanis C (2000) The enterprise system experience: from adoption to success. In Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future through the Past (Zmud RW, Ed), pp 173–207, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath M and More E (2001) Data integration along the healthcare supply chain: the pharmaceutical extranet gateway project. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2001.

  • Meier J and Sprague Jr. RH (1991) The evolution of interorganizational systems. Journal of Information Technology 6 (3–4), 184–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan RL, Croson DC and Seger KN (1993) The stages theory: a framework for IT adoption and organizational learning. Harvard Business School Note, No. 9-193-141, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, 19 March 1993.

  • North DC (1981) Structure and Change in Economic History. W. W. Norton, NewYork, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2010) The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Scott SV (2008) Sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organizations. The Academy of Management Annals 2 (1), 433–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ, Yates JA, Okamura K and Fujimoto M (1995) Shaping electronic communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science 6 (4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré G (2004) Investigating information systems with positivist case research. Communications of the AIS 13 (Article 18).

  • Payton FC (2000) Lessons learned from three interorganizational health care information systems. Information & Management 37 (6), 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT and Feldman MS (2008) Designing routines: on the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization 18 (4), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland BT, Feldman MS, Becker MC and Liu P (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: a generative model. Journal of Management Studies 49 (8), 1484–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering A (1995) The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp MGA, Batenburg RS and Verheij RA (2011) Adoption of interorganisational ICT in primary care. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Health Information Management Research pp 185–194, Zurich, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porra J (1996) Colonial Systems, Information Colonies and Punctuated Prototyping. University of Jyvaskyla Press, Jyvaskyla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porra J (1999) Colonial systems. Information Systems Research 10 (1), 38–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porra J (2010) Group level evolution and information systems: what can we learn from animal colonies in nature? In Evolutionary Psychology and Information Systems Research: A New Approach to Studying the Effects of Modern Technologies on Human Behavior (Kock N, Ed), pp 39–59, Springer, USA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Porra J, Hirschheim R and Parks MS (2005) The history of Texaco's corporate information technology function – a general systems theoretical interpretation. MIS Quarterly 29 (4), 721–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porra J and Parks MS (2006) Sustaining virtual communities: suggestions from the colonial model. Information Systems and e-Business Management 4 (4), 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practice – a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimers K and Johnston RB (2008) The use of an explicitly theory-driven data coding method for high-level theory testing in IOIS. In Proceedings of the Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, 15–17 December 2008, Paris.

  • Reimers K, Johnston RB, Guo XH, Klein S, Xie B and Li MZ (2013) Novice-based data collection methods for the study of IOIS: practice probes and learning communities. Electronic Markets, in press.

  • Reimers K, Johnston RB and Klein S (2010) The difficulty of studying inter-organisational is phenomena on large scales: critical reflections on a research journey. Electronic Markets 20 (3–4), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimers K, Johnston RB and Klein S (2012) Evolution of inter-organizational information systems on long timescales: a practice theory approach. In Inter-organizational Information Systems and Business Management: Theories for Researchers (Vaidya K, Ed), pp 38–54, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D, Ross JW and Boudreau MC (2000) Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Working paper, Georgia State University, Robinson College of Business, Department of Computer Information Systems, and MIT Center for Information Systems Research, 13 June 2000.

  • Robey D, Im G and Wareham JD (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 

  • Rodon J and Sesé F (2010) Analysing IOIS adoption through structural contradictions. European Journal of Information Systems 19 (6), 637–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodon J, Sesé F and Christiaanse E (2011) Exploring users’ appropriation and post-implementation managerial intervention in the context of industry IOIS. Information Systems Journal 21 (3), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki TR (2005) The sites of organizations. Organization Studies 26 (3), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon P and Scheppers R (2006) Other-settings generalization in IS research. In Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee.

  • Star SL and Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19 (3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swatman PMC and Swatman PA (1992) EDI system integration: a definition and literature survey. The Information Society 8 (3), 169–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH and Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 510–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkoff O, Strong DM and Elmes MB (2007) Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science 18 (5), 832–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wareham JD, Rai A and Pickering G (2005) Standardization in vertical industries: an institutional analysis of XML-based standards infusion in electricity markets. Electronic Markets 15 (4), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (2002) Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their engaged, thoughtful, and careful support through five revisions. The first and the last author would like to acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant number 1328/2-2).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Reimers.

Appendix

Appendix

Comparison of colonies and communities of practice (CoP)

The concept of CoP was developed to describe social learning as a process through which novices become competent members in groups that have formed around a common interest, craft, or profession (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Later, Wenger (2002, pp. 72–73) characterized a CoP by three aspects: through mutual engagement members form collaborative relationships; members continually negotiate the ‘point’ of the practice, its meaning, which is called the joint enterprise; finally, over time members reproduce a set of shared norms, ideas, and other resources, which provide the means on which members draw in their day-to-day activities, called the shared repertoire. These three characteristics can be directly related to Porra's (1999, 2010) definition of CS, as illustrated in Figure A1.

Figure A1
figure 4

Similarity of the core concepts of colony and CoP.

Porra (1999) has characterized the CS model along 10 categories by contrasting it with the mechanistic and organic metaphors that she claims dominate the organizational and IS literature. We draw on this list of categories to highlight similarities and differences between the CS and the CoP models on the level of deeper theoretical assumptions (see Table A1).

Table A1 Comparison of theoretical assumptions between the two models

Both models emphasize the importance of shared history (phylogeny) while only the CS model considers its evolution. Furthermore, both models are similar with regard to the categories of ontogeny, change, structure, goals, power, and control. However, with regard to change and control the CoP model is not explicit and our characterization here is inferred. The main difference concerns the emphasis that the CS model puts on change over long time periods. This difference shows up under phylogeny, as mentioned, but also in the other three categories just listed. Regarding boundaries, in the CS model a colony is bounded in a current context as well as throughout its historical evolution so that the definition of boundary is also time-based. Moreover, the interest of the CS model in evolution also shows up in its concept of complexity: colonies have means of regulating their complexity (in contrast to mechanistic and organic systems), including the possibility to bifurcate. The CoP model does not consider this issue. Finally, the CS model is naturally interested in the issue of growth, which, again, comes about through bifurcations of existing colonies, while the CoP model does not address this issue.

Thus, the CS model and the CoP model share largely similar theoretical assumptions and there are no contradictory assumptions. Therefore, it is possible to apply Porra's analysis to a model of IOIS as constellations of practices.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reimers, K., Johnston, R. & Klein, S. An empirical evaluation of existing IS change theories for the case of IOIS evolution. Eur J Inf Syst 23, 373–399 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.7

Keywords

Navigation