From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Behind the Terminal, File #6 of 6
Newsgroups: comp.society
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:13:44 GMT


File 6 of  6

                          Behind the Terminal:
             The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure
         In Effective Information Systems' Development and Use


                               Rob Kling
             Department of Information and Computer Science
                  Public Policy Research Organization
                        University of California
                            Irvine, Ca 92717
                              714-856-5955
                        email:kling@ics.uci.edu

                               Draft 4.02
                      July 17, 1991 (Aug 4, 1991)

To appear in: Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems
Development. William Cotterman and James Senn (Ed.). John Wiley,
London.

6.0 LOCATING INFRASTRUCTURE IN A WEB OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

In this chapter I've illustrated the role of computing
infrastructure in making systems more or less workable. I would
like to conclude with a neat method so that any analyst could
readily identify the infrastructural resources which are critical
for a computer system and workable for her organization. This
method would provide a satisfying conclusion to a long chapter.
Unfortunately, I do not have a such a method. Nor is the search
for a simple method a good way to learn from this chapter. The
case of the DCRP and the subsequent discussion illustrates many
key ideas about the way that computing infrastructures are
tailored for specific systems and social settings.

It is daunting to make prescriptions that would fit all
organizations, even when the prescription is a process.
Organizations differ in numerous ways that shape the appropriate
forms of computerization. Some are richer, other are poorer and
less able to afford the staff support costs to effectively run
complex systems, even when they can scrape to buy the core
technologies. Some organizations are highly entrepreneurial and
their managers and professionals are eager to find new ways to
organize work. Other organizations are drifting, and may try to
computerize an activity because their managers were told to or
they are copying "what everyone else is doing." Even though the
pace of corporate mergers has slowed in the US since the late
1980s, some organizations are still purchased, and forced to
adopt information systems that match those of their new owners'
firms. In multidivisional firms, some groups explore the leading
edge of high tech in some application; other groups may later be
adopting systems which have now become a corporate standard.

These are some of the different organizational conditions which
frame the social stages upon which people play out their the
dramas of computerization. There are also important variations in
the kinds of computerized systems which are the focus of these
dramas -- from text processing for a small office through a rich
mix of system in an engineering lab to large-scale
multi-organizational information systems. The appropriate
strategy for an analyst depends upon the scale of the system and
the conditions under which it is being adopted or expanded.

Unfortunately, many organizations underinvest in infrastructure
for computerization projects (Kling, 1987; Kling and Iacono,
1989; Clement, 1990). I believe that the dominance of discrete
entity analyses is one cause, although organizational budgeting
practices are another. Discrete-entity analysts easily draw
defining boundaries around computerized systems and their users.
They can focus on a computer-based systems and a single user, a
work group or some formally defined unit, like a public agency or
a business firm, and their goals or key tasks. In the case of the
DCRP's they would focus on the DCRP, and perhaps include it's
administrative home, PPRO. While they often ignore
infrastructure, they would most likely include support
technologies, like communications, and training in systems use.

In contrast, web analysts have a more difficult time in defining
crisp boundaries and identifying a precise computing
infrastructure without examining concrete organizational
arrangements. In the case of the DCRP, the boundaries include the
PI's academic department, ICS, as well as the availability of
students to join the project in various ways. The web analysis
includes the variety of locations where DCRP participants
actually work, not just their official on-campus offices. It
includes other organizational networks that the DCRP is embedded
within, (e.g., granting agencies who have specific rules about
computer purchases; computer vendors who sometimes give equipment
gifts to ICS). The temporal boundaries go back in time to the
periods when key arrangements were set up.

In the extreme, a systems analyst can take one of two postures
towards a client organization: (a) give them solutions to the
problems they identify; (b) help raise their competence in
identifying their preferences for computer systems and help them
better identify what they want form systems and what resources
they can devote to them. In practice, systems analysis is a mix.
But the rationalistic approaches lean toward methods for
delivering fixed solutions, while process approaches lean towards
helping build competence as well as suggesting solutions.

I prefer the process approaches, like socio-technical design and
soft systems methodology. This chapter suggests that a process
oriented analyst can better help her clients by encouraging them
to examine infrastructure issues early on in systems designs. But
there are several ways than an analyst or group can approach
infrastructure: (a) computing infrastructure will be developed
along with a new system, and they do not set significant limits
on the range of appropriate systems; (b) infrastructural
resources are relatively rigid and an appropriate system should
fit existing resources.

Our discussion of group calendars in Section 5.2 suggested that
without adequate clerical support, professionals might not find
the application workable. Computerization often involves changing
organizational practices, policies, resources, and control
patterns. "Conservative" computerization projects leave most
practices and control patterns intact, and they often reinforce
existing distributions of power. The development of workable
computing infrastructure also entails organizational change. But
even conservative computerization projects might require
significant redistributions of resources and control to make them
workable. The systems analyst is usually dealing with more than
the immediate task and technology, since she is usually facing
institutionalized practices, patterns of organizational control,
and the systems of meanings in work cultures.

It is ironic to invoke institutional analyses to understand
computerization in action. The images of computerization -- new
technologies, innovative practices, and a patina of "revolution"
-- are diametrically opposed to the stodgy images of
institutionalization. The rhetorics of innovation, transformation
and revolution emphasize possibilities. These rhetorics deny that
historical patterns will continue to shape the future. In fact,
computerization has not transformed many organizations as rapidly
as some advocates hoped (Kling, 1991). Computing innovation need
not fail only because of powerful organized resistance. A history
of complex social and technical commitments may structure the
social organization of computing and related work so as to make
innovation relatively expensive and complex (Kling and Iacono,
1989). The case of group scheduling software is indicative.

Systems analysts are activists who play an important part in the
design and redesign of organizations, even though many would
rather see themselves as dutiful functionaries. This chapter has
examined how developing computing infrastructure is an critical
element in organizational designs for workable information
systems.

7.0 REFERENCES

Allison, Graham (1971). The Essence of Decision: Explaining the
     Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown, and Co., Boston, MA

Becker, Howard S. (1960). "Notes on the Concept of Commitment",
     American Journal of Sociology. 66: 32-42.

Becker, Howard S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of
     California Press.

Bullen, Christine and John Bennett. (1991). "Groupware in
     Practice: An Interpretation of Work Experience" in Dunlop,
     Charles and Rob Kling (Ed.) Computerization and Controversy:
     Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Academic Press, Boston.

Checkland, Peter. (in press) Information Systems and Systems
     Thinking: Time to Unite? in Systems Analysis and Design: A
     Research Perspective William Cotterman and James Senn (Ed.).
     John Wiley, London.

Christiansen, Ellen. (1990).  "On Organizational Competence in
     System Development: An Activity Approach" pp 107-126 in
     Bjerkness, Gro and Dahlbom et. al. (Eds). (1990).
     Organizational Competence in System Development.
     Studentlitteratur, Lund Sweden.

Clement, Andrew. (1990).  "Cooperative Support for Computer Work:
     A Social Perspective on Empowering End Users." Proc 1990
     Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Los
     Angeles, October.

Clement, Andrew and Darrell Parsons. (1990).  "Work Group
     Knowledge Requirements for Desktop Computing." Proc 23rd
     Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science. Kona
     Hawaii. Jan 2-5, (1990).

Cyert, Richard & James March (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the
     Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Danziger, James, William Dutton, Rob Kling, & Kenneth Kraemer
     (1982). Computers and Politics: High Technology In American
     Local Governments. Columbia University Press, New York.

Derfler Jr., Frank. (1989).  "Imposing Efficiency: Workgroup
     Productivity Software" PC Magazine. 8(16) (Sept 26).
     247-269.

Dimaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (Eds.). (in press)  The
     New Instiutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago:
     University of Chicago Press

Dunlop, Charles and Rob Kling. (1991). Computerization and
     Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Academic
     Press, Boston.

Dutton, W. (1981). "The Rejection of an Innovation: The Political
     Environment of a Computer-based Model", Systems, Objectives,
     Solutions. 1(4) (November): 179-202.

Dutton, W.H. and Kraemer, K.L. (1984).  Modeling as Negotiating:
     The Political Dynamics of Computer Models in the Policy
     Process.  Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company.

Gasser, Les. (1986). "The Integration of Computing and Routine
     Work." ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems.
     4(3)(July):205-225.

George, Joey, Suzanne Iacono and Rob Kling. (1991). "The Social
     Organization of Computing Skills: Expertise and Learning in
     Four Types of Desktop Computing Environments" Unpublished
     Working Paper. Department of MIS, University of Arizona,
     Tucson.

Goodman, S.E. (1979). "Soviet Computing and Technology Transfer:
     An Overview", World Politics. Vol. 31, pp. 539-570.

Grudin, Jonathan.  (1989). "Why groupware applications fail:
     problems in design and evaluation." Office: Technology and
     People, 4:3:245-264.

Hirschheim, R.A. (1985). Office Automation: A Social and
     Organizational Perspective. John Wiley & Sons: New York
     City.

Iacono, S. Kling, R. (1987). Office technologies and changes in
     clerical work: A historical perspective. In R. Kraut (Ed.),
     Technology and the transformation of white collar work. New
     Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackall, Robert. (1988). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate
     Managers. New York, Oxford University Press.

Jewett, Tom and Rob Kling. (1990). "The Work Group Manager's Role
     in Developing Computing Infrastructure. Proceedings of the
     5th Conference on Office Information Systems, Cambridge MA,
     April.

Jewett, Tom and Rob Kling. (1991). "The Dynamics of
     Computerization  Social Science Research Team: A Case Study
     of Infrastructure, Strategies, and Skills"  Social Science
     Computer Review.

King, John L. and Kraemer, Kenneth L. (1981). "Cost as a Social
     Impact of Telecommunications and Other Information
     Technologies." In Mitchell Moss Telecommunications and
     Productivity, New York: Addison-Wesley.

King, John L. and Kenneth L. Kraemer. (1986). The Dynamics of
     Change in Computing Use: A Theoretical Framework."
     Computing, Environment and Urban Systems. 11(1,2):5-25.

Kling, Rob (1978a). "Information Systems and Policymaking:
     Computer Technology and Organizational Arrangements",
     Telecommunications Policy. Vol. 2, pp. 22-32.

Kling, Rob (1978b). "Automated Welfare Client Tracking and
     Service Integration: The Political Economy of Computing",
     Communication ACM. Vol. 21(6), pp. 484-493.

Kling, Rob (1978c). "Information Systems as Social Resources in
     Policy-Making", Proceedings 1978 National ACM Conf.
     Washington, DC.

Kling, Rob (1980). Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical
     Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research. Computing
     Surveys. Vol. 12(1) pp. 61-103.

Kling, Rob (1986). "The New Wave of Academic Computing: Elements
     of a Social Analysis." Outlook, v19 (1,2) (Spring/Summer
     1986):8-14.

Kling, Rob. (1987). "Defining the Boundaries of Computing Across
     Complex Organizations" in Critical Issues in Information
     Systems Research.  Richard Boland and Rudolf Hirschheim
     (eds.) John Wiley and Sons.

Kling, Rob. (1991). "Computerization and Social Transformation."
     Science, Technology and Human Values. 16.

Kling, Rob & William Dutton, (1982). The dynamics of the local
     computing package. in Danziger, Dutton, Kling, and Kraemer
     [1982].

Kling, Rob & Elihu M. Gerson (1977). "The Social Dynamics of
     Technical Innovation in the Computing World", Symbolic
     Interaction. Vol. 1(1), pp. 132-146.

Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono (1984a). "Computing as an Occasion
     for Social Control. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 40(3),
     pp. 77-96.

Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono (1984b). The control of information
     systems after implementation. Communications of the ACM, 27,
     1218-1226.

Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono (1986a). "Printco." in A Casebook for
     Management Information Systems. Henry Lucas, (ed.) New York:
     McGraw Hill.

Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono. (1989a). "The Institutional
     Character of Computerized Information Systems" Office:
     Technology and People. 5 (1):7-28.

Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono. (1989b). "Desktop Computerization
     and the Organization of Work." in Computers in the Human
     Context: Information  Technology, Productivity, and People,
     Tom Forester (ed.) Cambridge, Ma:The MIT Press.

Kling, Rob, Suzanne Iacono & Joey George. (1990). "Occupational
     Power, Patterns of Desktop Computer Use, and Quality of
     Worklife."  in Desktop Information Technology: Organization-
     al Worklife in the 1990s. Kate M. Kaiser and Hans J.
     Oppeland (eds.) Elesevier/North Holland. Amsterdam.

Kling, Rob & Walt Scacchi (1982). "The Web of Computing:
     Computing Technology as Social Organization", Advances in
     Computers. Vol. 21, Academic Press: New York.

Kraemer, Kenneth .L., Dickhoven, Siegfried, Fallows-Tierney,
     Susan, and King, John L. (1985).  Datawars: The Politics of
     Modeling in Federal Policymaking.  New York:  Columbia
     University Press.

Kraemer, Kenneth L., Perry, James, King, John L. and Dunkle,
     Deborah. 1988. "Institutionalization of Technological Change
     in Public Organizations."  PPRO Working Paper. University of
     California, Irvine, August.

Laudon, Kenneth. (1974). Computers and Bureaucratic Reform.
     Wiley-Interscience: New York.

Laudon, Kenneth C. and Laudon, Jane P. (1991).  Management
     Information Systems:  A Contemporary Perspective (2nd Ed.).
     Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

Lepore, Stephen, Rob Kling, Suzanne Iacono, and Joey George.
     (1989) "Implementing Desktop Computing, Infrastructure, and
     Quality of Worklife."  Proceedings of the 10th Annual
     Conference on Information Systems, Boston MA, December.

Long, Norton (1958). "The Community as an Ecology of Games"
     American J. of Sociology vol. LXIV (November): 251-261.

Markus, M. Lynne. (1984). Systems in Organizations: Bugs and
     Features. Pitman Pub. Co, MA.

McHenry, William and Seymour Goodman (1986). "MIS in Soviet
     Industrial Enterprises: the Limits of Reform from Above."
     Communications of the ACM, 29(11)(November):1034-1043.

Perrow, Charles. (1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay
     (3rd ed). McGraw Hill. New York.

Scott, W. Richard (1987a). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and
     Open Systems (2nd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W.Richard (1987b). "The Adolescence of Institutional
     Theory" Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511.

Shulman, Arthur D. Robyn Penman, and David Sless. (1990).
     "Putting Information Technology in its Place: Organizational
     Communication and the Human Infrastructure." pp. 155-192 in
     John S. Carroll (Ed.) Applied Social Psychology in
     Organizational Settings. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Steinbruner, John (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New
     Dimensions of Political Analysis. Princeton University
     Press: Princeton, N.J.

Strauss, Anselm (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts,
     Processes, and Social Order. Josey-Bass Inc.: San Francisco,
     CA.

Walsham, G., Veronica Symons, and Tim Waema. (1988). "Information
     Systems as Social Systems: Implications for Developing
     Countries"  Information Technology for Development 3(3).

Wood-Harper, A. Trevor and S.W. Corder. (1988). "Information
     Resource Management: Towards a Web Based Methodology for End
     User Computing." J. Applied Systems Analysis. 15, pp.83-99.