The Concept of “IT Artifact” Has Outlived Its Usefulness and Should Be Retired Now

Vastly inconsistent definitions of the term “the IT artifact” in leading journals and conferences demonstrate why it no longer means anything in particular and should be retired from the active IS lexicon. Examples from the literature show why artifact-cousins, such as the IS artifact, sociotechnical artifact, social artifact, and ensemble artifact should be used with great care, if not retired as well. Any void created by these retirements could be filled through the following approaches: 1) relabeling with simple terms that are immediately understandable, 2) adopting guidelines for making sense of the whole X-artifact family, and 3) sidestepping the IT artifact and focusing directly on IT-enabled work systems in organizations

When humans using the IT artifact becomes IT using the human artifact

Following Demetis & Lee (2016) who showed how systems theorizing can be conducted on the basis of a few systems principles, in this conceptual paper, we apply these principles to theorize about the systemic character of technology and investigate the role reversal in the relationship between humans and technology. By applying systems-theoretical requirements outlined by Demetis & Lee, we examine conditions for the systemic character of technology and, based on our theoretical discussion, we argue that humans can now be considered artifacts shaped and used by the (system of) technology rather than vice versa. We argue that the role reversal has considerable implications for the field of information systems that has thus far focused only on the use of the IT artifact by humans. We illustrate these ideas with empirical material from a well-known case from the financial markets: the collapse (“Flash Crash”) of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

When Humans Using the IT Artifact Becomes IT Using the Human Artifact

Following Lee & Demetis [20] who showed how systems theorizing can be conducted on the basis of a few systems principles, in this paper, we apply these principles to theorize about the systemic character of technology and investigate the role-reversal in the relationship between humans and technology. By applying systems-theoretical requirements outlined by Lee & Demetis, we examine conditions for the systemic character of technology and, based on our theoretical discussion, we argue that humans can now be considered artifacts shaped and used by the (system of) technology rather than vice versa. We argue that the role-reversal has considerable implications for the field of information systems that has thus far focused only on the use of the IT artifact by humans. We illustrate these ideas with empirical material from a well known case from the financial markets: the collapse (“Flash Crash”) of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

From IT to AI Artifact: Implications for IS Research on AI Adoption and Use

The IS research community has introduced and used several theoretical models and constructs to investigate information technology (IT) adoption and use behaviors in individuals. At this point in time, the community requires coherent guidance towards conceptual and methodological considerations that have the potential to provide new insights into the changing nature of interactions between people and technology. These changes are mostly related to the fact that technology is becoming more of an intelligent agent than a mere tool. Thus, the aim of this paper is to distinguish between IT and artificial intelligence (AI) artifacts and to discuss its implications for IS research on AI adoption and use behaviors. Using UTAUT, D&L IS success model, and TTF as examples, we argue how well-established models used in IS research may need to evolve to capture adoption and use behaviors of people who use or intend to use AI artifacts

Double-edged Social Mechanisms at Work in the 21st century Information System: Opportunities and Challenges

A long hold explanation in IS-Research is that any change in the Information System (IS), through the introduction of new IT-artefacts, trigger a chain of events leading to institutionalized routines and synchronized social practices. This explanation no longer covers the dynamic outcomes in the work-place set in motion by different types of IT-artefacts. We adopt a critical realist philosophy that entails to illuminate how IT-artefacts trigger social mechanisms in the human enterprise. We review IS-literature on the IT-artefact phenomenon from 2001 and forward. We find that the mechanism of individualization is forcefully triggered by new generative IT-artefacts, while enterprise IT-artefacts trigger institutionalization and socialization. We critically asses the opportunities and challenges this present for managers and designers when managing an IS that holds both types of artefacts. We draw a conceptual model of the now dual-IS, with double-edged mechanisms, that correspondingly can empower ambidextrous organizational forms

Revisiting hylomorphism: What can it contribute to our understanding of information systems?

Theorising about digital technology is core to the IS discipline. This paper presents an interpretation of technology using hylomorphism, the theory that material objects comprise both matter and form. A contemporary understanding of hylomorphism argues that the form of an object is dynamic structure, which may be actualised in the process of interacting with other objects. This paper arose out of a critical realist study on the use of technology in the classroom by senior secondary students in New Zealand. The role of theory in critical realism is outlined, and then the findings that stimulated this paper are presented. A brief history of hylomorphism is discussed before moving to the contemporary revival of Aristotelian theories. Some implications of this theory on IS research are presented, including an outline of emergence and methodological considerations

Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact

The concept of the “IT artifact” plays a central role in the information systems research community’s discourse on design science. We pose the alternative concept of the “IS artifact,” unpacking what has been called the IT artifact into a separate “information artifact,” “technology artifact,” and “social artifact.” Technology artifacts (such as hardware and software), information artifacts (such as a message), and social artifacts (such as a charitable act) are different kinds of artifacts that together interact in order to form the IS artifact. We illustrate the knowledge value of the IS artifact concept with material from three cases. The result is to restore the idea that the study of design in information systems needs to attend to the design of the entire IS artifact, not just the IT artifact. This result encourages an expansion in the use of design science research methodology to study broader kinds of artifacts

Applying Seven Images of Science in Exploring whether Information Systems Is a Science

This paper contributes in two parts to a debate that McBride (2018) initiated. The first part focuses on clarifying the discussion topic. It defines science, information system, and the scope of the IS discipline because McBride does not define those terms clearly. The second part responds to particular aspects of McBride’s arguments. It is framed around a multi-metaphor approach that proposes and applies seven “images of science”

Five Seemingly Insurmountable Challenges Related to Attaining Long-Term Value from Theorizing about Information Systems

Recent articles such as Avison and Malaurent (2014) and Grover and Lyytinen (2015) question taken-for-granted assumptions about the centrality of theory in research published in leading journals and the near necessity of following repetitive scripts that sometimes are an obstacle to creativity. This paper goes a step further by providing examples and observations that illustrate five seemingly insurmountable challenges related to attaining long-term value from theorizing about information systems. 1) Divergent definitions of basic terms makes it extremely difficult to accumulate IS knowledge. 2) The IS discipline seems to take for granted that knowledge must take the form of theory. 3) Many beliefs and practices related to IT will not hold still for long due to the rapid pace of technological change 4) Most concepts and phenomena that are relevant to IS are not uniquely about IS. 5) Institutional practices at multiple levels encourage use of scripts that are obstacles to creativity and knowledge development. The conclusion identifies directions for initial progress related to each challenge