The Institutional Character of Computerized Information Systems

Abstract

We examine how important social and technical choices become part of the history of a CBIS and embedded in the social structure which support its development and use. These elements of a CBIS can be organized in specific ways to enhance its usability and performance. Paradoxically, they can also constrain future implementations and post-implementations. We argue that CBIS developed from complex, interdependent social and technical choices should be conceptualized in terms of their institutional characteristics, as well as their information processing characteristics. The social system which supports the development and operation of a CBIS is one major element whose institutional characteristics can effectively support routine activities while impeding substantial innovation. Characterizing CBIS as institutions is important for three reasons: 1) the usability of CBIS is more critical than the abstract information processing capabilities of the underlying technology; 2) CBIS that are well-used and are based on stable social structures of support (infrastructures) which are more difficult to replace than those with less developed social structures and fewer participants; and 3) CBIS vary from one social setting to another according to the ways in which they are organized and embedded in organized social systems. These ideas are illustrated with the case study of a failed attempt to convert a complex inventory control system in a medium-sized manufacturing firm.

Technological frames

“…Ginzberg (1981), in turn, investigated how users' expectations of a pending information system significantly shaped their attitudes toward it. Since these studies, researchers have considered designers' and users' perceptions and values as part of their examination of the social aspects of information technology (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989;Kling and Iacono, 1989;Markus, 1984).…”

“…Ginzberg (1981), in turn, investigated how users' expectations of a pending information system significantly shaped their attitudes toward it. Since these studies, researchers have considered designers' and users' perceptions and values as part of their examination of the social aspects of information technology (Hirschheim and Klein, 1989;Kling and Iacono, 1989;Markus, 1984).While a cognitive thread has clearly run through IS research, this has nevertheless not led to a systematic articulation of the role of frames of reference in systems development and use. In this paper we hope to lay the groundwork for such a systematic approach to social cognitions around information technology.…”

On Rob Kling: The Theoretical, the Methodological,and the Critical

“…The individual was a reflexive social actor with "interests" who acted strategically. This approach, particularly with its emphasis on emergent and dynamic properties of the social order, also helped Kling recognize the historical aspects of the dynamic processes of computerization in organizations [see Kling & Iacono, 1989]. The ideas of Blumer, Goffman, Becker, and Berger and Luckmann infuse his writings [see Kling, 1980a;Kling & Gerson, 1977, 1978Kling & Scacchi, 1982;Iacono & Kling, 2001/1998Kling & Iacono, 1988, 1995Kling & Courtright, 2004;.…”

Introducing public sector eIDs: The power of actors’ translations and institutional barriers

“…For instance, research shows that organizations formulate strategic responses of different kinds as a result of internal as well as external pressures of legitimacy (Ang & Cummings, 1997) and inconsistencies between expectations and objectives as well as conflicting institutional demands are common contradictions within organizations (Moe, 2004). In relation to ICT efforts, the adaption of institutional approaches within the IS field could also be seen as a consequence of endowing the artefact with an institutional character (Kling & Iacono, 1989). Based on these later developments in ISR, I argue that this dissertation aligns with a growing consensus in ISR putting forth that institutions are important to consider when studying social and organizational implications of ICT.…”

“…Depending on the acceptance and use of the actor using it for authentication in a service context (Beynon-Davies, 2006) the eID is, therefore, an artefact with a clear social and technically intertwined character (Orlikowski, 2007). This can also be described as an artefact assigned with an institutional character (Kling & Iacono, 1989) since it also becomes a part of social structures guiding as well as restricting behaviour in organizations (Scott, 2014). The eID becomes embedded in cultural systems in organizations, also referred to as institutions (Avgerou, 2000).…”