HD28
.M414
Kto 35i3-
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
Integrating Territories;
Information Systems Integration
and
Territorial Rationality
WP #3513-93
December 1992
CISL
Y.
WP#
92-02
W. Lee
Madnick
Stuart E.
Sloan School of Management,
*
MIT
see page bottom for complete address
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
ProrPPdings of thP 1992
AC M qinrPR Conference, April 5-7,
Cincinnati,
OH
pp
221-231.
Integrating Territories;
Information Systems Integration
and
Territorial Rationality
WP
December 1992
CISL
Y.
#3513-93
92-02
WP#
W. Lee
Stuart E.
Madnick
Sloan School of Management,
*
MIT
see page bottom for complete address
Y.W.Lee
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
01239
Cambridge,
MA
Stuart E.
Madnick
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
01239
Cambridge,
MA
1992
a..
1993
^^^^
Territoriss:
Integrating
Systems Integration &
Information
Territorial
Rationality
Yang W. Lee
Management,
MIT, Cambridge,
of
School
Sloan
Stuart E.
ABSTRACT
02139
MA
02139
Madnick
Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge,
1952; Trist,
This study explains the mismatch between the planned domain
MA
&
Bamforth, 1951).
MiUer (MiUer. 1952) defined
the concept, territory, to identify logical and rational grouping
of integrated infomiation systems and the existing territorial
We
rationalities.
define a territorial rationality as a collective
which serves
perspective
as
a
philosophical
We
conceptual lens for decision-making.
entity as
hold
members
or
When
among each
other,
their
a
define a territorial
of an organization (or organizations)
this territorial rationality.
interact
basis
who
territorial
rationaliues are
These new concepts can be used
to predict
how
multiple subunits in organizations strategically respond to the
Possible themes
integration of disparate information systems.
for the
responses range from local autonomy versus central
control,
knowledge
to
specialization,
to
We
alignment.
rationalities
argue
redistribution
the
that
knowledge
versus
diffusion
resource
versus
changes
in
resource
territorial
and entities explain the divergent organizational
responses to the integration of information systems.
Experiencing
explaining
new technology
concepts
old
creates
often
a
need for
new concepts
for
new phenomena (Kuhn, 1970; Kuhn, 1977). New
new organizational responses, and thus
and
revises
the
technology and an organization.
typically
demand and push
for
between
interactions
the
Moreover, organizations
modified or
new
technology, and
(Markus & Robey, 1988; Lee.
Madnick, & Wang, 1991). The most conventional and research
focused on the interactions between technologies and
industrialized organizations can be traced back to the socio-
thus revise the
technical
interactions
systems
research
(
his term, is a rational
boimdary
with
tools
Territory, in
that coincides with kinds of
technology with manufacturing procedures
.
Emery.
When
conventional database management systems
have been introduced into organizations,
followed the premise that the rational boundaries
and
efficient
interactions
between
organizational processes were congruent.
accounting department would
coincides
with
its
have
organizational
department would have
its
its
(DBMS)
design has
their
for logical
technology
and
For example, an
own DBMS
processes,
and an
that
R&D
own DBMS, unless the entire
DBMS. Naturally, these
organization shares a homogeneous
DBMSs
were historically developed within
justifiable budgei
is,
ihey often
af>plication systems.
technology typifies
reestablishes
machine
used different architectures, hardware platforms, languages, and
defining
or
as
constraints and were, thus, heterogeneous: that
INTRODUCTION
revisiting
such
devices
technological
organizational working jwocesses within a firm.
these territorial entities
transformed by three major modes: authority, exchange, and
persuasion.
of
&
Trist,
1965; Miller.
Due to globalization and business process redesign, the
boundaries of the conventional territories have been extended
and expanded.
On
the
technological side,
interface technologies available and
emerging
the
advanced
for database
technologies enable linking the business processes
among
geographically dispersed and fimctionally diverse units or parts
of a single organization or parts of multiple organizations.
The technologies range from standardized application systems
for homogeneous DBMSs. to heterogeneous DBMSs that could
achieve logical as well as physical cormectivity (Wang. &
Madnick, 1988). Therefore, integrated information systems
can link otherwise separate and autonomous organizations or
One might argue that DBMSs
sub-units of organizations.
ought
to
be designed
to
connect
all
the possible organizations
In collon milU, for example, dyeing and bleaching are
Sizing.
chemical proceiiei that would draw a territory.
warping and weaving would belong lo another territory that do
not have to be cloiely connected to those of chemical
Theie two lerriioriei are loosely connected for
proceiiei.
proceiiei in couon milli.
in
order to fully exploit this technological advance
extreme, "one big system" or a homogeneous
DBMS
--
at the
for inter-
and intra-organizational computing, since information
technology can overcome the locational and spatial
with
incorporated
perspectives
territorial
rationalities
decision-making
for
--
collective
--
and local
global
in
organizational units in order for both the systems and the
organizations to function most
and effectively.
efficiently
constraints that conventional manufacturing technology had in
MAPPING
the past.
The paradox
is
DBMSs,
in
despite the existence of technically
Organizational structures and processes
feasible alternatives^.
direct
remain persistent
that locational constraints
the integration of
and change technology, as changes
technology
in
impact redesigning organizational structures and processes.
who
In
common
The
ramifications of
with
WITH ORGANIZATIONS
IS
organizational
mapping technical systems boundaries
boundaries are complex in both
organizational and in technical arenas.
issue of the delicate
link
Particularly, the thorny
between the macro
(the
entire
organization's) objectives and rationalities and micro or local
are
becoming
perspective, interests, and constraints might be mobilized and
increasingly difficult to understand and resolve.
Designing
become
DBMSs
this
change process
latent
groups
share
a
shape divergent responses to systems
This is our starting point for extending the
visible
integration.
to
concept, "territory," and for developing explanatory concepts
-
rationality, territorial entity,
territorial
modes
--
could be used
that
to integration
-
vertically-driven
organizational
but
differentiation
laterally -driven organizational differentiation
among
also
multiple
functional areas.
Thus, the design issues include both control
responses
and competition
in
DBMS
integrated
significant in five ways.
rationalities
and transformation
to predict organizational
of information systems.
is
and
different in kind and scope entails considering not just
mean by
This research
objectives
(sub-units')
First,
explains the
it
was
it
organizations.
Therefore, designing an
What do we
how
entails several critical questions.
a territory?
Whose
rationality
is
represented and
formulated and changed over time?
sources for a misfit between planned domain of integrated
information systems and organizational processes.
Second,
it
provides the concept of territorial entity as a imit of analysis
that
^—
can incorporate theories-in-use
theories of action
from an organization's actual behavior
constructed
--
of
organizational processes beyond the formal organizational
structure
and boundaries. Third, the framework can be utilized
mechanism for identifying different loci of organizational
autonomy and integration. Fourth, with this loci identified,
as a
made
decisions can be
as to
how and
what extent integrated
to
information systems can be employed as a tool for different
l<inds
of
organizational
Fifth,
this
paper
is
timely because of the increasing globalization
particularly
trend,
change.
where information technology needs
be carefully
to
These questions address the problem of how conventional
boundaries of territory, which have constraints in location,
needs
(Bacharach,
Case
An
1
stories.
international
bank
attempted
to
install
integrated infomiation slstems for letters of credit, accounts
procedures, and
MIS
reports across geographical boundaries.
within the conventional geographical boundaries.
A
university
was developing
its
&
interactions: structures are constituted
processes as mutually embodying
and constitutive.
common
categories, a
reflect,
and yet
imderstand
type of interaction,
this
we extended
perspective
collective
choices
within
a
decision-making
for
territorial
entity.
territorial
rationality.
are
shaped
technology
laboratories could neither agree
translated for other laboratones.
See Argyris and Schon, 1978.
make
a
on using same
list
of synonyms
the concept
technical
in
territorial
who
holds a
entity often resembles
TTiis
in organizations.
reshaped
and
A
as
moves through
a
decision
different
entity
common
loosely-
on
integration
stages
such
--
conception, planning and design, and implementation stages
over
time
(see
such
Figure
as
1). Records
memos,
is
Territorial entities
of decisions
guidelines,
as
-
publicly
espoused policies,
fimctional requirements, and product specifications are the
make
The
to
concept, territorial rationality, as an acceptable and dominant
products of the above decision-making processes.
terminologies nor was willing to
way of
of territory to include a specific characteristic of information
We define the
technology, particularly DBMS technology.
products.
used.
This
to facilitate organizational processes.
project across
reconcilliation of terminologies that the multiple laboratories
continually
seeing technical infrastructure as a vehicle constructed
available
its R&D laboratories which specilizing plastic
The problem encountered was beyond the semantic
is
view opens a way of connecting technology and organizational
president.
chemical company launched a data dictionary
organizational
infrastructure
defined as a group of individuals
integrated
argue that technical
reflects
Aiken, 1976; Giddens, 1984; Ranson, Minings,
cormected archipelagoes
A
that
structuration theorists suggest,
Greenwood, 1980), technical
systems across its functional organizational
boundaries.
The project team was developing the "general
requirements."
Despite the contending requirements, the
project team's decision on the design of the integrated
informauon systems was relatively easy. A coalition was built
among the core student service departments under a vice
Case 3
As
It
ended up developing and redeveloping some fifty different
mformalion systems. The systems were installed and operated
Case 2
information
a mirror
produced and recreated from interactions, and yet shapes those
To
Consider the following case
also
is
structure and processes.
&
We
be modified and extended.
to
infrastructure
In order to
these decisions, an organization ordinarily goes through
processes of resolving and transforming multiple contending
tenitorial rationalities
and
territorial
entities.
choice of the technical contents of the
understood
as
the
Therefore,
DBMS
outcome of the complex
a
should be
interactions of
Figure
I:
Decision-making Processes
Transformation
(Transformational
P'ooucts
MultiDI*
Transformation
Termonal
M«mos
T«rmonal
(Transformational
MoMsl
Msmoli
Rationalities
Poik3*s
Rationairtias
MoMsi
(jud«Kn«si
Multio'*
Policies
aaoi
'—•
Sug*4
Figure 1.1:
A
SUgi4
Figure 1.2: Stage
general model
1
Otcaor
MuiepM
Trmnsformnon
Tannooal
(Transfonnaional
R«oon«MiM
Mooaa)
Product
OMign
MuWpl*
Ttrmonai
Tfanaformanon
(Tnn«forTT\«ion*
RttOnMlM
MOdM)
^!!!Si^-„
TT^!":
>UM,lr,1«.,
9ligi4
Figure 1.3: Stage
2
3
Figure 1.4: Stage
3
power dependencies, and
interpersonal cognitive processes,
contextual and institutional constraints.
mapping
In
organizations,
DBMS
systems
information
integrated
we need
Beginning with Linblom (1968), many researchers have
effectively demolished the idea that collective decision-making
with
understand both technical design of
to
as well as organizational workings of organizations.
To design
DBMS, we
(or purchase) a
need
know what
to
functions and scopes are needed for a certain organization.
Depending on the scope of the
DBMS,
the
boundary could be
intia-organizational, inter-organizational, or a combination of
both.
the
In deciding
upon
we need
a specific design,
to
imderstand
form and context of the working knowledge or knowledge-
To
in-practice (Innes, 1989) of an organization.
how
work,
organizations
we need
understand
understand not an
to
organization as a whole but an organization as an integrated
and sectors.
review and synthesize
entity of the parts of multiple levels
First,
we
will
critically
members of agents and organizations
members of
actors
--
to
The
political rationality.
as
integration of these
two
jjerspectives
new concept, an organization defined as members
entity
Second, we will further show how
territorial
.
collective territorial rationality
is
of
formulated and could be
through organizational interactions where
authority, exchange, and persuasion take place. Last, we will
show how the above concepts can be used to predict strategic
responses of local and central levels of organizations
(1)
These responses include
Hegemony over
organizations;
coalition-building
against
or
for
development of integrated information systems;
and (3)
contest for contents of integrated information systems, such as
technical
choices
specificity.
groupings of
We
terms of functional and procedural
in
will
territorial
making
combination with political
in
perspectives.
collectively
this
First,
often used
is
also
discuss
entities
patterns
different
that
of
might produce these
utilized as a theoretical base to
perspectives
-
ORGANIZATIONAL
theorists
have
characterized
how
integrating information systems such as
disparate database systems.
By
"agents,"
we mean
the
members
of an organization faithfully translating organizational goals
into decisions
and thus into actions, although
their ability is
limited by the virtue of their physiological and psychological
limitations (Cyert,
Simon, 1958).
By
&
March, 1964; March,
"actors,"
we mean
&
Simon. 1963;
the stakeholders and
members of an organization willing to play games as they
contest to gain power over information and opportunities and
to gamer resources for their interests (Benson, 1975; Benson,
1977;
Crozier,
Thomas, 1988).
1964;
for
instrumental
This
we
the lever that
is
can also be
it
their platform for
visit
both
for developing
--
for decision-making in information
systems area.
AGENTS AS DECISION-MAKERS
The agent perspective
Lorsch,
1967; Simon,
(Cyert,
Linblom,
Pettigrew.
1964;
al.,
&
Lawrence,
1974; Thomson,
1967) emphasizes the limited capacity of a human.
This
is
summed up by Simon's concept of "bounded rationality." It is
viewed that human behaviors are intendedly rational but
limitedly so.
The remedy for human bounded rationality is
instrumental and knowledgeable rationality.
agent
the
persp)ective,
and
incapability
knowledge
subjectivity
is
According
to the
overcome human
knowledge.
However,
remedy
very
to
and socially constructed (Dunn,
1989; Innes, 1989; Luckmarm, 1975) so that it may not
completely serve the purpose of objectivity that agent
theorists
historically
is
strive
Organizations as agents are
achieve.
to
involved in the effort to achieve objectives by the judicious
scientific
How
of appropriate means.
The focus
knowledge useful
upon
is
the
for effective
1973;
can
methods.
this
information
perspective be applied to explain integrated
systems?
information
Integrating
systems
includes a design process for decision-making and operations
that
organizations
Morton's (1971
need.
&
and Scot
For example, Gorry
1989) often-cited
decision support systems would be a
MIS framework
way
to
achieve
for
this
decision-making through decision suppwrt systems, because it
increases rational knowledge needed for efficiency and
productivity for entire organization.
three
levels
operational.
These
levels of
organizational goals.
the links
They
identify basically
of decision-making: strategic, managerial, and
knowledge
levels of decision-making are
is
1968;
et
1958; Stinchcome,
performance of organizational tasks, and the organizational
world is conceived as fundamentally comprehensible through
DECISION-MAKING
members of organizations behave and make decisions. We will
examine two mainstream theories— organizational members as
agents and as actors -- because they explain both human
limitations and capacity for making collective decisions that
are represented in
combine with
agents and actors perspectives
more elaborate concepts
refuting
for
the
as
in
Second,
an instrumental framework for a
as
acquisition and application of
organizational
basis
a
naive analysis by groups with other interests,
selection
responses
Many
as
As much
alternatives.
can be ignored
rationality
instrumental
embedded
is
acceptable group thinking processes.
rationality
compyeting
and
instrumental rationality
to
the following:
integrated information technology within
(2)
as
instrumental rationality, has a renewed role to play in decision-
the
transformed
systems integration.
We
1989).
summed up
argue that rational decision-making, often
converge instrumental rationality and
with institutional context theories will be presented to develop
a
comprehensive rational
a
1971; Mintzberg,
analytical exercise (Allison,
interest-seeking groups.
the
organizational theories relevant to our research,— specifically,
organizations as
can be accurately described as
among
assumed
suppxDrt for different
to
The missing element
achieve
in this
common
framework
the different levels: not merely operational
more importantly, making sense out of subdivided perspectives from these divided and composite
coordination, but
decisions
made
The
at different times.
decisions at different levels
may
relationships
among
the
not simply be a systematic
and
fully integrated technological
capacities which
may
set the
institutional limitations
and
boundaries of himtan choice.
aggregation of sub-decisions.
members choose
Organizational
ACTORS AS DECISION-MAKERS
a certain kind
systems
information
integrated
and scope of
some
achieve
to
of
the
organizational goals that are within institutional context and
The organizational members
major elements. First, power
for
an actor
in
actors perspective has two
as
defined as an important factor
is
influencing the behavior of another actor
&
Second, politics
Kahn, 1966).
involves the source of power and other resources to obtain
(Crozier,
one's
1964;
Katz.
when
outcome
preferred
there
uncertainty
is
In other words,
disagreement about choices (Pfeffer, 1980).
political activities are the salient
for
elements
or
be investigated
to
understanding organizational processes which are based on
and control.
competition
higher
Specifically,
levels
Organization theories that have a
bearing on process technologies have pointed to the political
environment
an
of
and
organization
entrepreneurs" (Dimaggio,
&
"institutional
to
TTiese kinds of actions
might be explained as a politically caculated way of yielding
to
For example, often experienced contests for
espoused goals.
among
the kinds and the scope of the integrated systems
might have been argued based on the members'
different groups
on technical capacity and feasibility. In other
contemplation would certainly include
rationalities in order to maximize actor's gain over
rationalities
words,
political
apolitical
integrated information systems.
of
uncertainty and disagreement tend to be associated with higher
levels of political behavior.
technological capacity and feasibility.
Both Simon (Simon, 1958) and Linblom (Linblom, 1968)
agree that organizational members do not achieve objectives as
they plarmed to. However, in their explanation of this gap
between the
Powell, 1983).
and the intentions, there
results
Simon
difference.
posits
that
is
a critical
organizational
members
"satisfyce" their objectives because they have limitations in
would explain a change
in an organization as involving as modifying rule systems, a
process often described as a "game" involving multiple actors
The organization
as actors perspective
with diverse interests (Benson, 1977; Markus,
Pctiigrew,
&
Robey, 1988;
From
1980; Thomas, 1988).
1973; Pfeffer,
information systems involves analyzing a system of political
organization.
at
multiple levels and in multiple parts of an
The game defines
the content of
The
integration of information systems.
takes
human actors
among each
contest
as the
changes
Linblom argues
processes.
common
reason can defend their position to win over the
opponents.
It
can also be an attempt
and more importantly trying
human
Actors
capacity.
integration
as
mirror
a
reflecting
dominance
it
more powerful than
that
can
integrate
others can
new
information
There may be
organization-wide.
stronger groups than others
information technology (Benson, 1975).
team may
game
political
the
to
systems
--
one group against others
for
for control in organizations.
The converging
point of the two perspectives
of an organization orchestrate themselves
dictate through quiet or direct "orders" to introduce a
systems and diffuse
explains
focus of the analysis, as actors
actors of an organization
politically
Agents
feasible.
is
in the
political perspective
other for gaining preferable decisions
technology
be accepted by others
perspective
rationalities for technical choice
information
to
what
to find
perspective explains systems integration as a supplement
politically fought out
through a search for interests and opportimities.
Some
members
that
mutually adjust because members recognize that no clear
this
perspective, understanding territorial rationality for particular
games occurring
memory and
terms of
to
favor a certain
A
top-management
act in concert with other organizations to integrate
the participants.
Opposing arguments will be weeded out and consolidated by
win-lose games and eventually the dominating group's idea on
This
is
a
common
the lever that
that
way
members
that their
to organizational
Hence, workable
denominator among
two perspectives need
1).
We
view
perspective
goes
too
far,
portraying
top
management
particularly deterministically all-mighty calculating free actors
societal levels
real, structural limitation at the institutional
Territorial entities
fail
to
may
not simply trying
They may see
see.
and
and technological capacity.
Territorial
to protect their
own
local constraints that other entities
rationality
of a
territorial
entity
resembles the two-faced Janus being an "actor" which plays
THE JANUS: AGENTS
DECISION-MAKERS
AND
ACTORS
AS
to
that agent
perspective misses the political explanation and that actors
interests.
information technology will be adopted
must have
be carefully converged (see Table
by neglecting
information technology in multiple organizations.
can yield
approval based on their local rationality.
integrated systems
is
in a
socio-poUtical
game
as well as
an "agent" which represents
its
its
techno-economic constraints and capacities.
Agents perspective explains organizational phenomena well
when we assume that organizational goals are consistent
among each other and they are clearly established. Actors
perspective explains organizational phenomena well when we
assume
that organizational goals are multiple
among each
other.
Nevertheless,
and contradictory
these perspectives have not
Territorial
Rationality
As we mentioned before, human rationality is bounded (Simon,
1958). Simon described and distinguished different kinds of
rationality depending upon the objectives to be served, the
values to be fulfilled, and the criteria
to
be compared.
He
states
ihat a decision
"objectively rational"
is
if
the correct
is
it
behavior for maximizing given values in a given situation;
"subjectively rational"
maximizes attainment
if it
in relation
degree that the adjustment of the means to the ends
Co the
conscious process; "personally rational"
individual's
a
oriented to the
if it is
and "organizationally rational"
goals;
is
if
is
it
oriented to the organization's goals (Simon, 1958).
we
stages in deploying integrated information systems are the
In this example, technical choices related to a
if it is
based on as local knowledge-in-p»ractice (Dunn, 1989; Lines,
1989), that
if it is
is,
rationality
territorial
We
and technological contexts.
institutional setting,
view
based on members' norms, knowledge,
do not
consistent value judgment
a
as
template for groups based merely on organizational boundaries
A
and structure or professional roles.
group of individuals
that
ways of doing things might be publicly
share certain rational
obvious or private, depending on organizational and
territorial
cultures and individual responses to these cultures.
As noted
territorial rationality
earlier,
dominant collective
is
defined as an acceptable and
perspective
decision-making
for
technical choices within a terri torial entity.
It
is
in
a collective
redistribution
of
DBMS.
of the
stage
department are likely
stage.
A
economic
This
rationality.
and techno-
socio-px)litical
territorial rationality
perceives and
responds selectively to the constraints and opportunities in the
context of technology
(Lawrence and
et
1983;
al,,
rationality
make
a
Madnick, 1988), environment
1967), resource interdependency
Lorsch,
Van de Van.
(Pfeffer, 1980;
Lee,
1976), and institutions (Dimaggio,
1988; Thomson,
can be utilized
coalition
&
(Wang
in
leading
1967).
its
Territorial
territorial entity to
with other entities for certain issues in
"reframing" (Rein, 1986) and problem-setting
in
designing and
implementing integrated information systems.
"entities"
-
friendly design
such
may be an
implementation stage.
The
as
departments
Naturally, these issues
crucial feature of
For
rare.
instance,
the
decisions on
stage's
becomes
the
made
the context of the Tirst leap,
the
how
In
individual rationality shapes
may
run across
that
may
subgoals
may
organizational
is
be
user-friendliness
not necessarily be
previous
to revisit the
The previous decision
budget.
the
for
following stage's
linkage between the two stages to the
yet the
be
not
analyzed
members because
reflected upon by
was not considered a
and
it
relevant focus in either stage. Exceptions'
may occur
in those
cases where strong opposition by a coalition of certain groups
who
are active in the first stage follow through into the next
stage's projects in order to influence decisions and choices
retrospectively.
Nevertheless, this type of influencing
game
has to be played based on the next stage's scope of goals and
TTierefore, different aspects of issues and problems
to
become
the bases for decision-making at each
As
parts of an organization
in
User-
in prior stages tends to
fwssibility
the frame of reference
decisions,
organizational level of rationality.
is
with their
most organizational decision making
rationalities as they
Another leap
--
1976).
important issue only in the design or
that revisiting the decisions
objectives.
considered rational over time.
of each
the stages.
Viewing organizational goals as neither singular nor static,
there are two critical leaps in our perspective from "bounded
rationality" (Simon, 1958). One is from the individual to the
is
of
conception
planning and design
with other "entities" (Chen,
relationships
dominate
focus on changes in what
policies
at the
requirements
at the
pushed hard enough by decision-makers
combination of
to
decision concerning the requirements includes the
mapping of
all
Functional
be discussed
to
issues in question.
It shapes the philosophical basis for
viewing events and questions at stake.
Thus, territorial
a
and
rewards/sanctions are likely to be discussed
perspective that shap>es a capacity for decision-making on
is
have
Questions of control, budget
resource,
exceeds the original budget allocation
rationality
DBMS
be elaborated and argued as rational courses of action based on
the relevant context of a stage.
define a decision territorially rational
the different contexts of
For example, the different
conception, planning and design, and implementation stages.
allocation,
In our context,
change depending on
issues over time
each stage of decision-making.
stage of decisions"
are
shaped
in
a
local in nature and
in
.
time, goals
territorial
go through problem-solving stages across
.
TTierefore, territorial rationality
is
changes over time depending on the issues
The
question.
made over
marmer based on
decisions are
composite
integration
of
information
systems.
the collective rationality to organizational rationality gives
important clues to different contexts, goals, and interests
among
different functional departments, divisions, and the
combination of individuals from different levels and functional
departments.
second leap, the changes
In the context of the
territorial rationality
over time are
critical
Another exception is a learning organization, where feedback
reflected on and, thus, the organization is capable uf
is
learning to learn.
in
because the salient
This notion
is
well discussed and elaborated as learning
site
and
locus of learning in Lee, 1988.
One can
easily relate the concept of territorial
rationality to
Simon's (1958) "bounded rationality."
Simon's concept
emphasizes compulalional, perceptional limitations of an
individual.
We focus more on contextual setting, such as
organizational structures and processes thai facilitate
individuals to have more knowledge on and interests in their
own surroundings than knowledge of others' constraints and
sellings.
By
"territorial rationality"
consirainls and interests.
as
We
we
call this
are referring to these
knowledge
that serves
the entiliy's philosophical base for decision-making
coalition-building, "territorial rationality.
"
and
We
from most of the implementation studies companng
intended and unintended consequences of
orgaiuzational actions and decisions. Usually this evaluative
discussion is conducted with ihe assumption thai the
comparison of the intention and the results ought to be
conducted based on the mitial espoused loplevel managers
The
decision as it compares with the implemented results.
incongruity between the two is known as unintended
consequences. Our view is that the initial inteniion moves
along decision-making stages and is transformed.
differ
what
are
operationalized, and finalized.
DBMSs,
particularly
includes
integrating
territorial
rationalities across parts of organizational boundaries, since
rationality
territorial
the crucial engine
is
formulating
for
A
organization.
correspond
may
entity
territorial
traditional
to
not
necessarily
stream-lined)
(or
sections
or
divisions.
organizational decisions.
A
territorial entity°has the
centered,
Entity
Territorial
it
aims
political position,
The
between individual and organizational levels is
In between these two
distinction
well understood in practice and research.
distinct levels, there are sub-units within an organization (or
organizations, in the case of a super-organization, such as a
which behave
joint venture)
collective voice at times
actors of an organization.
as
they have a
if
by individuals acting as agents and
The most simplified examples are
—
different levels within an organization
and operational levels
R&D,
marketing,
homogeneous or
and functional
--
and engineering.
managerial
strategic,
such as
units,
collective
in
and latent
goods: privileged groups, intermediate groups,
The taxonomy of groups
groups.
common
actions for public and
for territorial entity includes
group and characteristics
difficulty in terms of boundaries of a
group members, for there are factors which do not
necessarily correspond to the rank-and-file division of labor
and formal organizational structure. We have not been satisfied
with the formal differentiation within an organization,
of
because, in practice, the territorial entity's boimdary
and
does
correspond
necessarily
not
Lorsch,
by
classical organizational theorists
1967)
the
that
well
is
it
(Lawrence and
department
sales
fuzzy
is
organizational
to
departments and functional units. For example,
articulated
it
primarily
is
A
decision-making
and information sharing, and a liability-sharing system.
its
own
own
territorial rationality, that is, its
viewing the problems and issues
The boimdary of
other territorial entities.
shifts
based on specific issues
and
These
develop
to
perspective for
which serves
in question,
philosophical basis for the territorial entity
Our notion of how
to
as a
interact with
a territorial entity
in question.
territorial entities are
formal organizational structure, yet
is
primarily
responsible for profit goals and price decisions; and so on.
On
networks within organizations might
have an influence on the boundaries of territorial entities. The
informal network itself does not necessarily represent interests
frameworks and
institutional
we
shaped
is
based on
also believe they are
informally influenced and behave within the institutionalized
Members
framework of organizations.
may come from
actually
participate
in
a
These may include
territorial rationality
to
memos and
and formulating internal
of a
and they
of pre-decision-making
series
processes in a formal organization.
initiating
of territorial entities
different departments and levels
The
meetings.
enough
territorial entity is articulated
be communicated to other entities within an organization
and
territorial rationality
has a bearing on decisions
Yet,
these are far from the final decisions that a formal organization
itself
would make.
We
strongly believe that the activities
at
a
because (1) members' ideas are
multiple sub-goals, interests, and
territorial entity level are crucial
constraints they face.
primarily responsible for production goals and
production procedures; the pricing department
on formal agendas and
independent
an
characteristics lead a territorial entity to inherit
department
riding
and
capability, an internal or informal reporting system, resource
becoming clear about
the other hand, informal
self-
is
it
own socioeconomic
has a limited time span of interest.
has
responsible for sales goals and sales strategy; the production
is
its
For example, Olson
(Olson, 1971) classified three kinds of groups in the context of
participating
and
entity
territorial
following characteristics:
at protecting
opinions and
memos
(These ideas
may
within a certain boimdary.)
(2)
known
These fuzzy and micrmcdiaic
ideas at a territorial entity level are closely related to
units' goals
form of
take the
that are internal yet publicly
how
sub-
and global goals are contested and articulated
order to reach a final plan or a decision.
opinion- forming should be paid
much
This crucial stage
closer attention
to.
if
m
in
wc
constraints.
We
define a territorial entity as an organizational sub-system.
An
organization
may
be formed
Territorial entities can
levels (hierarchical)
shaped
consist of several territorial entities.
at a
and functions
territorial entities are
combination of different
(lateral).
These zigzag-
not totally free of influence by
networks of socialization (Van Marmen, & Barley, 1984),
which may blur the boundaries between rationalities, values,
and customs
at
work and
These
in social settings.
autonomous, yet are
entities are partly
territorial
interrelated, with each
one setting constraints on the kinds of changes
that
it
can
There are three key benefits in using the concept "icrniorijl
enlily."
First, the concept of territorial eniuy capiuics ihc
reality of organizational workings beyond the orgamtauunjl
structure. This is primarily why we define and use > icmumal
entity as a unit of analysis, instead of conventionallv -Jr>wn
boundaries such as a division or an organization,
all
uf
uhuh
conventional dichotomy of intra- or micr
Second, the concept can explain
organizational structure.
socio- and political-economic activities in and uui jI j
territorial entity that are directly related to global and IcKal
fall
into
the
For example, one can easily think ahoui the
economic aspects of territory-protection games, and
sociological and anthropological aspects related lo ihc micmal
and external behaviors and culture of a lemtonal cnhiy
Finally, the concept of a territorial entity would help explain
one of the most haunting and repeated concerns in husineis
firms, such as the delicate balance between global inJ local
l>ic)
leveb or organizational as a whole and local temionci
contention.
political
cause
that
to
occur
each entity
member
of
in other territorial entities.
This does not mean
An
individual could be a
is
mutually exclusive.
multiple
boundaries explain
to
territorial
why members
share organizational goals, resources,
liability
there
do not necessarily share
might
be
multiple
Such
entities.
flexible
of an organization designed
all
information,
of these.
territorial
What
entities
is
and
more,
within
an
are often
memben'
phrased as the organizational
notion of "what's in
it
for
me?"
"bouom
line'
jnj
Table
1:
Synthesis of
making
and can not escape the external intricacies of
attempt
normative prescriptions
offer
to
integrated
for
among
business world's dominant factors
However,
it.
and persuasion would have different relative importance
information systems.
world and in society at large. Yet,
mechanisms would prevail in the business world.
business
how
For example, tracking
migrated from
A is formulated and how
A to B and got approved by
idea
territorial entity
it
upper level, so on and so forth, could lead us to understand
how
We
an important role in certain organizations.
among
system
centralized and homogeneous, the
is
Many
systems where multiple
are
allowed
are
entities
territorial
to
control their systems domains.
involved in
intensively
of contention over hegemony over integrated
systems will be higher than with heterogeneous database
likelihood
The Transformation
important
is
of
recognize
to
Rationality
because
Territorial
rationalities
territorial
some of them can be transformed or bypassed
decision-making.
This evolution of
all
decision-making processes.
the
occasions and situations force active participants
become
due to limited himian capacity (Simon, 1958) energy
and intended delegation based on specialized knowledge.
level
,
practice based
based on changes
is
on added,
corrected,
in
to
The reasons
non-participants or indirect participants.
notion of persuasion
It
same
from Linblom particularly in the concept of
Linblom's notion of manipulated adjustments
participants assumes that all the members are
persuasion.
the database
in the
the
differ
issues of hegemony over integrated information systems play
If
the
authority, exchange,
Our
knowledge-in-
and diffused information and
knowledge.
in the process of
territorial rationalities
can
means
Authority, in this paper,
the
power
inherited from the
be a clue for explaining passive resistance later on in the
{X)sition a territorial entity has in relation to other territorial
planning and design or implementation stage.
entities.
would not necessarily be
rationalities alone
made by
decisions
members
hold, the
Tenitorial entities orchestrate to
which transform the boundaries
Knowing what each
We
to
be the
from research conducted
which suggests
technology
ought
does not explain the Tmal action
particularly depart
information
members make
make coalitions
as well as their rationalities.
territorial entity believes
rational course of action alone
taken.
Based on
the multiple territorial entities.
the territorial rationality
coalitions.
Territorial
the sole basis for
that
there
in
an
is
absolute antagonistic relationship between technologist and
users.
As suggested by Simon's
1958). role-based analysis
--
However,
.
how
--
offers
beings are expected to
decisions are made.
Simon's example, a captain's role
an accident occurs.
(Simon,
alone can mislead researchers
this
dichotomized version of
technologists and users
how human
us a basic understanding of
behave
earlier observation
The
is
to sink
a
refers
power coming from
to
knowledge-in-practice a
territorial
of
overlap
rationality,
us examine
let
initial
how
at times.
The purpose of
Figure
1
for
a
major threads of the transformational
in order to explain the
modes which are partially overlajjped and interwoven into one
However, identifying the primary mode of a
action.
transformation
important
critically
is
patterns of interactions
among
exchange
refers
persuasion
to
an
(See Figure
the territorial rationality
is
Linblom's concepts of coalition-
2).
zQ
^
E_
l->
Linblom's (1977) explanatory concepts for
institutions and activities in the world
economic system. He identified authority, exchange,
human
at a society level.
encompasses the micro- as well as macro
ranging from an individual to a society.
three concepts
These three concepts are also applicable
because the business world
is,
to the business
world
of course, a part of the society.
Modes
Figure 2: Transformational
Transformational modes
adapted
analytical levels,
this
1965; Linblom, 1977) explain by what
and persuasion as the mechanisms primarily
The
In
and
information/knowledge-based
A
commimicates with other
political
understanding
entities.
resource-based transformation,
a
to
refers
discussion of tenitorial
transformed into a decision.
identifying
in
territorial
research, authority refers to a position-based transformation.
process their original and internal territorial rationality was
We
is
when
schematic flow of transformation through
building (Linblom,
three
identifying three concepts
movies) does not
transformed into the actual organizational decision taken (See
decision-making stages).
The
not in order to divide an action into three separate modes, but
^
have concluded our
holds.
entity
power-- position-based, resource-based and
knowledge-based power - may be interchangeable and may
kinds
necessarily square with this role-based analysis.
Now we
the
Persuasion refers to
p)ower based on the quality and quantity of information and
Borrowing
with his ship
reality (not the
to
Exchange
resourcefulness of a territorial entity.
explain
how
territorial
a
entities in order to
make
entity
a decision.
These modes influence the basic characteristics of
interactions
among
extreme case of a
mode
is
heavily
bureaucracy.
By
territorial
territorial
based on
the
entities.
entity
the
For example, the
whose transformational
would resemble a
authority
same token,
if
a territorial entity uses
persuasion or a knowledge-based transformational
mode
as
its
5
primary mode,
its territorial
rationality
would resemble
that
of
CONCLUSIONS
a technocracy".
Territories
Integrating
This
Integration of information systems involves integration of
territorial
Territorial
rationalities.
entities
wish
to
have
control over their share of integrated information systems,
because the systems domain represents the managerial domain.
The hegemony over information systems and technology is
critical to decision-makers because they assume that they are
responsible largely for maintaining and expanding their
established managerial domain.
information systems.
likely to
we can
If
territorial
The fmdings of this research have also
mismatch between the plarmed domain of
integrated systems and the managerial domain escalates the
contending forces for and against the systems. The contention
is based on the organization's multiple territorial rationalities.
systems integration.
to
shown
that
a
observe where the conflicts are
the characteristics of the territorial rationalities held by the
be upheld by
to
predict what kind of
integrated information technologies and systems
would best
serve a specific organization.
and
answer
we found
like
that the
the conflict
among
primary conflicts
between
among
local
platform
among
two dimensions: One
is
Regardless of differences
local entities.
the local entities,
lie in
and global levels and the other
we found
that there exists a
common
local entities and global entities
We
A
transformational
mode
primarily
order
in
Knowing
from
themes
authority (position-based power) facilitates the
autonomy versus
iniegralion
to
adapt
that ihcy
in
be
are
implcmcntaiion
needs of organizations.
the
to
in
the
to
to
the constraints and interests of different territorial
entities will
derived
for
a basis
concerning conflicting
any other kind of information systems
stages
territorial
view integrated information systems
transformed from the development
speed up the integration process and enhance the
understanding
•
contending themes of
to the critical questions
and competing forces
organizations.
the conflict
the participating territorial entities,
Analyzing the above three areas would provide
industry, manufacturing industry, and educational institutions,
is
among
(3) the platform of the
entities.
field research in the insurance industry, financial
combinations of the modes
territorial entities involved, (2) the
of transformation
for an
Based on our
explaining,
for
The fmdings suggest that three inter-related areas need to be
analyzed when integrating disparate information systems: (1)
we can
entities,
concepts
of
in the integration
occur and what themes are likely
different
among
Therefore, conflicts
embedded
different territorial entities are
developed
has
research
diagnosing, and predicting divergent organizational respwnses
both
of
demands and
and
technological
which
capacity,
turn
in
organizational
make
institutional
transformation and technology diffusion more effective
including local autonomy and global control for local
and global
entity
•
A
entity, respectively.
transformational
mode
primarily
derived
from
Managers need to understand
information systems takes
why
that
inicgraied
diffusing
broader
a
insiituuonal
exchange (resource-based power) tends to escalate the
contending themes such as resource alignment and
transformation.
This
entities,
resource allocation.
would lead us
and transformational modes
understand the fundamental mechanisms ihat
territorial
to
is
clearly
identifying
icrnional
rationalities,
induce the difficulties associated with systems iniegralion
•
A
transformational
mode
primarily
persuasion (information-based f>ower) tends
The
derived
to
from
escalate the
also important to note that
is
a
panacea
Commimications have
integration.
diffusion.
that identifies territorial rationalities.
likely range of
competing
for
changes
is
in territorial entities as a result
from a few major
hegemony over
the
territorial
integrated
of
entities
information
In terms of technical choices in
between
they can
an umbrella for territorial entities that are based on work units
Even
streamlined operation of integrated information systems,
zigzag-shaped
coalition for collaborations in
campaign
for
to
mixed of vertical and lateral
knowledge about and internal
territorial entities
historically
to
may
be conducted
DBMSs,
revamp
li
not bo
s\sicms
in
a
way
interface icchnology
developed disparate systems
majority of the technology that firms will opt
systems, to a central dominant territorial entity that serves as
itself
for easing the difficulties associated with
themes including knowledge specialization and knowledge
systems integration
for
communication
will
be the
for, at Icasi uniil
the systems to a totally standardized sn^Ilth
then, there will soon be a
more advanced system wjiung
Unless the issue of "connectivity" iph\SKa!
and logical connectivity) among disparate systems is soKcd.
for an adoption.
there will always be incompatibility problems
among
Jispjrjii.-
systems.
marketing of integrated information systems.
To
test
and extend our conceptual and preliminarv
lielJ
research, further comparative empirical research needs lo bo
conducted
in
various
contexts,
evolutionary
stages,
and
settings of organizations and different kinds of integration ol
This argument
that
if
is different from the conventional assumption
an organization's organizational structure is either
hierarchical or centralized,
it
might always behave
hierarchical or aulhonlative organization.
\jk\Q
a
like
an
This would vali.laic or
work and extend our understanding of inieraonons
information systems and technologies.
refute our
between organizational workings and integrated information
and the Role of Information Technology, Journal of
technologies.
Information Technology Management.
1.1991.
2:
Linblom, C. The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-making
Rased on
we can now
this research,
What kind of forums and
order
through Mutual Adjustment
interface technology are needed in
organizational
facilitate
to
ask the following question:
as
well
.
New
York, N.Y.: The
Free Press. 1965.
technical
as
Linblom, C. Limits on Policy Analysis
connectivity?
N.J.:
REFERENCES
Linblom, C.
Englewood
.
Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall. 1968.
Markets
and
Politics
New YOrk, NY.:
.
Basic. 1977.
G. Essence of
Brown.1971.
Allison.
Decision
.
MA:
Boston,
Little
Luckmann, T. On the Rationality of Institutions in Modem
Life. European Journal of sociology 16, 1975. pp3.
&
Argyris, C.
Schfln, Organizational Learning:
Action Perspective,
Wesley.1978
Bacharach,
S.,
&
Aiken, D.
on Influence
Theory of
Addison-
MA:
Reading,
15.
March,
&
J.,
and Process Constraints
Administrative
Organizations.
A
Simon, H.
Englewood
Structural
.
in
A
&
Markus, M.,
Behavior Theory of
.
Robey, D. Information Technology and
Management Science
Organizational Change.
Science Ouarteilv. 21.1976, pp623-642.
Firm
the
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1963.
.
34(5),
1988. pp583-598.
The interorganizational network as a political
economy. Administrative Science Quarterly. 20,
Benson, K.
Miller, S. Technology, Territory,
Human
and Time.
Relations
.
1.1952.
4,
1975.PP.229-249.
A
Benson, K. Organizations:
Mintzberg, H. Mintzberg on Management
dialectical view. Administrative
London: The Free
.
Press. 1989.
Science Quarterly . 22, 1977, ppl-21.
M. The Logic of
Olson,
Chen,
The
P.
entity-relationship model. Transaction on
Base Systems
Data
Cambridge.
.
MA:
1(1), 1976.
.
Pettigrew, A.
Phenomenon
M. The Bureaucratic
Crozier,
Collective Action
Harvard University Press. 1971.
Chicage:
.
The
Politics of Organizational
Decision-making
.
london: Tavistock. 1973.
University Press. 1964.
Pfeffer,
Cyen,
R.,
&
March, G.
Englewood
.
A
Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Power
J.
in
Organizations
.
Ranson,
1964
Hinings, B.,
S.,
&
P.,
&
Powell,
W.
The
Cage Revisited:
Iron
MA:
Pitman. 1980.
Greenwood, R. The Structuring of
organizational Structures.
Dimaggio,
Boston,
.
Isomorphism and collective RAtionality
Organizational Fields. American Sociological
Administrative
Science
Quarterly. 25, 1980.
Institutional
in
Review
.
E.,
&
Trist, E.
The Casual Texture of Organizational
Enviroiunentns.
Human
Relations
.
18,
32.
Berkeley,
.
CA:
University of California
Press. 1984.
Inncs,
J.
&
Stinchcome, A. Creating Efficient industrial Administration
New
Thomson,
Trist,
Kuhn, T. The Essential Tension
Chicage Press. 1977.
&
Lorsch,
Lee, Y., Madnick, S.
J.
MA:
&
.
in
Action
Human
.
New
York, N.Y.:
Social and Psychological
Relations. 4(1), 1951.
the Nature, Formation and
among
Relations
Chicago:
Organizations.
Management Review
Chicago: University of
Organization and Environment
Van Mannen,
J.,
&
Barley,
.
4,
S.
Maintenance of
Adademv of
1976. pp24-36.
Occupational communities:
Culture and Control in Organizations. In B. Staw, &
L. Cummings (Ed.), Greenwith, CT.: JAI Press. 1984.
.
Beyond the Globalization of
Information Technology: The Life of an Organization
R.
Some
Bamforth, K.
Van de Van, A. On
.
Harvard University Press. 1967.
Wang,
&
L.,
getting.
.
York, N.Y.: WUey.1966.
University of Chicage Press. 1970.
P.,
Or ganizations
J.
Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-
Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations
Canmbridge,
.
York, N.Y.: Academic Press. 1974.
Thomas, R. Politics of Technological Change. Sloan School
Working Paper. 2035-88, 1988.
Planning.
in
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolution
Lawrence,
York, N.Y.:
McGraw-Hill. 1967.
The Construction of Information
Kowledge in Society 2. 1989.5-15.
New
New
.
Macmillan.1958.
.
Katz, D.,
Behavior
Simon, H. Administrative
1965. pp21-
Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory
of structure
M. Frame-Reflective Policy discourse. Levden Institute
for Law and Public Policy. Working Paper (3), 1986.
.
Dunn, W. The Social Construction of Knowledge Processes.
Kowledge in Society. 2(Summer), 1989.
Emery,
Rein,
48, 1983.
Wang,
R.,
&
Madnick,
Systems
S.
Coimectivity
Cambridge,
Management, Mrr.1988.
.
MA:
among Infomraiion
Sloan
School
of
Date Due
JRM.OSlB«r
mr 06 ^^^
Lib-26-67
n LlppARIf";
3
,'!',','|',|||lnllilll||
1060 Oa64b717
M