Using Internet technology within the organization - Semantic Scholar

Using Internet technology within the organization: a structurational analysis of intranets Rem Scheepers

n

Jan Damsgaard

Aalborg University Department of Computer Science Frederik Bajersvej 7E DK-9220 Aalborg 0, Denmark {rens, damse} @cs.auc.dk ABSTRACT

Many organizations are implementing Internet technology, specifically Word Wide Web technology, inside the organization in the form of an “organizational Internet” or irttrunet. Intranet technology can unify dispersed computer based information systems in the organization into one rich “system”. Thus, intranets can have a major impact on organizational processes, for example cross-functional information sharing and collaboration. We focus on the social aspects surrounding intranet implementation. We seek to answer how intranet implementations shape and how they are shaped by ‘social structures employed by organizational agents. We adapt structuration theory into an explanatory device to analyze inhanet implementation and we apply it to four cases. We conclude that, intranets are initially more shaped by, rather than shaping social structures, but that this may change over time. The following learning points are condensed: Firstly, intranets are socially constructed and implementers need to be cautious when seeking to transplanting Web technology into an organizational context. Secondly, intranets typically over time. . Finally, sophistication evolve in institutionalization is isolated as the key challenge in intranet implementation. Keywords

Intranet, implementation, social, structuration theory INTRODUCTION

The information processing need of today’s business organizations is growing at a rapid pace. Actors need to access organizational information in a timely, accurate and easy manner. To this end, many organizations employ computer based information systems. However, in most organizations, there are a number of different and incompatible information systems in use [21]. These systems support various functional areas of the organization. penllission to ,~,&e digitalhrd copies of all or part ofthis mrhal for personnl or cl~roonl use is granted without fee provided that Ule coDi= nre not mnde or distributed for profit or conunrrcinl ndvantege. Ux coPYridIt notice, tl,e title ofthe publication and its date appear, nndII&e is given UInt copyright is by pemksioo of the ACM, Inc. To coPY oUlerwise, to republish, to post 011 serves or to redistribute to lists, requires specific permission

nndlor fee.

GROIJ~97 Phoenix Arizona USA Copy,+&

1997 ACL4 O-89791-89%5/97/1

1..$3.50

Consequently, the process of gathering, integrating and disseminating information between functional areas of the organization becomes troublesome and complex. Organisational actors are usually familiar with local information systems that. are used within their specific organizational function [16]. However, despite advances in fields such as human computer interaction and networked technologies, it is still problematic to access information from systems in other functional areas of the organization. Moreover, cross-functional information sharing is vital for activities such as project implementation [29], cooperation between technically specialized and dispersed groups [l 11, fact-based decision making in total quality management (TQM) [18] and business process reengineering [9]. Thus, many organizations can be characterized as consisting of isolated “islands of information”, dispersed throughout their different functional areas [21]. Assembling the “big picture” as a more informed basis for action, is time consuming, demands high levels of skills and knowledge and is resource intensive. At the same time, we witness the explosive growth in the usage of the Internet, especially World Wide Web (WWW) technologies [4]. The Web has been a breakthrough, because it allows users to locate and access information in a standard, user-friendly way across various technical platforms. In this sense, the WWW has connected what used to be separated “islands of information intensive networks” that previously demanded a lot of knowledge and skills to benefit from and ‘navigate between. On a much larger scale, the Web has solved a similar problem to what many organizations are presently facing in an interfunctional context. It is therefore an obvious next step to transplant Internet technologies into the organizational domain. Consequently, some organizations are experimenting with “organizational Intemets” or so-called intraners. Intranets build on the popular Web technology to facilitate information sharing between functional areas within an organization. Thus, the Web is a new technology employed to solve wellknown problems associated with information sharing across remote networks. Intranets exploit this by applying the well-

organization members. Limited access is achieved by shielding the intranet from unauthorized external usage by means of a firewall-a system or group of systems that enforces an access control policy between two networks

established technology to solve intra-organizational information sharing problems. Since intranets rely on proven Internet technology (which many organizations have already in place for Internet access), their technical implementation is relatively easy and straightforward.

1301.

This appealing solution to organizational information processing needs should be carefully considered. Intranets may very well be a potent organizational change tool, that can upset existing organizational processes and ‘structures for information support for organizational actors, communication and collaboration. Research into these nontechnical (social aspects) of intranet implementation has been largely ignored in most available literature. The intranet phenomenon is fairly new and is currently receiving a lot of media attention t&12,33,36]. There are also numerous Web sites available on the Internet, that narrate stori& of the marvels of Intranet technologies. These are mostly promoted by vendors who are offering , Intranet technologies and/or services [1,261. However, there [ is not yet a body of systematic research available on the topic. Adopters of Intranet technology are thus confronted with a lot of “haze” and the commercial bias makes it difficult to get a clear picture. This may spell disaster for implementation success for many organiz&ions.

Figure 1: Schemati!: of intranet protected by firewall As depicted in Figure 1, firewalls prevent unauthorized external access to the intranet, but can allow organizational actors to locate and access information externally on the Internet. The web browser (the software to access nnd display information from the intranet web server) can bc used as universal tool for accessing all organizational information, ideally regardless of their source and format [34]. Information residing on different computing platforms can be translated into the same format so that a user can search for and vieti it using the browser. The browser also provides the intranet user with a transparent interface to Internet services such as e-mail, file transfer and discussion groups [27]. By presenting information in the same way on every computer, intranets have the potential to integrate information systems from all functional areas in the organization into one, rich, searchable “system” that enables organizational actors to find information wherever it resides in the organization-provided it is availablo electronically [8].

Our point of departure is the following argument: A scant of literature exists on intranet implementation. The available literature is almost exclusively commercial and popular case studies. From this, it is unclear .what lessons can be learned regarding the effect of intranet implementation on aspects Such as organizational communication, power structures and norms. In this paper we therefore seek to answer the following question: How do intranets implementations shape and how are they being shaped by the social structures employed by organizational agents?

To this end we survey current literature and we adapt and apply structuration theory as explanatory device. The paper is organized as follows. First, we define and characterize Intranet technology by contrasting it with Internet Www technology. We examine the broad application of Intranet technology. We believe that this is one of the first attempts to analyze the social consequences of Intranet implementation. We then build an explanatory framework to analyze some Intranet implementations. Four accounts of intranet implementations are analyzed using this framework. Finally, we synthesize our results, make some conclusions and suggest promising areas for further research.

Intranets can be applied as conduit for disseminating organizational information (e.g. .online documentation, departmental home pages) via static Web pages [2,5]. However, intranet technology can also serve as a platform for more advanced applications (such as collaborative design, concurrent engineering and workflow support) using the browser as universal interface [7,31,33]. STRUCTURATION THEORY

In this section, we describe and adapt structuration theory [13,14,15] into a theoretical device to analyze intranct implementation as reported in some available case studies, Structuration theory has been proven useful to study various aspects of information technology in organizations [10,20,22,28,37].

INTRANETS

We will summarize a few key aspects of Intranets here-for a detailed technical review see e.g. [5]. An “Internet” Within the Organization

From a technical perspective, an intranet is an analogous implementation of Www technology within an organization-with access restricted exclusively to

Key Principle

Structuration theory provides a connection between human action and social structure [13]. The key principle in

10

structuration theory is that of duality of structure-human action is enabled and constrained by structure, but structure is also the result of human action. Action and structure presuppose each other and they are therefore viewed as a duality in structuration. theory. Thus structure is both the medium and outcome of action that it recursively organizes. All social activity, including work processes, is enabled and constrained by social structures that are continually produced and reproduced via human agency [22].

legitimization. Thus they form a totality that can only be isolated analytically [14]. These concepts and their relationships are depicted in Figure 2. They are discussed in an intranet context below. Structures of Signification

Structures of signification refer to rules of what constitutes meaning. Actors draw upon interpretive schemes (mutual “stocks of knowledge”) that mediate communication. This not only enables (and constrains) communication, but in drawing on interpretive schemes, actors reproduce structures of signification [ 131.

Structured social practices are institutionalized when they become deeply sedimented in time (enduring) and space (acknowledged widely by actors) [14]. Structuration theory explains change as alterations to structures over time (through action). These changes can be either gradual (only noticeable over a long period) or radical (traceable to a specific incident). Conflict can be understood as resulting from contradictions in social structures. Action can have both intended and unintended consequences. Unintended consequences of action are fundamental in the reproduction of structures.

Structures of signification in the context of an information system reflect the “shared understanding of the function of an information system by a group of people” [20]. A shared understanding of the intranet’s function between actors is essential for successful implementation. For example, management needs to attribute the same meaning to the intranet as the developers thereof [25]. Also, users need to have a shared understanding of its functionality in order to use it effectively as mechanism for communicating organizational information-users need to know how to locate and access information to utilize the intranet [19].

Duality of Structure in Interaction

In structuration theory three dimensions of institutionalized social structure are isolated: signification, legitimization and domination [13]. The theory also identifies three key of human action during interaction: processes communication, the exercising of power and sanctioning of conduct. The dimensions of social structure are linked to the processes of interaction (the two poles of the duality) by meansof three modalities: interpretive schemes, facility and norms.

Structures of Domination

Structures of domination are “asymmetries of resources” that agents draw upon in exercising power [13]. Resources reflect the capabilities of actors to act intentionally [14]. The term “facility” is used in &u&ration theory for two distinct types of resources-authoritative and allocative resources. Authoritative resources refers to capabilities which generate power by having command over persons. Allocative resources are capabilities which generate power by having command over .objects or material. During interaction, agents drawn upon and, in doing so, reproduce structures of domination.

StNCtUN

In the context of intranets, structures of domination include resources allocated or withheld towards its implementation, management support in favor of or against its development and command over actors involved with the intranetdevelopers and intranet users. For example, structures of domination are evident when developers have to “sell” the intranet concept to management to gain their support [24,25]. Gaining management support can enable developers in their action, but also reproduces the domination structure.

(modality)

Infemction

ICommunication(-

$

$

i (-TZF+

I.1

Figure 2: Dimensions of the duality of structure in interaction. [ 151

Structures of Legitimization

Structures of legitimization refer to norms (“‘rules”) that actors draw upon in the sanctioning of their own and others’ conduct in interaction. Norms include rights and obligations expected of actors in interaction (such as codes of conduct). Norms thus enable and constrain action and through their invocation in interaction, actors reproduce structures of legitimization. Legitimization structures are seen as the “spirit of the law” that governs appropriate usage of a technology by actors [lo].

The duality of structure in interaction can be understood as follows: agents communicate, exercise power and sanction their own behavior and that of others by drawing on modalities (stocks of knowledge, rules and resources), and in doing so produce and reproduce. (with possible transformation) structures of signification, domination and legitimization. Structures of signification are always associated with the structures of domination and

11

a

Apart from upper management concerns, there were also conflict between departments over whose hypertext link should be before whose on the corporate home page, Someone also proposed that the intranet should force users to go through the “correct channels” in accessing departmental pages.

In the case of intranet implementation, structures of legitimization include aspects such as its justification (e.g. more informed action), its conformance to organizational norms and directives regarding its implementation and intended use (e.g. what information it should or should not contain). For example, some intranets start as “skunk work’ projects by technical staff [35] and this may cause management to intervene later on since they never sanctioned the activity.

Over time these issues were resolved and it is reported that the NSC intranet “works well” and that it is “sponsored” by several senior vice presidents.

CASE STUDIES

In this section, a number of reported case studies on intranets are explored using structuration theory as explanatory device. Currently, much of the available intranet case documentation is scant and many cases focus only on the technical aspects of implementation. We selected cases that were sufficiently documented and where social aspects surrounding the ‘implementation were discussed.

From a structuration perspective we argue that the reaction from upper management against the intranet stemmed from the absence of a mutual signification structure. Upper management did not interpret the intranet in the same manner as the ISiTL staff did. Management viewed the intranet as a threat, whereas the ISfl?L staff saw it as an enabling technology. In their initial reaction, upper management drew on their structures of domination via their authoritative resources (their command over the ISAL staff) threatening to halt the intranet’s implementation. In exercising their power, they sanctioned their behavior by drawing on structures of legitimization. At the time, they could “justify” their reaction by drawing on organizational norms: the intranet could put information security at risk, “moral” values were under attack (pornography), company time would be wasted (pointless surfing) and the intranet was uncontrolled.

A summary of each case is provided followed by a structurational analysis. Our viewpoints are thus from a structurational perspective. National Semiconductor Corporation

The corporate intranet at National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) [17] evolved from an initial need of their Technical Library (TL) to make information available electronically to other departments of the organization. The intranet initiative was driven by “rank-and-file” staff from the Information Systems (IS) department and the TL. The initiative was not “official” and had no top management support.

Thus to “save” the intranet, ISAL staff had to create a structure) via shared understanding (signification interaction with upper management. In doing so, the ISA’L staff acknowledged upper management’s authority (thus reproducing the domination structure). Furthermore, they demonstrated that the intranet would not contravene existing organizational norms and practices and that, in fact, it conformed to existing structures of legitimization.

Usage of the intranet grew rapidly and other departments began to create their own web pages. The increasing prominence of the intranet prompted upper management to intervene. They raised a number of concerns: The intranet in their view was not “controlled’-nobody was “in charge”; desktop access and information sharing on the intranet could disclose “corporate secrets”; the intranet (as platform for Internet access) would be misused; staff would waste time “surfing” the Internet and they would download and view pornography.

The rivalry between other departments can be analyzed as follows: going through “correct channels” and the importance of the ordering of the hypertext links reflect the existence of institutionalized structures. The introduction of the intranet would probably transform these structures over time, since the user would decide what to do first and which link to follow.

To ensure the survival of the intranet, the IS and TL staff had to address each of the concerns of upper management. IVI’L staff convinced upper management that the intranet was an acceptable “egalitarian” approach to information management. They formed a ‘Web council”, which functioned as discussion forum where each functional department was represented. IS/TL staff demonstrated that firewall and password mechanisms that were put in place prevented unauthorized internal and external access. Finally, the ISEL staff argued that staff could waste time or display pornography regardless of the existence of an intranet and if this should occur, it should be a normal disciplinary matter between the employee and his/her direct supervisor. .

From the fact that the intranet “works well” and also that upper management bought into the idea, one can argue that the intranet was successfully positioned within the boundaries of existing social structures. SAS Institute

We now analyze the first 6 months of the introduction of the SAS Institute’s intranet-called the SAS Wide Web (SWW) [3]. The SWW was initiated to address the problem of sharing an increasing volume of electronic information between the various divisions and departments in the organization, At the time, a number of diverse, incompatible information tools and formats were in USCat

12

SAS that made sharing of the electronic information troublesome,

Users did not understand the intranet’s purpose or the, functionality that it would eventually provide.

A small, basic prototype was built to demonstrate the intranet’s potential, especially its hypertext capabilities. This was shown to a few users, but “it was not enough to convince people”. The users viewed the SWW as yet another tool and information format that they had to learn.

It was only after more resources were allocated to the intranet (incorporating more information formats and linking it with other organizational systems) that the intranet became more accepted. The fact that significant resources were allocated over time to enhance the intranet, indicates management support (structures of domination).

Following this, translation features were added to the SWW so that it could be used to access information from some of the existing local information formats in use. This time, a few specific users who “were accustomed to dealing with start-up environments” were selected to “do something practical with the SWW”.

The fact that staff developed their own pages (and actually creating a useful information resource) is an example of the unintended consequence of action that causes the reproduction of structures. It is interesting to observe that the intranet was shaped by prior well embedded social structures: it contained no sensitive information (legitimized usage) and it incorporated traditional “reports IO” relationships (reproduced domination structures).

After positive feedback, the SWW was announced company wide and the user base started to grow. A number of requests to enhance the SWW, so that it could be used to access more of the other local information formats, were accommodated. Subsequently, the user base grew and SWW access activity increased rapidly. Users communicated their experiences and influenced non-users to connect to the SWW.

ORNULMES

In this case we analyze the first three years of the intranet implementation of the combined facility of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (LMES) [32]. As in the case of the NSC intranet discussed earlier, the ORNLJLMES intranet was initially a “grass-roots” effort. The intranet developed from an initiative in 1993 by a staff member in the Environmental Services Division of ORNJXME S (outside the information services and computing services parts of the organization). The initial aim was to make information about ORNL and departmental-specific information available internally. From these beginnings, the intranet developed further and* spread to other organizational areas. Immediately after its introduction, the intranet “caused a great deal of conflict internally”: computer security concerns were raised and staff from information services “were. angry” because the intranet bypassed paper publications. Furthermore, divisional management resistance occurred over time. As summarized below, the proponents of the intranet at ORNLJLMES interacted with staff and management in an effort to address these issues.

Over time the SWW was further enhanced--conversion utilities were developed to translate more of the other information formats into that of the SWW. The SWW was also connected to other organizational .systems so that it could be used as a front-end to these systems.

.

After its initial six months, the SWJV had “become well established”. A vast body of electronic information was accessible via the SWW. This included internal technical documentation, latest information pertaining to calendar events of SAS Institute and guidelines and standards for software development. However, it did not contain any sensitive information. Externally sourced information were incorporated into the SWW, so that staff could download it locally (Most staff did not have direct Internet access). Employees were encouraged to “play” with the SWW. They could develop their own personal home pages on the SWW. This not only resulted in a useful information resource (many recorded their skills and current project activities), but staff also learnt the SWW information format. On-line versions of organization charts of the various divisions and departments were being put on the SWW. This took the form of traditional “reports to” relationships. Plans were afoot to use the SWW in “new ways”, for example, as medium for weekly sales reporting and as a survey mechanism for product evaluations.

In 1994, the intranet proponents for both ORNL and LMES formed a working group, but “realized they could not proceed without the official blessing of higher-ups”. Thus the working group started with a campaign to “sell” the intranet to senior management, hoping to gain their buy-in. Management’s response was “encouraging”, however, ‘there was no formal take-over or adoption of intranet development”. No funds were allocated centrally-the intranet had to be funded by the division themselves.

StructurafionalAnaIysis

The evolutionary implementation followed in this case, can be analyzed as the production, reproduction and eventual institutionalization of social structures over time and in space (indicated by the growing user base).

In 1995 the working group organized an internal event called Web Week “to educate ORNL/LMHS about the technology’s potential for enhancing collaborative research”. Web Week consisted of several tracks and was aimed at both staff and managers: new users were introduced to the basics (searching, information format and

At the onset, the intranet prototype was rejected because the social structures surrounding its implementation (especially signification structures) were not sufficiently embedded yet.

13

The resistance at divisional level by some managers can be analyzed as follows. The intranet made cross-departmental information access possible. This contradicted domination structures that were drawn upon by some’ divisional managers (exercising control over departmental information resources). This explains the reaction by these managers that warned their staff about spending time at Web Week sessions and positioning the intranet as “nonesscntinl work’. These managers exercised power via their authoritative command over their staff and by not allocating financial and time resources to the intranet-falsely legitimizing their action in the interests of financial and productivity norms.

building a home page); researchers were shown how the intranet could help them to perform more effectively (for example, to participate remotely in experiments); finally, the technical track covered intranet development topics. However, the main purpose of Web Week was to address management resistance. The following concerns contributed to the resistance: financial concerns (external funding pressures caused some divisional heads to regard the intranet as “nonessential work”); job security concerns (departmental heads feared that the intranet would make them “expendable” if their department’s data became more accessible); and finally, productivity concerns (abuse or “inappropriate personal surfing” by staff). In addition to their own efforts, the working group also brought in outsiders to address “bottom line issues such as ROI and using the Web to do business”.

Although there are some progress documented over the three years of implementation, some resistance prevails. WC argue that this mixture of success and “failure” flows from the fact that the intranet ‘Yitted” with the social structures in some parts of the organization, while it posed a challenge to the structures in the other parts. We speculate that in the parts of the organization challenged by the intranet, little or “token usage” may occur and even that certain information may be intentionally withheld from the intranet.

After Web Week, there were some signs of success: “increased intranet traffic” and “a surge in requests for application development help”. Furthermore, ORNL management formally endorsed an on-line information center designed to provide access via the intranet to existing systems. However, Web Week did not result in a “wholesale conversion of every manager and employee”. Not everyone was willing or could attend the event. Also, some managers warned their staff against “spending too much time at Web presentations at the expense of more vital job functions”.

Bectel Group Inc.

As in the case of the SAS intranet, the implementation of the intranet at Bectel Group Inc [6] can also be regarded as top-down. Bectel Group, a large construction, architecture and engineering company, formed a Web Advisory Board (WAB) to “encourage the use and development of World Wide Web technology among the company’s 20 000 worldwide employees”. However, the main objective of the WAB was to define standards for the intranet (called BecWeb). Standards were set to have “a consistent look and feel across the intranet” and also to make it “much easier for employees to find and use information”. By following the standards defined by the WAB, “people developing pages for an intranet won’t waste their time creating sites that eventually have to be redone”. The aim with BecWeb was to enable employees to find and use information faster in order for Bectel to be more competitive in its market.

Sfrucfurafional Analysis

In this case, the implementation of the intranet triggered some internal conflict. This is evident from the initial reaction of computing services (security concern), information services (bypassing of publications) and management resistance later on. The signification structure of staff from the Environmental Services Division was built on the potential of intranet technology in communicating information, but this structure was not shared throughout the organization. Some staff members and managers in other areas perceived the intranet as a threat (to computer security and potential job security). Addressing these issues, the working group communicated the intranet’s potential internally to staff and divisional management, hence Web Week. Via this interaction they attempted to establish a shared signification structure throughout the organization. This interaction was mostly successful since the intranet communication was done within the constraints of established social structures (e.g. how it supported collaborative research).

The intranet was divided into two tiers. The first tier included company-wide information (such as engineering standards) for which the WAB was responsible and where standards applied. A second local tier was allowed where departments did not necessarily have to comply with all standards-however, they were encouraged to do so anyway.

Constrained by the domination structure of the organization’s senior management, the working group attempted to gain their support. Senior management’s response was encouraging, however they still exercised power by not allocating resources centrally to the intranet (legitimized by the decentralization norm-the intranet had to be funded at divisional level).

People from the WAB interacted with other departments in the organization to encourage them to contribute to the intranet, helping them to catalogue their contributions and to determine the information they expect to find on the intranet. BecWeb was also integrated with the existing document management system (giving employees access to human

14

Structures of Signification Structures of signification are an important topic in each of the four cases. A shared understanding of the importance and usefulness of intranets must be addressed before any large scale implementation is commenced. In the SAS Institute case the lack of shared understanding lead to initial rejection. In the 0 RNLILMES and Bectel cases initiatives were launched to ensure shared structures of signification (WebWeek and official announcing top management support in favor of the intranet).

resources information) and other financial systems (for example, to access regional statistics for an area via a graphical map). Developments were also underway to allow access to three-dimensional plant designs via the intranet. Sfrucfurafional Analysis

In this case, the intranet was deemed critical for the organization-employees needed faster access to company information in order to compete successfully in their market. Standardization of intranet “look and feel” was seen as important to achieve faster information access.

The importance of shared signification structures is vital for successful Intranet implementation. It is imperative that organizational actors perceive the intranet as a useful resource, otherwise they may rebel [23J.

Through their interaction, the WAB had to ensure that social structures were embedded in space (all departments) and time (enduring) so that the intranet standardization would take place. The WAB defined the intranet standards and interacted with other departments in the organization (thus establishing a signification structure). In their interaction, structures of domination are evident, since departments would eventually have to redo sites that did not meet the standards. In their action, the WAB drew on structures of legitimization-their action was justified in the light of the organization’s competitive ability.

Structures of Domination

The issue of domination is imperative in all four cases. Both allocative and authoritative means of domination are exercised. In both the case of the National Semiconductor Corporation and the SAS Institute the management is engaged. In the former the management threatened to put an end to the intmnet and in the latter management intervened in favor of the intranet implementation. In the case of ORLN/LMFS the intranet working group acknowledged the crucial role of domination structures for the successful implementation of the intranet. In the Bectel case authoritative domination structures were appIied to ensure layout and standard conformance.

We argue that the implementation approach (based on standardization) taken was appropriate for this particular setting. Compliance. to construction and engineering standards would be an established norm in this type of organization and intranet standardization would fit this environment. However, the same approach may not be appropriate in another setting where heterogeneous social structures prevail.

The issue of power and domination is widely recognized in the literature. The interesting aspect about these cases is the variety of modes and methods through which domination is exercised in the implementation of intranets.

DISCUSSION We have analyzed some social aspects of intranet implementation from a structurational perspective. Table 1 summarizes our findings.

StructuraI Dimension Signification

Domination

Legitimization

Structures of Legitimization

Structures of legitimization is addressed in all four cases. In

Table 1:cjverview of anal National Semiconductor* SAS Institute Coruoration Lack of shared Initial lack of mutual signification structure for signification structures lead the intranet. to initial rejection. ’ Management threat to put an end to the in&met implementation.

Management intervene in direct support for the intranet.

Intranet The champions interact implemented with management in accordance acknowledging existing power structures and that with social structures and intranet technology is in norms. line with organizational values and norms. -L

15

red cases ORNL/LMEs

Bectel Group Inc.

WebWeek launched to establish shared structures of signification. The working group realizes that it needs management support. The intranet fits well with some parts and poses a challenge to legitimization structures in other parts.

Top management support ensured shared signification structure. Domination structures applied to ensure uniform layout and standards. Homogenous fit with legitimization structures enabled a smooth intranet implementation.

manner so that it fits with, rather than challenges tho established social structures. If not, the intranet will probably be rejected.

the Bectel case homogenous organizational structures enabled a straightforward implementation process. In the ORNLLMES case the intranet was perceived differently by various heterogeneous organizational parts. In the case of the National Semiconductor Corporation an intranet champion acted to establish common legitimization structuies.

Implementers should therefore not draw parallels too easily between WWW and intranet acceptance. We recommend a prognosis of the intranet’s impact on social structures prior to implementation and careful monitoring during roll-out.

The existence of the intranet poses a challenge to existing organizational structures of legitimization. How best to address this issue must be based on contingency factors, such as homogeneity of the organization, earlier technology introduction and management traditions of the company.

lntranets Increase in Sophistication over Tlme

From the literature it is evident that organizations initially deploy an intranet as a conduit for sharing organizational information. Over time the intranet can be evolved into a platform for more advanced applications (e.g, collaboration). One can speculate as to why this happens. Given the learning intensive nature of the technology, we argue that as intranets become more institutionalized over time, their functionality can be enriched incrementally without risking resistance.

In our experience, structuration theory has, to a large extent, proved to be a useful device in exploring the social aspects surrounding intranet implementation. However, due to the fact that signification, domination and legitimization dimensions are so tightly interwoven in the theory, we found it generally difficult to attribute specific intranet issues uniquely to a dimension. The theory does lend itself well to explaining the interaction of actors during intranet implementation, but we found it less powerful in its predictive capability. However, with the advantage of hindsight in the cases, structuration theory did provide us with some good insights into intranet implementation as, listed in the conclusions below.

The’ “Challenge Institutionalization

in

lntranet

Implementation

Is

Intianets rely on already proven Web technology, Therefore, the technical issues play a lesser role in intranet implementation than the social ones do. Intranet implementers face a dilemma. Implementing an intranet.that impacts too heavily on the established social structures-in the organization, can lead to rejection and WC thus caution against “big bang” approaches-a point consistent with earlier research [lo]. On the other hand, a too small effort runs the risk of not being enough to convince users of the intranet’s potential. Thus the challenge is to determine the “‘crmcal mass” required for the institutionalization of the intranet.

CONCLUSION

First of all we note that in none of the cases serious technical problems are mentioned to be of significant matter. However this should not lull management into believing that intranet implementation is less challenging than other technology innovations. Intranets may very well upset existing structures of domination, legitimization, and signification, especially since it may circumvent existing information channels and thus transform organizational structures.

In the light of the observations above, we suggest the following avenues for fruitful research into intrnnet implementation.

The intranet literature is abundant with claims of its wide appeal and in the light of the popularity of the WWW. We advocate a more cautious approach-intranets face the same barriers to acceptance as other types of organizational information technology.

Further research is necessary in fitting the framework we developed here to more cases. We are involved in intranct case- studies in South Africa and Denmark. From our preliminary investigations, we can already USC the framework to identify some potential implementation pitfalls. However, an urgent need exists for more empirical research, especially longitudinal studies focusing on intranet institutionalization. There is a need for welldocumented case studies that focus on social aspects as , opposed to the current bulk of technically focused material. Other research avenues should focus on questions such as what organizational information is intentionally withheld from the intranet and how intranet implementation differs from “traditional” information systems in the sense that they are networks of systems spanning an entire organization.

Because of the vast potential of the technology, intranets may have a major impact on organizational aspects of power, communication, and norms. However, from the cases it seems that when this technology is transplanted into the organization as an intranet, it should be done in a

We thank our colleagues at Aalborg University in Denmark and at the CSIR in South Africa for their intellectual and financial support. Also, we thank the FRD in South Africa for their support to present the paper.

We conclude that, during the introduction phase, intranets are more shaped by, rather than shaping social structures in the organizational context. Thus initially, intranets have to “fit” with the prevailing social structures, otherwise termination would follow. However, as intranets become institutionalized in the organization over time, it is likely that their impact on social structures will be pervasive. We, would like to emphasize the three following learning points. lntranets are Socially Constructed

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

16

REFERENCES 1. Amdahl Corporation. Managing your enterprise wide http://www.,amdahl.com/doc web. (22 July 1996) lproductslbsglintra

17.Holland, M. & Picard, J. Librarians at the gate (September 1996) http:llwww.cio.comtWebMaster /090196-librarians.html lS.Jablonski, J.R. Implementing TQM. Second Edition, Technical Management Consortium, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994.

2. Ashman, H., O’Neill, J., and Clothier, J. Issues in the use of hypermedia in organizations, in Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Maui, Hawaii, January 1997), IEEE Computer

lg.Jones, R. Digital’s enterprise web (13 August, 1996) http://www.digital.com:80/info/intemet/enterprise.html

Society Press.

20.Karsten, H. Interactions with collaborative technology: Lotus Notes in a network organization, Licentiate thesis, University of Jyv&&yl$ 1996.

3. Bednarcyk, L.A., and

Bond, K.D. A local web for information delivery (1994) http://141.142.3.76/ SDG/IT94/Proceedings/CorInfSyslbednarcykJbednarcyk .html

2l.Keen, P.G.W. Shaping the Future: Business Design Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1991.

4. Berghel, H. The client’s side of the World Y&de Web, . Commun. ACM 39, 12 (1996), 30-40.

22.Lyytinen, K.J., and Ngwenyama, O.K. What does computer support for cooperative work mean? A structurational analysis of computer supported cooperative work, Accounting, Management & Information Technology 2,l (1992), 19-37.

5. Bernard, R. The Corporate Intranet. John Wiley and

Sons, Inc., 1996. 6. Callaway, E. Setting the standard (18 July

1996) http://www.pcweek.com/archive/l328/pcwkOO2l.htm

7. Coleman, D. Collaboration on the Internet and intranets, in Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Con&ence on System’Sciences (Maui, Hawaii, January

23.Markus, M.L. Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Commun. ACM 26,6, (1983), 430-444. 24.Moeller, M. Boeing network takes flight with pioneering intranet project February 1996) (19 http://www.pcweek.com /news/0219 /tboing.html

1997), IEEE Computer Society Press. 8. Cortese, A. Here comes the intranet, Business Week

(February 26 1996), 76-84.

25.Murphy, K. New breed: intranet champions, Web Week 2,3 (March 1996).

9. Davenport, T.H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard

26.Netscape Communications Corporation. Customer profiles (June solutions: http://home.netscape.com/comprod/at_work/ customer-profiles/index.html

Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993. lO.DeSanctis, G., and Poole, M.S. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5, 2 (1994) 121-147.

M.Netscape Communications Corporation. The Netscape intranet vision and product roadmap (16 July 1996) http://www.netscape.com/comprod/at_work/white-paper /intranet/vision.html

ll.Elmes, M. & Wilemon, D. Determinants of crosstechnology-based in cooperation functional organizations, IEEE Engineering Management Review 20, 1 (1992), 40-46.

28.Orlikowski, W.J. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations, Organization Science 3,3 (1992), 398-427.

12.Erlanger, L. Corporate intranets: The Web within, PC Magazine 1.5,s (23 April 1996), 100-158.

29.Pinto, M.B., and Pinto, J.K. Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 7,3 (1990), 200-211.

13.Giddens, A. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure

and

Contradiction

in

Social

Intranet 1996)

Analysis.

Macmillan, London, 1979. 14,Giddens, A. Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory. Macmillan, London, 1982.

30.Ranum, M.J. Internet firewalls Frequently Asked Questions (17 January 1996), http:/www.v-one.com /pub&w-faq/faq.ht #head-whatis

lfi.Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984.

3l.Scherer, A. Supporting concurrent engineering using an intranet approach. in Proceedings of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Maui, Hawaii, January 1997), IEEE Computer Society Press.

J. The Diffusion of a Learning Intensive Technology Into Organizatiom: The Case of Personal Computing. Ph.D. thesis A-104, Helsinki School of

16,Heikkil$

32.Slater, D. Evangelical fervor (November 1996) http://www.cio.com/WebMaster/110196~fervor.html

Economics and Business Administration, 1995.

17

33.Sprout, A.L. & Coxeter, R.M. The Internet inside your company, Fortune, (November 27 1995).

36.Udel1, J. Your business needs the Web, Byte 15, 8 (August 1996), 68-80.

34.Telleen, S.L. Intranet methodology: Concepts and rationale, http://www.amdahl.com/doc/products/bsg /intra/conceptsl.html. 7 September, 1996.

37.Walsham, G., and Han, C.K. Structuration theory and information systems research, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 17 (1991), 77-85.

35.Telleen, S.L. The intranet architecture: Managing information in the new paradigm (June 1996) http://amdahl.com /doc/products/bsg/intra/infka.html

18