Giddens’ structuration theory and Pettigrew’s contextual analysis have both been influential frameworks for examining the close relationship between information systems initiatives and their organisational environment. Here the relationship between these two theories is examined and it will be argued that they are largely, but not wholly equitable. This comparison has important implications for how the process of systems development can and should be perceived

Hocking, Lynley

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 1998 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 1998Developing a Framework for Examining SystemsDevelopment and its Environmental Context: TheRelationship Between Giddens' StructurationTheory and Pettigrew's Contextual AnalysisLynley HockingUniversity of TasmaniaFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 1998 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationHocking, Lynley, "Developing a Framework for Examining Systems Development and its Environmental Context: The RelationshipBetween Giddens' Structuration Theory and Pettigrew's Contextual Analysis" (1998). AMCIS 1998 Proceedings. 286.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998/286-835-Developing a Framework for Examining Systems Development and itsEnvironmental Context:  The Relationship Between Giddens’Structuration Theory and Pettigrew’s Contextualist AnalysisLynley HockingUniversity of TasmaniaAbstractGiddens’ structuration theory and Pettigrew’s contextual analysis have both been influential frameworks forexamining the close relationship between information systems initiatives and their organisational environment.Here the relationship between these two theories is examined and it will be argued that they are largely, butnot wholly equitable. This comparison has important implications for how the process of systems developmentcan and should be perceived.The process of systems development and implementation in organisations is an area of great concern but there are few goodmodels of process (Walsham 1993, Saberwal and Robey 1995).  Understanding this process of change requires a closeexamination of the relationship between the process, context and content of changes (Pettigrew 1985).  The close and intertwinednature of the relationship between systems development projects and their organisational environment has been widelyconsidered (eg Kling 1987, Orlikowski 1988, Truex 1993).  Giddens’ structuration theory and Pettigrew’s contextual analysisboth provide useful and sophisticated conceptual frameworks for examining these issues.  Here the relationship between thesetwo influential theories is examined.  This comparison suggests an appropriate approach for developing a multi-level model ofthe process of systems development.The normative literature on systems development emphasises the need to understand the "problem situation" beforedesigning an information system.  Analysis techniques to aid this, such as Checkland and Scholes' (1990) Soft SystemsMethodology, can be sophisticated and well-suited to this purpose, but they do not indicate how the context not only influencessystems development at the beginning of the process, but throughout it.   Generally in systems development projects furtherchanges required are managed through change control procedures and will result in a new systems development lifecycle whenthe system becomes obsolete and difficult to further "maintain".Truex (1993) suggested that this approach is based on the assumption that the organisational context of systems developmentis made up of stable structures and criticises it for not recognising that organisations are emergent systems.  That is, socialsystems do not follow fixed patterns, but are continually being recreated and never obtain a stable state. This emergent natureof change in organisations has been extensively addressed by authors such as Barley and Orlikowski.  Focusing on the processesof institutionalisation and structuration, Barley and Tolbert (1997) examined the links between action and institutional elements.In essence, they illustrated structuration in action over time, as organisations change by describing the recursive relationshipbetween these two elements.  On the same topic at an empirical level, Orlikowski (1996, Orlikowski and Hofman 1997)illustrated how the implementation and improvement of groupware technology in a large software company involved a numberof organisational transformations over time.  These changes occurred at both the institutional level and the level of everydayactions and changes in each were influenced by and had an influence on the other.  By describing the closely intertwined natureof the relationship between organisational structures, they have also illustrated the close relationship between the process andcontent of change.  In Orlikowski's terms, the transformations were situated in their context. These studies illustrate the very close relationship between the context and the content and process of change (Pettigrew1985), and the intertwined nature of institutional elements and the actions of those involved (Giddens 1989).  Walsham (1993)equates Pettigrew’s definition of context with Giddens’ concept of structure, and Pettigrew’s  process with Giddens’ conceptof human actions (p 69).  Here we examine this in more detail and conclude that while context is equitable with structure broadly,human action is only partially equitable with process.  This observation will have important implications for how the processof systems planning, development and implementation should be viewed.The relationship between changes in information technology and the organisational structures in which such changes takeplace is widely considered to be a crucial issue and has been the focus for much research in this area (eg  Borum andChristianssen 1993; Allen and Hauptman 1994).  The inclusion of "structure' in both the MIT90's model and its predecessor, theLeavitt diamond(Keen 1981, Scott Morton 1991), and the popularity of such models reflects the perceived importance of theconcept.Unfortunately, though, the term "structure" is often not well defined and is open to multiple interpretations  (Barley 1990).Here structure is defined as anything which structures human actions, recognising that structure exists in a dualistic relationship-836-with the human actions which create, enforce and transform it.  This definition aligns with Giddens conception of structure.  Forhim, structure theoretically refers to the rules and resources which exist as memory traces only manifested when used in socialaction and interaction (Walsham 1993).  In Giddens’ own terms it is "...the rules and resources recursively drawn upon andreconstituted in processes of interaction"  (Giddens 1989: p253)....structure is what gives form and shape to social life, but is not in itself that form and shape - nor should 'give'be understood in an active sense here, because structures only exist in and through the activities of humanagents (Giddens 1989: p 256).For Giddens, structure both enables and constrains human actions, though not exhaustively due to the unintendedconsequences and unacknowledged conditions of actions.As structure is a product of human interactions, and human interactions are highly variable, structures are correspondinglychangeable as they are continually recreated.  Reflections of formal structures, such as hierarchies, models of work processesor assessments of organisational culture are thus only manifestations of structures, interpreted at a given point in time.  Yethuman interactions are largely shaped by the structures in which they take place, and so there is some "sedimentation ofinstitutional forms" (Giddens 1979).  Giddens calls these sedimentations "systems", which he defines as "Reproduced relationsbetween actors and collectivities, organised as regular social practices" (p 66).  Contextual issues are interrelated with the actions of the systems developers and users as they create the new system.  Theseissues provide meaning and boundaries to their actions, in a sense providing a structure in which their actions could take place.At the same time, these contextual, or structural issues are partly reshaped via the actions of developing the new system.  Thusthe process of systems development can essentially be described as a process of structuration .  Stated another way, the contextof an organisation forms the structure for defining people's actions as systems developers have to create a system which is deeplyembedded in their organisation.  Yet at the same time, the actions of those creating the system helped change these contextualelements.  This illustrates that the structure of organisations is created via the actions of those involved while these actions arelargely shaped by the context, or structures in which they occur.  Hence, information systems development provides a very goodexample of the duality of structure and action (Orlikowski and Robey 1991).  Hence the context of information systems development is equitable with the institutional properties which structure people’sactions.  The difference between context and structure is that the former impacts on the systems development process whilestructure shapes the actions of individuals.  However, since systems development consists of human actions and the context ofthe process largely structures these actions, there is very little difference between the two concepts in practice, so illustrating thedifficulty of using the concept of structure as an element of the organisational context.Yet is the conception of process equitable with Giddens’ conception of action as Walsham argues?  For Walsham, processrefers to social interactions occurring over time.  However, Giddens argued there are three forms of temporality:• the durée of activity, or the ongoing flow of everyday life;• the dasien, or the lifecycle of the organism, and;• the longue durée, or institutional time and the development of social institutions (Giddens 1979).Walsham’s conception of processes over time focuses on the first form of temporality particularly well by illustrating theimportance of social interactions, a point often ignored by the literature on systems development.  While systems developmentcan be usefully viewed as a process of social interaction, Giddens’ identification of the three forms of temporality suggests onlyfocusing on this micro-level is not a full analysis of the process.  As Pettigrew (1995) suggested, a contextualist analysis shouldinclude multiple levels of analysis.  The same can be said of a process model — it should include multiple levels of analysis,such as the three levels of analysis suggested by Giddens.This paper describes part of a larger study investigating these micro, macro and institutional processes through anethnographic study of systems development and the close linkages between the different levels.  This study focuses not only onwhat Giddens’ terms the durée of micro-level everyday social activity, but the dasien and longue durée or macro and institutionalprocesses of change in organisations. In less theoretical terms, this involves a focus on the macro models of process used insystems development, such as the systems development lifecycle model, rapid applications development and so forth, and themicro-social processes through which such macro processes are enacted on a day-to-day level, such as passive and active userinvolvement, the negotiation of meaning and interest, the creation and sustainment of coalitions of meaning and interest and theapplication of expertise and authority.  At an institutional level, it is closely tied with Giddens’ structuration theory.ConclusionsTo recapitulate, many normative texts are criticised for not considering contextual factors. However, writers such as Kling(1992) have illustrated the importance of such issues and a consideration of the context models available suggests that how weperceive the context of systems development will significantly impact on how we view the process.  Due to the emergent natureof the organisational context, there is an ongoing relationship of influence between the context, process and content of change.A comparison between Pettigrew and Walsham's concepts of context and process and Giddens’ concepts of structure and actionsuggests, while context and structure are broadly equitable, the concepts of process and action are only partially so.  Thus, whileWalsham's process model usefully identifies the social interactions which make up systems development, it does not considerthe broader processes of development operating according to Giddens’ conceptions of dasien and longue durée.  These different-837-levels and the relationships between them need to be examined if we are to gain an adequate insight into the process of systemsdevelopment in organisations.  This is achieved as part of the larger research project this paper introduces and further details canbe obtained from the author.There is overwhelming evidence that most information systems development failures are non-technical and there is arecognised need for models of the change process which both reflect the actual situation and are useful normatively (Hirschheimand Newman 1991, Buchanan and Boddy 1992, Clegg 1996).  In essence, while system development projects have becomeassociated with increasingly sophisticated technologies and organisational changes, the models underlying the process have notkept pace and are simplistic.  This project adds to a growing body of literature providing a richer insight into an integral part ofsystems development.ReferencesAllen, T. J. and O. Hauptman (1994). The Influence of Communication Technologies on Organisational Structure: A ConceptualModel for Future Research. Information Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s: Research Studies Ed. T. J. Allenand M. S. Scott Morton. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 475-483.Barley, S. R. (1990). “The Alignment of Technology and Structure through roles and networks.” Administrative ScienceQuarterly 35(March): 61-103.Barley, S. R. and P. S. Tolbert (1997). “Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action andInstitution.” Organization Studies 18(1): 93-117.Buchanan, D. and Boddy, D. (1992) The Expertise of the Change Agent: Public Performance and Backstage. Activity HemelHempstead, UK, Prentice Hall.Borum, F. and J. Christianssen (1993). “Actors and Structure in IS projects: what makes implementation happen.” ScandinavianJournal of Management 9(1): 5-28.Checkland, P. and J. Scholes (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons.Clegg, C. et al. (1996) The performance of information technology and the role of human and organisational factors.http://www.system_concepts.com/stds/clegg.html#RTFToC2 (accessed 4/11/1996)Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London,Macmillan Press Ltd.Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics Ed. D. Held &J. B. Thompson. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 235-248.Hirschheim, R. and Newman, M. (1991) “Symbolism, and Information Systems Development: Myth, Metaphor and Magic.”Information Systems Research 2(1): 29-62Keen, P. (1981). “Information Systems and Organisational Change.” Communications of the ACM 24(1): 24-33.Kling, R. (1992). Behind the terminal: The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure in Effective Information SystemsDevelopment and Use. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Information Systems Development Ed. W. Cotterman andJ. A. Senn. Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Sons. 365-414.Orlikowski, W. J. (1988). Information Technology in the Modern Organisation. New York University. (PhD dissertation)Orlikowski, W. and D. Hofman (1997). “Improvising Organisational Transformation over time: A situated change perspective”Information Systems Research . 7 (1) 63-92. Orlikowski, W. J. and D. Robey (1991). “Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations.” Information SystemsResearch 2(2): 143-169.Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical Industries. Oxford, BasilBlackwell.Sabherwal, R. and D. Robey (1995). An empirical taxonomy of implementation processes based on sequences of events ininformation systems development. Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes of Organisational ChangeEd. G. P. Huber and A. H. Van de Ven. London, Sage. 228-266.Scott Morton, M. (1991). The Corporation of the Nineties. Oxford, Oxford University PressTruex, D. (1993). Information Systems Development in the Emergent Organisation. University of Binghamton. (PhD dissertation)Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations. Chichester, John Wiley.

Developing a Framework for Examining Systems Development and its Environmental Context: The Relationship Between Giddens\u27 Structuration Theory and Pettigrew\u27s Contextual Analysis

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1713&amp;context=amcis1998

Developing a Framework for Examining Systems Development and its Environmental Context: The Relationship Between Giddens\u27 Structuration Theory and Pettigrew\u27s Contextual Analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)