Issues in inter-organisational information system development

Issues in inter-organisational information system development Raija Halonen Department of Information Processing Science, P.O.Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland, [email protected]

Abstract Inter-organisational information system developments differ from intraorganisational ones in several aspects. This article discusses a development project that, in addition to producing an inter-organisational information system, was carried out by several organisations that also included the future user organisations. The research highlights issues that are special to multi-organisational projects. The core in the research is the social dynamics instead of the technical information system. Interaction between stakeholders is emphasised and collaboration is needed both in and between organisations. The research material was collected from a case by using participatory observation and the approach is intentionally subjective. We argue that the findings are alike in other organisations and that the nature of the organisations does not matter. Despite a challenging starting point, the output was evaluated successful both by the users and owners. Keywords Inter-organisational information system, distributed project, collaboration, information system development, social dynamics

1

Introduction

This article discusses issues that emerge when organisations participate in an inter-organisational information system development and use. Information system implementation is described in literature as a challenging effort that fails more often than succeeds [Furton 2003, Panteli, Sockalingam 2005]. This article adds to that with an information system development that was carried out together with the users of organisations that were to take the information system into use. The users may be called also eProfessionals [Antoniac, Pallot, Pulli 2006] because they used the information system to manage the total workflow. Due to the distributed organisations and joint working the emphasis is laid on collaboration between participants and organisations. The keen collaboration can even lead to a virtual community [Halonen 2007a]. This article also marks the need to recognise the ownership of the project and its output. The research approach is subjective and the study material is collected from one case. However, the case offers interesting insights with its several stakeholders and viewpoints. The emphasis is laid on the social context with the actors and organisations in the development project. The information system is not considered important despite its inter-organisational nature. Therefore the information system is not described in detail. The researcher acted as a project manager in the information system project and she collected the research material from project memorandums, emails, feedback given by the users and from a personal diary. Despite the challenging starting point, the output was evaluated successful by the owners and users.

2

Relation to Existing Theories

Inter-organisational information systems allow information or processing capabilities of one organisation to improve the performance of another organisation or to improve relationships among organisations [Johnston, Vitale 1988, Laudon, Laudon 1998]. Advances in information technology have been central when developing possibilities for communication and coordination between organisations [Williams 1997]. Successful use of inter-organisational information system includes deeper and wider penetration of relations between organisations, not only transactions that are supported by electronic ordering systems and markets. Williams argues that cooperation between the organisations is essential to the further development of the information system. Transferring knowledge is a real challenge especially when there are many independent organisations involved in developing an information system [Halonen 2006]. Organisations benefit from integrating their information systems but this integration is challenging and needs careful planning [Kudrass 2006]. Furthermore, it often is difficult to write down everyday actions in order to find out the processes that should be supported with electronic information systems [Halonen 2007b]. In many organisations, information is distributed over several information systems and an exchange of information is found very difficult [Hasselbring 2000]. Nonaka and Takeuchi [1995] describe that most customers’ needs are tacit, meaning that they cannot tell exactly or explicitly what they need or want. Lack of knowledge hinders the problem-solving process in the beginning when clarification and description of the problem are important [Mumford 2003]. Klischewski [2004] describes how both interoperability and cooperation are needed to enable cross-organisational integration. Interoperability is recognised as the most critical issue facing businesses that need to access information from multiple information systems [Park, Ram 2004]. Park and Ram highlight multiple interpretations of data by different users and systems in different contexts. Collaboration in multiparty information systems can be seen as a collective reflection-in-action cycle that changes and is changed by versatile organisational and professional stakeholders [Levina 2005]. Another view on collaborative development projects comes from Kumar and van Dissel [1996] who studied possible risks of conflict in the inter-organisational information system development. Kumar and van Dissel note how researchers have developed several theoretical arguments to explain the formation and structure of organisational collaboration that is supported with inter-organisational information systems. Commercial organisations enter into technological collaboration with units which they have come to know in other interactions, rather than interacting with units they would like to acquire as technological collaborative partners [Håkansson 1992]. Furthermore, a crucial and significant characteristic of the interaction consists of the personal contacts it involves. Daniel and White [2005] suggest that organisations need additional technologies to integrate multiple inter-organisational operations instead of using intra-organisational enterprise resource management systems. In addition, the results with increased understanding and confidence on future provide confidence to managers when considering and prioritising investments in developing or improving linkages with partners. Lee et al. [2003] have studied commercial companies and their operations in different geographical organisations. Lee et al. describe the problems of transmitting and sharing large amounts of company data by using e-mails or fax. The researchers propose that a collaborative platform can be used for providing an interactive platform for geographically dispersed users when they disseminate, share or retrieve enterprise knowledge in a networked environment. The collaborative platform allows users to revise documents and interact with other users under a distributed and co-operative environment.

3

Research Approach

Our empirical material is collected in a case by participatory observation. The use of participatory observation [Flick 1999, Kemmis, McTaggart 2000] was realised especially when the researcher was not active in the actual development work but observing and making notes when the experts in that area were working. The recommendations of Klein and Myers [1999] were noted when reporting the results. The researcher acted as a project manager and she started to write a personal diary [Schulze 2000] when she was invited to the project. Following suggestions by Schultze [2000], the role and identity of the researcher was explained in the diary (authenticity); the text was structured, following the timeline according to the empirical case (plausibility); the diary helped to understand the moods of the researcher and was still questioning the objectivity of the data (criticality); there were notes about success or failure felt in the project (self-revealing writing); and the situations in the diary followed the project memorandums, reflecting the atmosphere felt in the project group (interlacing actual empirical material and confessional content). The researcher received about 350 emails during the project. In addition, the basic users gave feedback when they used the information system. Table 1 sums the research material that was collected from the case. Source Project memorandums Feedback SMSs Emails Notes from encounters Diary

Number (of entries) 48 580 14 352 20 350

Table 1: Research material classified by source.

Table 1 clarifies also the relationship between different sources. The diary was subjective and it reflected the atmosphere in the project meetings. The SMSs were sent to the private phone of the project manager and they were inserted in the diary. Only the feedback notes were totally independent from the other material because their senders did not know about the research that was carried out in the project. Naturally, given feedback influenced the feelings in the project meetings and encounters. The project memorandums were written with the purpose to support communication and they were thanked: “Thank you for the good memorandum! Due to your exact and grounded notes one can get a good conception of issues and their management even if one was not present in the meeting.” (Email November 8, 2005). Therefore the feelings could be perceived also by the researcher who wrote her diary. The project memorandums were written by the project manager or other attendees and they always were reviewed in the following meeting.

4

Findings from the Case

Our case consists of an implementation project where an inter-organisational information system called I-System was designed and implemented to be used to support specified functionalities between chosen organisations. Besides being an inter-organisational system, our information system was an output of a distributed project [Evaristo 2003]. A characterising feature of a distributed project is that it is carried out in a situation where actors are located at shorter or longer distances from each other. In our project there were several organisations involved, situated in several cities and locations. The case is limited to the pilot phase before the system was to be extended nation-wide. A special character in the project was its many organisations that were involved in (Figure 1). Despite the vendors, all organisations were to be also the user organisations. All of the

organisations had nominated their representatives to act in the project. For most of the representatives, the development of I-System was the first project they participated in. The representatives were all officials who were to use I-System but the biggest user group consisted of basic users who were not able to participate in the development project. In addition, the representatives were not used to develop information systems but only to use them. “… The utmost reason is probably the ‘process thinking’ that is quite new to many of us.” (Email to the project manager May 28, 2006). The same official continued: “I think that this is a good example of some kind of break in interaction … We student affairs officials simply didn’t realise the need to react to the issue in time. There may be many reasons. I myself skipped the detail probably because automatically I thought that every participant knew when the invoicing was to be performed. That is said in the agreement, too.” The project ended with the delivery of I-System to its new owners.

U_Alpha

U_Beta U_Gamma

U_Kappa I-System

U_Delta

U_Epsilon Vendor_2 Vendor_1

Figure 1: The stakeholders with I-System

An important lesson to be learnt was to realise that before any functionalities could be coded they had to be recognised and described implicitly. However, writing everyday actions down was found difficult. Therefore the development work encountered delays and lasted longer than evaluated. Furthermore, before any transferred information is useful in the receiving organisation, it must be formally described and explicit. We noticed that even properly thought fieldnames were not enough if they were not jointly agreed. We also perceived reluctance in delivering information in organisations when there was need to get changes made in other information systems. This issue was evident e.g. when the interfaces to offer data from a legacy information system were needed. The risk list was updated in the project meeting August 24, 2005: “The interfaces to enable information transfer will not be built in time.” The inter-organisational nature of the new information system proposed special requirements for the system. These requirements concerned proper user authentication and data quality followed in that organisation. Often this quality is not universal but depends on the standards and processes followed in organisations themselves. Therefore new work practices were necessitated in the organisations. The requirement was due to the joint database and inter-organisational information system that enabled the access to information concerning other organisations. In the project meetings, often suggestions and decisions were concluded based on “the responsibility of an official for the legality of his actions”. To ensure proper user authentication, Shibboleth was chosen as the centralised user authentication tool for I-System (Figure 2). “Shibboleth is standards-based, open source middleware software which provides Web Single SignOn (SSO) across or within organizational boundaries” [Shibboleth 2005]. It allows sites to make informed

authorisation decisions for individual access of protected online resources in a privacypreserving manner. Some of the organisations found it very difficult to implement Shibboleth due to resources or priorities in their organisations. Therefore, the users were identified locally. Following that, several feedback notes were sent: “Unfortunately I have forgotten my username and password. (October 21, 2006). Despite lacking Shibboleth, information was transferred between the organisations. Again, this was a proof of the trust that the organisations felt in each other.

Portal I-System

Organisational user authentication

Centralised user authentication

Legacy systems I

Legacy systems II

Figure 2: I-System and its interfaces with several information systems

Figure 2 describes the several interfaces that had to be built between I-System and other information systems that had to be connected with the inter-organisational I-System. In the figure “Organisational user authentication” is described as one interface but in reality, organisational user authentications were separate and differed from each other. In this sense, the number of interfaces was multiplied according to the number or organisations. Apart from issues on developing an inter-organisational information system, the question of ownership must be answered. We argue that in multi-party projects the ownership is not explicit. In our case, the organisations were not equal size. Furthermore, the organisations had their own ambitions in the project. One organisation informed that it had considered I-System as a central effort of its own undertaking and it returned to that conception over and over again. Its representative wrote to the project manager: “During this project there has been kind of foxholing […]” (October 7, 2006). Figure 3 displays the required interfaces from the viewpoint of an organisation with several departments. The departments differed from each other and their procedures differed respectively. Thus, the distributed nature of the new information system was realised also intraorganisational. The development required actions in departments and the development had to be carried out distributed, as well. The need of interaction was emphasised both intraorganisational and inter-organisational. The project manager received phone calls: “We [project managers] cannot push them to transfer information in their organisation. They have been present when we have discussed transferring information between I-System and their legacy information systems.” From the project approach, it was not possible to invite representatives from all departments to the project group.

Department A Codes ISystem Legacy information system

Department B

User Identification

Figure 3: Intraorganisational interfaces

The basic users were mainly very satisfied with I-System. They gave feedback: “The electronic application was easy to handle. Very functional system, indeed!” (November 26, 2006). “ISystem functioned well. Without trouble, I was always able to modify and update my application whenever I wanted.” (September 19, 2006). However, also negative feedback was given: “Information about lacking data is obscure and it makes the form filling an arduous task.” (December 9, 2006). The officials were able to criticise the system in the project meetings. Despite that, one of them used also the feedback link: “At least here we have done a good development project :-)” (October 6, 2006). This feedback was an example of the natural and easy interaction that was perceived in the project group. On the other hand, the interaction was not always perceiver purely active especially between the two vendors: “I’m sorry about this outburst but we don’t really know anything about this task and this ‘cgi’ is everything we have been told even if we wanted to know something else about it, too!” (Email August 8, 2005). Apart from some distrust, the project manager also felt confidence from the other project participants. Some of the emails included confidential information beginning with “This email is only for you …” She also got SMSs from the other participants: “Tomorrow the first version of ISystem will be set up! I suppose that we survived …” (SMS 17:24 March 23, 2005). The project was thanked in meetings: “The project has proceeded exactly as was planned. The information system is technically surprising good.” (Project memorandum August 29, 2006).

5

Conclusion

This study was qualitative and it enabled the use of interpretation when analysing the findings. Our research highlights issues that emerge when building inter-organisational information systems in the context of several organisations participating in the development work. This paper focuses on the social dynamics instead of the technical information system. Implementing information systems is reported as a challenge that more often fails than succeeds. We raise fruitful collaboration as one of the most important issues in the implementation. Due to the many involved organisations and their representatives in the development work, the social dynamics must be noticed and reacted. Confidential terms between the project manager and other participants enable positive circumstances for discussions in project meetings and between them. In addition, our project proved that especially in pilot projects the role of received feedback is notable. We were able to use the feedback when developing the information system further and that possibility would have been dismissed without flexible working routines in the project. However, before any information system can be planned, the work process it is to support has to be described thoroughly. Due to the inter-organisational nature of the system, also the need of proper authentication is emphasised. In our case a joint database was developed. Therefore also the quality of the information was underlined. Furthermore, transferred information has to be described in detail because e.g. fieldnames do not tell enough of their contents. On top of that,

especially in inter-organisational information systems the question of ownership should be answered in time. Otherwise unsolved problems and background discussions may lead to conflicts in the information system development. Despite the gray history of the many failures in information system implementations [Furton 2003, Panteli, Sockalingam 2005], the I-System project proved to be a success. We argue that the reason for this success is found in true interaction and perceived trust in the project meetings. The setting with many organisations that had no proper experiences in intra-organisational information systems, not to mention their developments, proposed a challenging environment. The great number of received feedback showed that the users actively responded. This research proved that even challenging information system projects can be carried out with people whose experience comes from disciplines other than information system science or practice. In our case, the project manager approached the development work with an intention to do research from the beginning. Thus she was able to collect a rich research material that enables a deep analysis and interpretation. Her role as a researcher was clarified to all project participants. On the other hand, from the others’ viewpoint, her main role was to run the information system project. This study contributes information system research with its inter-organisational nature. So far there is not much research about inter-organisational information system implementations that are carried out together with the many organisations (Dahlbom, oral notification June 11, 2005). The chosen research approach also enabled the use of subjective documents when there are several sources available. The principles introduced by Klein and Myers [1999] have been in the background when carrying out this research. A hermeneutic circle was concerned when trying to understand the relationships between project stakeholders in the context of the interorganisational project organisation. Interaction between the researcher and other persons has been active in project meetings and encounters, including emails. Multiple interpretations were realised in this research by using both project documentation and the personal diary written by the project manager in interpreting events. In addition, several SMSs were sent during the implementation, giving evidence about the atmosphere and situations in the project. The principle of suspicion leads us to evaluate the subjective diary of the project manager and the short minutes that were written about meetings and encounters. Acknowledgement The author wishes to acknowledge all the project members for their support and active participation. Without them there would be no “case”. In addition, there would be no information system to support interoperability between the organisations. Professor Ari Heiskanen is acknowledged for introducing the case to the researcher. References Antoniac, P.; Pallot, M.; Pulli, P.: Virtual and Augmented Reality Supporting Group Consciousness within Collaborative Working Environments. In: Proceedings of the ICE 2006 conference. Daniel, E.M.; White, A.: The future of inter-organisational system linkages: findings of an international Delphi study. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 14, No 2, 2005, p. 188-203. Evaristo, R.: The Management of Distributed Projects Across Cultures, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol 11, No 4, 2003, p. 60-72. Flick, U.: An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 1999, p. 136-166. Furton, M.T.: Discovering the true cause of failure in custom software development projects. Computer and Internet Lawyer, Vol 20, 2003, p. 1-3. Halonen, R.: Transferring knowledge between implementers when building inter-organisational information systems. Ghodous, P.; Dieng-Kuntz, R.; Loureiro, G. (Eds.) Leading the Web in Concurrent Engineering. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006, p. 749-757. Halonen, R.a: Virtual Community with an Information System. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems Vol 10, No 1, 2007, p. 95-101.

Halonen, R. b: Digitized information management: The dynamic information system. Journal of Digital Information Management, Vol 5, No 1, 2007, p. 25-31. Håkansson, H.: Corporate Technological Behaviour. Co-operation and Networks. London: Routledge, 1992, p. 108-118. Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R.: Participatory action research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 2000, p. 567-605. Klein, K.; Myers, M.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretative field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly Vol 23, No 1, 1999, p. 67-94. Klischewski, R.: Information Integration or Process Integration? How to Achieve Interoperability in Administration. http://is.guc.edu.eg/uploads/egov2004_ klischewski.pdf. (Accessed January 15, 2007). Kudrass, T. : Integrated university information systems, In: Proc. Eight International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Databases and Information Systems Integration, 2006, p. 208-214. Kumar, K.; van Dissel, H.G.: Sustainable Collaboration: Managing Conflict and Cooperation in Interorganizational Systems. MIS Quarterly, Vol 20, No 3, 1996, p. 279-300. Lee, W.B.; Chaung, C.F.; Lau, H.C.W.; Choy, K.L.: Development of a Web-based enterprise collaborative platform for networked enterprises. Business Process Management Journal Vol 9, No 1, 2003, p. 46-59. Levina, N.: Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A collective Reflection-inAction View. Information Systems Research Vol 16, No 2, 2005, p. 109-130. Mumford, E.: Redesigning Human Systems. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, cop., 2003. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 3-55, 224-256. Panteli, N.; Sockalingam, S.: Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Desicion Support Systems Vol 39, 2005, p. 599-617. Park, J.; Ram, S.: Information Systems Interoperability: What Lies Beneath? ACM Transactions on Information Systems Vol 22, No. 4, 2004, p. 595-632. Schultze, U.: A Confessional Account of an Ethnography About Knowledge Work. MIS Quarterly Vol 24, No 1, 2000, p. 3-41. Shibboleth: WWW page, http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/. (Accessed November 20, 2006). Williams, T. : Interorganisational Information Systems: issues affecting interorganisational cooperation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 6, 1997, p. 231-250.