DRAFT – AUGUST 2002. Rolland, K.H. 2002a. In the Business of Risk: Global Information
th
Infrastructures and Shifting Identity. (An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 25
Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 25) at Bautahøj, Denamrk, August
10 – 13 2002.) THIS PAPER IS SUBMITTED TO SJIS.
In the Business of Risk: global
information infrastructures and shifting
identity
Knut H. Rolland
Department of Informatics, University of Oslo
PO BOX 1080 Blindern
0316 OSLO, NORWAY
Phone: +47 22 85 29 34
Fax: +47 22 85 24 01
knutr@ifi.uio.no
Abstract. This paper aims at exploring the linkages between standardizing aspects of
global information infrastructures and professional identity. In doing so, this paper
adopts Beck and Giddens’ theory of ‘reflexive modernization’ to analyze how the
introduction of a global information infrastructure (the GIS) in a Maritime Classification
Company (MCC) transformed work practices and professional identity of ship
surveyors. The analysis of the MCC case suggests that tensions between the
professional identity of surveyors and the ways in which the GIS infrastructure
standardized local practices introduced new risks and ‘radical doubt’ in surveyors’
work. As a consequence, surveyors strive to re-construct their professional identity and
establish new systems of trust to accommodate risk and the standardizing aspects of
the GIS infrastructure. While these unanticipated transformations lead to innovative
new ways of working through users’ improvisations and reskilling, it also undermined
some of the initially envisioned organizational transformations. Thus, risks do not stem
from poor design or lack of strategic alignment, but are rather reflexively produced and
diffused through use and management of the technology itself. The paper concludes by
giving some implications for theorizing information infrastructures and for the practice
of implementing such technologies.
1 Introduction
The potential for advanced information and communication technologies to enable
globally distributed work and global business strategies as well as improving control
and coordination, is widely acknowledged in the Information Systems literature (e.g.
Earl and Fenny, 1996; Ives and Jarvenpaa, 1991; Weill and Broadbent, 1998).
However, recent empirical studies of large-scale information systems and information
infrastructures, indicate that implementation and management of these technologies are
more complex than first anticipated (e.g. Ciborra et al., 2000; Davenport, 1998; Star
and Ruhleder, 1996; Walsham, 2001). More often than expected, information
infrastructures tend to have unintended organizational consequences, produce sideeffects, and ‘drift’ away from intended plans and envisioned scenarios of usage
(Ciborra, 1996; Ciborra et al., 2000). Drifting in this sense, is not inherently ‘bad’, but
captures how information infrastructures imply both new risks and opportunities as
users’ improvise and explore technologies’ potential in specific situations and use
contexts. This paper aims at examining how drifting in the introduction of (global)
corporate-wide information infrastructures is intrinsically related to the dialectical
relationship between they way in which these technologies tend to standardize work
and transformations of individuals’ professional identity.
In doing so, this paper draws on the sociologists Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens
conceptualisations of social transformations in contemporary society (e.g. Beck, 1992;
Giddens, 1990, 1991). This body of work identifies globalization as a key tenet of
modernity and emphasises that these processes of globalization are closely linked to
changes in self-identity of individuals (e.g. Giddens, 1991). Information technologies
are increasingly an integral part of these processes in the way that they are both
influencing and influenced by processes of globalization (Bradley, Hausman and
Nolan, 1993). Several contributions in IS research have attempted to conceptualise
these dynamics by perceiving information and communication technologies as an
instance of modernity that tend to increase the separation of time and space, serve as
disembedding mechanisms, and enable institutional reflexivity (Barrett and Walsham,
1999; Hanseth and Braa, 2000). Particularly, large-scale information systems and
information infrastructures can be perceived to encapsulate a ‘radicalisation’ of
modernity (Beck, 1994) in a nutshell – as they tend to accelerate uncontrollability and
unpredictability (Hanseth and Braa, 2000; Hanseth, Ciborra, and Braa, 2002). On the
other hand, consistent with Giddens’ (1991) argument, the introduction and use of
these technologies in organizational work also have deep-seated implications for how
professional groups and individuals perceive themselves, their work and their role in
the larger organization (Walsham, 1998, Walsham, 2001). This paper aims at extending
this analysis by looking at how specific features of information infrastructures
transform individuals’ professional identities in a global context of usage. Furthermore,
this paper explores what kind of risks and opportunities different transformations
produce for different individuals and how these risks are compensated for. The issue of
professional identity is a relatively under-researched topic (Walsham, 2000) that could
be considered especially important in relation to information infrastructures.
Information infrastructures are implemented across diverse contexts of usage and
typically involve multiple professional groups where a strong professional identity is
closely linked to practice (cf. Star and Ruhleder, 1996). Introducing a common
information infrastructure that re-organizes and standardise practices and make them
more interdependent with other user communities’ practices is likely to cause
individuals’ to question their work and role in relation to other individuals and groups.
Empirically this paper draws from the findings from an explorative field study of a
global information infrastructure (the GIS) in a globally distributed organization
(MCC). The GIS is a state-of-the-art component-based client/server system based on
Microsoft’s COM architecture, a product model, and Microsoft’s SQL-based database
technology, and it is interconnected with many other databases and applications
including a Web-based system used by customers. The GIS was implemented
worldwide in 2000 after 6 years spending approximately 130 million EURO on inhouse development. After initial disappointments and organizational turbulence, the
GIS infrastructure is at the time of writing regarded as relatively successful, and by
management perceived as an important tool for increasing uniformity and quality of
survey work across the world. Nevertheless, the findings described in this paper
indicate that attempts to control and standardize work also imply new ‘modernization
risks’. This is exemplified by the gap between the standardizing aspects of the GIS (e.g.
how the GIS structures and formalizes survey work) and how surveyors’ perceive
themselves, their role in surveyor work, and their experience on how quality was
achieved. This had multifaceted implications across different contexts as this
implicated both new innovative ways of working and reskilling, but also introduced
‘radical doubt’ in the work of surveyors and in some cases decreased the quality of
reports and services.
The reminder of this paper is structured as follows. The following section briefly
describes some key aspects of Beck and Giddens’ theory on ‘reflexive modernization’
that are argued to be of relevance for understanding global information infrastructures.
Next, a short synopsis of the GIS project, MCC, and examples of GIS in use are given
along with an outline of the research approach and data analysis. Then, some of the key
findings from the MCC case are discussed using the framework of reflexive
modernization, and finally the paper concludes by discussing some theoretical
implications for understanding global information infrastructures as well as some
practical considerations possibly relevant for other cases.
2 ‘Reflexive Modernization’ as a Theoretical
Perspective on Global Information Infrastructures
In studying global information infrastructures reflexive modernization can be argued as
especially relevant since this theory links transformations on a macro-level with issues
on a micro-level, and thus enables a multi-level analysis (Walsham, 1998). More
specifically, Giddens argues that globalizing tendencies are inherent in the dynamism
of modernity and that this dynamism develops in a dialectical fashion. In this way,
Giddens underscores that the dynamism of modernity not only has consequences on a
global – macro scale, but also shapes individuals’ self-identity. An important aspect
here is that the standardizing tendencies of abstract systems might lead to ‘existential
anxiety’ and ‘personal meaninglessness’ (Giddens, 1991). In these circumstances the
self becomes reflexive in the sense that individuals pursue to re-construct their
identities in the light of the new abstract systems.
A key tenet of reflexive modernization that underscores the globalizing tendencies of
modernity is what Giddens refers to as ‘disembedding mechanisms’ (Giddens, 1990,
1991, 1994). The metaphor of disembedding attributes to “the ’lifting out’ of social
relations from local contexts and their rearticulation across indefinite tracts of timespace” (Giddens, 1991: p. 18). Giddens mentions two specific types of disembedding
mechanisms which he denotes ‘symbolic tokens’ and ‘expert systems’. Taken together,
these are described as ‘abstract systems’. Information infrastructures then, can be
perceived as abstract systems that disembed local work practices, separate social
interaction from the particularities of local contexts, and make work practices
interdependent across different contexts. However, adoption of abstract systems
depend upon their re-embedding in local contexts, which requires new systems of trust
to be established. According to Giddens (1991), trust is required when social
interaction involves absence in time and space as well as ignorance to the specifics of
‘expert systems’.
A further important aspect of the dialectics of the local and the global is that “new risks
and dangers are created through the disembedding mechanisms themselves” and due to
interdependencies “these may be local or global” (Giddens, 1991: pp. 19-20).
Similarly, in Beck’s writings production and diffusion of risks are perceived as a key
characteristic of reflexive modernization (Beck, 1992). Risk is by Beck (1992: p. 21)
defined as a “systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and
introduced by modernization itself”. According to Beck (1992, 1994), complex
interdependencies and formerly ‘latent side effects’ created through technical and
economic development are producing new ‘modernization risks’ that are different from
risks known in traditional societies. A primary difference is that risks are aggregated
and diffused globally, so that local events potentially have global consequences. The
reflexive nature of risks is by Beck captured in the notion of ‘boomerang effects’ in the
sense that local attempts to control backfires as lack of control (Beck, 1992).
Whilst Giddens and Beck do not explicitly mention information and communication
technologies in their theories of social transformation, others have drawn from and
extended their work with an ‘IT dimension’ (Barrett and Walsham, 1999; Ciborra et al.,
2000; Hanseth, Ciborra, and Braa, 2002; Walsham, 1998; Walsham, 2001). In a study
of the introduction of an electronic trading system across the London Insurance Market,
Barrett and Walsham (1999) explore the linkages between the globalizing tendencies of
the information system and changes in self-identity of brokers and underwriters. Here
information technology is conceptualised as an instance of modernity that facilitates the
globalizing dynamism of modernity as described by Giddens (1991). The case further
illustrates that the transformations of work occurring after implementation of the
technology were closely linked to systems of trust and issues of self-identity. Brokers
and underwriters tended to resist the information system, as they perceived that new
systems of trust required by the information system would replace traditional trust
between persons in face-to-face contact. Moreover, the globalizing tendencies of the
new information system created tensions of identity at the individual level, especially
regarding concerns for deskilling and existential anxiety.
Hanseth, Ciborra, and Braa (2002) emphasize different aspects of reflexive
modernization when analyzing the consequences of an ERP implementation in a global
company. Because of the interdependencies between the installed ERP system, the
underlying operating system, desktop applications, and Lotus Notes groupware
applications the decision to outsource the operation of the ERP system spurred side
effects that further generated new side effects. Eventually, this lead to a re-invention of
their entire information infrastructure including a purchase of 40 000 Microsoft Office
licenses. Thus the introduced technology had side effects that spurred more side effects
in a domino-like fashion. The case also illustrates that integrated information systems
are reflexive in the sense that side-effects reflexively ‘strike back’ and affect the very
phenomena that created them. Consequently, the authors conclude, “ERP installations
in global organizations conform well to Giddens’ (1999) image of the modern world as
a juggernaut”.
3 Case Description
3.1 Research setting and method
CASE ORGANIZATION AND THE GIS PROJECT
MCC is a maritime classification company headquartered in Scandinavia, employing
over 5500 highly qualified engineers in 300 offices in over 100 countries worldwide.
The company’s main products and services are quality and risk assessments concerning
various types of ships and maritime installations. The international classification
business is highly competitive and is subject to major structural changes through
transformations, acquisitions and mergers. MCC’s main strategy for meeting global
competition has been heavy investments in ICT. The GIS project was initiated in 1994
and implemented in local offices in 1999 and 2000 and at the time of writing the GIS is
used by 1500 users in over 150 offices worldwide, and it is now, at least by managers –
viewed as a tremendous success. The primary objective was to develop an integrated
information system based on product model technology to improve information
management and decision making involved throughout the entire ship survey process.
The idea of an integrated information system was also motivated by a perceived lack of
structure in the way that surveys were conducted and reported in local offices as well as
a growing dissatisfaction with the existing Technical Ship Database (TSD) from the
1970s running on an old IBM mainframe computer. Additional details on the case
study are described in Rolland and Monteiro (2002).
Figure 1: Example of a GIS screen. Work tasks are shown to the left and example of a
generated report on the right. Overview of the survey job and technical information are
located in the middle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This research can be characterized as an in-depth case study grounded in the
interpretive approach to information systems research as outlined in Klein and Myers
(1999). The actual fieldwork took place at 5 different offices in Europe during three
phases between February 1999 and November 2001, aiming at gaining insights in how
the GIS infrastructure had transformed practices in different local contexts.
Observations and in-depth interviews with surveyors using the GIS infrastructure in
their daily work were conduced at three major MCC offices. Furthermore, additional
interviews of local managers were conducted at one medium sized office as well as the
HQ. These sites were mainly selected based on practical considerations, such as access
and travel expenses. In order to supplement the evidence from these sites all located in
Western Europe, MCC’s own evaluation reports from 3 offices in Asia were used as a
secondary data source.
During the first phase of the fieldwork (February – July 1999), 11 in-depth interviews
lasting more than 2 hours with software developers and managers in the GIS project
were conducted. Since the GIS infrastructure was not yet widely used throughout the
organization, the fieldwork was at this stage concentrated at HQ. In July 1999 I visited
a local office and conducted 6 in-depth interviews with 1 superuser and 5 surveyors.
Taking place only a few months after introducing GIS, the first round of fieldwork
highlighted the ongoing appropriation processes and the surveyors’ first impressions of
the system.
In the second phase of the field work (Mars – October 2000), a second round of
interviews were conducted at HQ in order to capture the transition process from a
paper-based reporting system and the TSD database to fully digital reporting based on
the GIS infrastructure. During this stage, three offices were visited and over 40 indepth interviews were conducted with district managers, superusers, local IT
facilitators, engineers/support personnel and managers from the GIS implementation
team. From Mars until August 2000, I also spent 2 days a week at the HQ working
together with the department at HQ responsible for planning further improvements as
well as managing the implementation process of the GIS. I was given a desk in an open
office environment and became engaged in informal discussions around the coffee
machine and during lunch breaks. I also attended meetings, brainstorming sessions, and
one field trip together with the department. During this phase more extensive
observations of GIS in use were conducted at two different offices. Four surveyors
were observed using the GIS over 5 days throughout the entire survey process: from
the moment the survey was assigned by a secretary, to the survey report was
electronically submitted using the GIS infrastructure. These observations and
additional in-depth interviews took place a year after the GIS had been introduced, and
illuminated how the GIS infrastructure had been appropriated in different local offices
and situated practices. During the third phase (February – October 2001), a few
additional informants were interviewed in a fifth office and some follow-up interviews
at the HQ were conducted.
All phases together, 61 in-depth interviews were conducted of 41 informants. The
interviews lasted between 1 and 3 hours, and around 30 of them were tape-recorded
and transcribed. Most of the interviews were unstructured in the sense that I only had a
small list of a few basic key words to guide my interviewing. Other data sources
included observation notes from studying use of the GIS, notes from participating in
meetings, MCC’s intranet, and various types of printed documents including news
bulletins, technical reports, evaluation reports, design documents, and requirements
specifications. I was also given detailed demonstrations of the different features of the
GIS at different stages in the process as well as prototypes of future releases.
Type of informant
Number of informants
Surveyors
13
Support personnel
6
General managers
10
Local managers
3
GIS development team members
7
Superusers
2
Total
41 informants
Table 1: Categories of informants in the case study
Theory on information infrastructures was used as an initial guide for data collection
(e.g. Ciborra et al., 2000; Star and Ruhleder, 1996). The collected data were analyzed
in an iterative fashion using a subset of concepts and the theoretical framework of
‘reflexive modernization’ as outlined above.
3.2 Standardization as strategy for achieving quality
In MCC, quality is strongly linked to standards. Apart from having issued around 10
percent of the world market of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certificates, standards and
standardization is increasingly considered the crux for MCC’s internal production and
organizing of ship surveys. For sure, in ship classification – standardization is
absolutely vital to ensure that the end result of a ship survey is the same, independently
of where the survey was conducted and which surveyor conducted it. Traditionally,
uniformity in survey practice has been attempted inscribed through Classification
Rules, survey checklists, and common courses for surveyors and managers. However,
lack of uniformity in local practices – and particularly the differences between the way
survey reports have been written, was frequently emphasised by managers as an up
front problem and barrier for implementing the perceived necessary organizational
changes:
There have been so many variants out there. The local offices have had their own way of
working…The reporting has been done in a very individual way – based on region, history
and culture. (Manager)
Thus, the design of the GIS followed a strong focus on standardization with the
primary goal of increasing uniformity in how ship surveys are conducted and reported.
A second organizational change expected enabled by the GIS, was a distributed survey
process. Distributing the survey process would increase the flexibility for ship owners
who are for obvious reasons not interested in having their ships docked simply because
it takes MCC several days to conduct a survey. Thus, the GIS was designed to support
one surveyor to start a survey on a ship in one port, passing an electronic “survey job”
on to a second surveyor, before a third surveyor finishes the survey in a third port.
Subsequently, to allow this to be conceived as ‘one survey’ – from the point of view of
the customer, an agreed upon standard for how surveys must be conducted and reported
across all 300 offices worldwide must be established.
3.3 Improving practice? uniformity at the lowest level
A main inscription to ensure uniformity in the survey process was to include a socalled product model as the main information source (i.e. data model) for the GIS. As
explained by a software developer in the GIS project, the product model was not
simply understood as a common database for the various applications comprising a
global information infrastructure, but rather perceived as a standard for surveyors’
‘knowledge’:
“Like TCP/IP is the standard on the Internet, the product model is the standard for the
domain knowledge of MCC” (Software developer)
Prior to the GIS project MCC had been participating in several international R&D
projects related to product models and the development of the ISO 10303 standard
referred to as STEP (STandards for the Exchange of Product Model Data). Product
models are sophisticated and highly detailed data models especially designed for
describing advanced mass-produced products like cars and aeroplanes. Such models
have traditionally been used in relation to advanced CAD/CAM environments enabling
3D views of technical components and possibilities for developing statistics and trend
analysis of individual components included in a product. In this way product models
are designed for finding weak spots in complex constructions and to trace the
performance of components over time. Managers vividly illustrated the different
advantages of a product model based information system:
“For example, whenever a user is registering a specific diesel engine – the user can just
check the system and get access to relevant historical information. The representation in the
product model will be totally consistent – for example an engine having the ID ‘MAN-341’
in the product model could never be exchanged for something else. Thus, this will imply
improved quality…” (Manager)
As underscored in the above quote, one of the key features of the GIS, was that the
product model allowed for more detailed, accurate, and updated – as well as historical
information on all ships. In contrast to paper-based reporting, which relied up on each
surveyor’s ability to track down previous reports archived somewhere in the global
organization, the GIS offers a range of possibilities for viewing detailed technical items
and components, and associate CCs and MEMOs to these items electronically. The
obvious advantage is that it becomes possible to develop advanced statistics based on
surveyors’ reporting and that updated technical information is available on the tip of a
keystroke independently of time and place.
In this way, the product model inscribed uniformity in reporting by restricting the
entering of collected data at the most detailed level in a complex hierarchical structure
(i.e. an electronic checklist). In a product model technical information on a ship is
modeled down to the very nitty-gritty detail, and henceforth, the entering of
information into the system must conform to this level of detail – otherwise the product
model will not be fully updated – as underscored in the GIS user guide:
All recordings must be made at the lowest possible level (e.g.: make recordings on the “P/V
valves” of a tanker, instead of the general category of “deck equipment”)” (my emphasis).
In practice, from the point of view of surveyors this is experienced as quite confusing –
and even ‘chaotic’:
“I‘m always forced to enter information on the lowest and most detailed level. This is
extremely time-consuming – and the work becomes very fragmented […] it's chaotic, [and] I
miss the ability to have a view of the whole while I‘m working on a specific detail.
(Surveyor)
In contrast to the good intentions, this level of detail enforced by the product model
seem to contradict surveyors’ practice in the sense that this level of detail is seldom
needed in order to meet customers expectations and to deliver what surveyors’ perceive
as a high quality report:
“The quality can be judged by the report, […] you know, a high quality, professional
looking document. And now it looks something that has been thrown together by a dyslectic
word processor – and it does not have that – carry that sort of safe feel of conviction.” (Local
manager)
This was consistently reported by surveyors across cultures and departments in both
European and Asian offices.
4 Analysis
4.1 Reskilling
The GIS can be understood as a specific form of ‘disembedding mechanism’ in the way
that non-local knowledge and abstract systems to an increasing extent structure the way
that surveys are conducted and reported locally. Prior to the GIS, surveyor work also
involved using abstract systems – like for instance checklists and company-wide
‘instructions for surveyors’, however the GIS to a larger extent imposes a specific
sequence for how work is to be conducted. Thus, an interesting question is whether the
GIS implies deskilling and loss of pre-existing forms local control. Giddens denies that
disembedding mechanisms ultimately lead to the “steel hard” iron cage that determines
human actions. Rather, abstract systems and human actions represent a duality in the
sense that abstract systems get re-embedded in various local contexts:
“The counterpart of displacement is reembedding. The disembedding mechanisms lift social
relations and the exchange of information out of specific time-space contexts, but at the
same time provide new opportunities for their reinsertion.” (Giddens, 1990: p. 141; my
emphasis)
In line with this, and certainly different from Braverman’s sombre ‘deskilling
hypothesis’, the standardizing aspects of the GIS tends to transform surveyor work in
different unexpected ways. An important element in these local transformations, and as
a consequence of local re-embedding and appropriation (Ciborra, 1996) of the GIS in
different contexts, surveyors are reskilled rather than deskilled. Reskilling is here
related to ‘smart improvisations’ and juggling adopted by surveyors in order to align
with the diversity across local offices, as for instance differences between customers:
“[It] all depends upon the local offices’ relationships to the larger shipping companies. The
larger shipping companies value written reports more than others. We have had examples of
survey reports that have only been 3 lines long. The local fisherman will be happy with that
– but not the larger shipping companies…” (Local Manager)
The consequences of this is that surveyors have to juggle with the reports and apply
various smart improvisations and work arounds in order to meet varying expectations
and needs of the customers:
“They juggle with it [the reports] by for instance importing it into Word there they modify it
– so that we get one version in [GIS] and one paper-based version of the report.” (Superuser)
To some extent, then, the quality of the survey reports is just as much related to each
individual surveyor’s ability and skills in modifying generated reports, as the technical
functionality of the GIS. Quality is in this sense not defined by the GIS, but produced
through different heterogeneous elements that constitute surveyors’ work practice (cf.
Berg, 1997). The quality is an effect of the alignment or particular configuration of
survey reports, customers, managers, and the knowledge and skills of the surveyor.
According to Giddens (1990: p. 80) “all disembedding mechanisms interact with
reembedded contexts of action”. Likewise, even though the GIS have profound
standardizing effects – surveyor work can never be carried out independently from
local contexts. This is illustrated by the fact that surveyor work involves a large amount
of ‘interactive service work’. In a similar way as described by Leidner (1998) in the
case of McDonald’s, surveying involves ongoing negotiations and coordination with
customers as well as managers and other surveyors. Independently of the survey type,
surveyors are depend on co-operation with members of the crew to get the survey
smoothly done and therefore they ‘juggle’ with the inscribed sequence of work:
“It never happens that we follow this order of working [Surveyor points on the screen
similar to the one shown on figure 1]. Most of the things we do – depends upon how the
crew organizes things [...] Prior to conducting a survey, we always discuss how to organize
things with the crew.” (Surveyor)
In order to produce a service of high quality, surveyors deal with contingencies in their
work by negotiating and organizing each survey job. Subsequently, surveyor practice
necessarily deviate from the inscribed standard as surveyors negotiate and organize the
scope and order of the practical survey job with the customer at the local site.
4.2 Shifting identity
The globalizing dynamism of reflexive modernization can be directly linked to shifting
identity of individuals. Both Beck and Giddens argue that it is not merely the
institutions of modernity that becomes reflexive – but reflexive modernization also
implies that biographies become self-reflexive (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). To quote
Giddens (1991: p. 32), “[Transformations] in self-identity and globalisation, I want to
propose, are the two poles of the dialectic of the local and the global in conditions of
high modernity”. Disembedding mechanisms and abstract systems, then, are involved
not only in the shaping of a new institutional order, but also in individuals’ ongoing reconstruction of self-identity. However, this ‘individualization’ and the reflexive nature
of knowledge implies that knowledge and expert systems become unstable and
malleable, introduces a ‘radical doubt’ that creates existential anxiety and personal
meaninglessness (Giddens, 1991).
The introduction of the GIS in the work place – and especially its standardizing aspects
provoked what Giddens refers to as ‘existential anxiety’ for some individual surveyors.
The professional identity of the surveyors is in multiple ways linked to the survey
report. ‘What it means to be a surveyor’ is by the surveyors themselves associated with
being morally and professionally committed to writing high quality reports that are
valued by customers and colleagues. Thus, for surveyors, survey reports are not merely
a medium through which information is exchanged – it also reflects their professional
identity and a way of signaling to others that they take their job seriously and do it
well. Surveyors experienced the product model and the report generator that inscribed
uniformity in local practices as quite dramatic changes to what it meant to be a
surveyor:
“The consequences will be that a surveyor’s job will change from having the role of a
‘verificator’ to be a ‘data collector’ for MCC … We have 130 years of experience and
tradition to support the former – and suddenly everything is changing.” (Surveyor)
Many of the surveyors were quite frustrated and distressed by this, in particular
because they experienced that the system produced survey reports that contradicted
their professional view on how surveys should be produced in order to meet the
requirements of the customers:
“[The] main frustration seems to be in defect reporting and basically getting in all
information at the lowest level. […] [The] way we used to write reports, which was more a
top down approach as opposed to bottom up did not fit in. What you issued was a condition
of class [on an] international load line certificate. […] It was always linked to certificate,
because until they were dealt with they couldn’t have a full time certificate. And now it’s
linked to the lowest possible element, so you might – in some ways you can end up with
being stupid.” (Local manager)
In addition, MCC’s official policies and the user guidelines prohibited modifications to
survey reports produced by the GIS. One implication of this unfortunate situation is
that surveyors are caught up in a moral dilemma: should they modify survey reports in
order to deliver what they perceive as high quality and professional engineering work –
or should they blindly follow the inscribed procedure in the GIS? This illustrates well
the new risks that are unintentionally introduced by global information infrastructures
as tensions are created between their inherent ‘standardizing tendencies’ and the way
that work is conceived and traditionally represented. Contrary to the intention, this
actually threatens the quality of survey reports because the standardizing tendency of
the GIS makes reports ‘anonymous’ and therefore also introduces a gap between the
professional identity of the surveyor and the GIS.
4.3 New regimes of trust and risk
Giddens identifies trust as the main mechanism that re-embed abstract systems in local
contexts (Giddens, 1990). Important in Giddens conceptualization of trust is that trust
can be understood as a form of “faith” in abstract systems, which is not necessarily
linked to a cognitive understanding of those abstract systems (Giddens, 1990: p. 27).
The GIS enabled splitting up surveys, so that different parts of a survey job could be
conducted in different ports. This was expected to become a popular feature because it
gave customers increased flexibility for when and where to conduct annual surveys.
Especially, in more complicated surveys, which can take up to several weeks this can
be invaluable for ship owners. In MCC this feature was often referred to as
‘commenced surveys’, and prior to the GIS they were literally impossible to conduct –
or very difficult to conduct, because of the time lag and the variations in the paperbased reporting. In practice, however, even though GIS supported commenced surveys,
they were seldom carried out due to accountability. Highly institutionalized practice in
at least some of the regions of MCC, was that a survey report was always supposed to
be signed-off by one single surveyor. Hence, the surveyors seemed to be reluctant to –
and in many cases not willing to sign off a survey job that had partly been undertaken
by another surveyor:
“This got to do with accountability. We generally try not to hand unfinished things over,
because at the end of the day there is somebody’s signature on it saying this is what I have
done. It easily becomes messy if you say he did that and I did this…[…] It’s not that we
don’t trust each other at all – it just not our way of doing it.” (Surveyor)
The surveyors considered it less risky to draw upon past reports and memo’s linked to a
particular ship electronically retrievable from the GIS. However, in such cases the
surveyors often checked where the focal report or memo was written, because they
tended to perceive certain offices and regions as more reliable and more committed to
quality than others. In this way, over time, surveyors constructed different ‘taxonomies
of trust’ in order to reduce risks related to use of non-local knowledge. Thus, increased
amount of codified and standardized knowledge does not necessarily reduce the
perceived risk in surveyors’ decision making.
Initial goal
Increase uniformity and
quality of survey reporting
Standardizing aspects of the
GIS
•
•
•
Automatic generation of
reports
Recording at lowest level
MCC policies prohibiting
modification of reports
Transformation of work and
professional identity
•
•
•
•
Distributed survey jobs
Enable knowledge sharing
across local offices
•
•
Splitting up survey jobs
Recording according to a
predefined set of
checklist items
•
Access to MEMOs,
reports, and ship status
Standardized way of
recording and reporting
•
•
•
•
Reskilling
‘Radical doubt’ in
surveyors’ work: What
are the basic principles in
producing high quality
reports?
Surveyors trying to ‘reconstruct’ their selfidentity; What is the role
of a surveyor?
Introducing risks of
producing survey reports
of low quality
Problem of
accountability
Lack of systems of trust
to support distribution
Surveyors’ establishing
various informal
‘taxonomies of trust’ to
reduce risks of non-local
knowledge
Table 2: The relationship between the intentions, the standardizing aspects of the GIS
infrastructure, and transformation of work and professional identity of surveyors.
5 Some implications for the practice of global
information infrastructures
The evidence from the case of MCC suggests that implementation of global
information infrastructures involve different kinds of complexities and challenges than
usually stressed in the literature. Contemporary literature on IT infrastructure often
takes a ‘strategic alignment’ perspective and focuses on various up-front barriers and
problems related to company-wide infrastructures (e.g. Weill and Broadbent, 1998).
Thus implicitly taking it for granted that as long as these barriers are overcome, all the
anticipated changes would occur. In contrast, in the case of MCC, most of the
unexpected transformations occurred over time after the initial implementation the
GIS. A considerable amount of time and resources was spent in order to get the GIS to
work effectively in local offices after the GIS infrastructure was technically installed.
Since the GIS was introduced across different communities-of-practice in different
parts of the world, the way that it represented and organized surveyor work did not
align equally well with the variety of situations and contexts of usage. This is by no
means special for the MCC case. Rather, this can be perceived as an inherent tension in
information infrastructures, which need to be customisable and flexible in local use on
the one hand, and standardized on the other (Hanseth, Monteiro, and Hatling, 1996;
Star and Ruhleder, 1996). This underscores that global information infrastructures need
to be, not only ‘implemented’ in the sense of user training and configuration of
infrastructure, but made sense of and re-embedded in local settings. Re-embedding
requires practical problem solving as well as incremental learning and reskilling. As a
consequence, and in a similar way to groupware, global information infrastructures
seem to drift (Ciborra, 1996). However, ‘drifting’ in this case is closely linked to
individuals’ striving to re-construct their self-identity in light of the new standardizing
aspects inscribed in the GIS. Furthermore, certain uses of the GIS required new
systems of trust to be established in order to reduce the risk for each individual
surveyor. A crucial point to be emphasised here is that while the standardizing aspects
of the GIS are necessary for electronic reporting, interaction and knowledge sharing
across distance, this also implies tensions in professional identity of surveyors. In the
case of MCC this resulted in ‘radical doubt’ concerning how work should be
conducted, and thus potentially undermining initial intentions of increasing quality and
efficiency in the production of surveys. What can be concluded from this, is that
standardizing tendencies of global information infrastructures seem to be likely to
transform individuals’ identity in unexpected ways that might undermine anticipated
organizational changes expected from the implementation of a global information
infrastructure.
Thus, global information infrastructures seem to be reflexive in the sense that that risks
and unexpected transformations are inherently produced, re-produced, and diffused
through use and management of the technology itself. Global information
infrastructures like the GIS, tend to produce new risks which originate in the interplay
between the local and the global (e.g. individual surveyor’s identity and standardizing
aspects of GIS). Global information infrastructures that contradicts deep-seated
professional identity of users through ‘disembedding’ of local interaction and
knowledge, might lead to ‘personal meaninglessness’ and ‘existential anxiety’ in
individuals. This should be considered important for management as this might strike
back as poor decision making and lack of commitment. This illustrates what Beck
refers to as the boomerang effect, which captures one of the key characteristics of
reflexive modernity that “latent side effects strike back even at the centers of their
production” (Beck, 1992: p. 37). Thus, a salient point here is that different risks are
related to design and use of global information infrastructures at different
interconnected levels as summarised in the table below:
Actors
Examples of risks related to design and use of global
information infrastructures
Individual users
•
Personal meaninglessness and existential anxiety
•
Doubt in decision making; risks become
individualized
Designers and managers
of the technology
•
Difficult to assess the quality of work carried out
•
Difficult to control and foresee the effect of
change initiatives and new infrastructural
components
Organization as a whole
•
Implementation of infrastructural technologies
with ‘decreasing returns’ (e.g. skyrocketing
maintenance costs, continuos re-designs, nonworking technologies)
•
Because of globalization it becomes increasingly
important to change, however it also becomes
increasingly difficult and risky
•
Varying quality in products and services provided
Customers and other
stakeholders
Table 3: Different risks for different actors.
However, it is important to emphasize that global information infrastructures also
implies various opportunities for individuals and organizations, and that better design
strategies and careful implementations are important. The point is, however, that
information infrastructures carry with them new kinds of risks that are not entirely
related to design of these technologies as such, but also related to the way that they
integrate and standardize work practices. Exactly because they are inherently reflexive
and transform work and identities in uncontrollable and unexpected ways, traditional
ISD practices and techniques cannot tackle, let alone regain control over these
problems. Surely, information infrastructures enable new innovative ways of working,
however, to invoke Beck, “Along with the growing capacity of technical options
[Zweckrationalität] grows the incalculability of their consequences” (Beck, 1992:
p.22).
6 Acknowledgements
I’m grateful to Edoardo Iacucci and Margunn Aanestad for their thoughtful comments
and suggestions for improving various drafts and versions of this paper.
7 References
Barrett, M. and Walsham, G. 1999. Electronic Trading and Work Transformation in the
London Market. Information Systems Research, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 1-22.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society – Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. 1994. The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive
Modernization. In: Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. Reflexive Modernization –
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity
Press, pp. 1-55.
Bradley, S.P., Hausman, J.A., and Nolan, R.L. (eds.). 1993. Globalization, technology,
and competition: the fusion of computers and telecommunications in the 1990s.
Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Ciborra, C.U. 1996. Chapter 1. Introduction: What does Groupware Mean for the
Organizations Hosting it?, In: Ciborra, C.U. (ed.). Groupware and Teamwork:
invisible aid or technical hindrance? Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
Ciborra, C.U., Braa, K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., Hepsø, V.,
Ljungberg, J., Monteiro, E. and Simon, K.A. 2000. From Control to Drift.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T.H. 1998. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard
Business Review, July-August, pp. 121-131.
Earl, M.J. and Fenny, D.F. 1996. Information Systems in Global Business: Evidence
from European Multinationals. In: Earl, M.J. (ed.). Information Management.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. 1994. Living in a Post-Traditional Society. In: Beck, U., Giddens, A. and
Lash, S. Reflexive Modernization – Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the
Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 56-109.
Giddens, A. 1999. Runaway World. London: Profile Books.
Hanseth, O. and Braa, K. 2000. Globalization and ‘Risk Society’. In: Ciborra, C.U.,
Braa, K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., Hepsø, V.,
Ljungberg, J., Monteiro, E. and Simon, K.A. 2000. From Control to Drift.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41-55.
Hanseth, O., Ciborra, C.U, and Braa, K. 2002. The Control Devolution: ERP and the
Side Effects of Globalization. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information
Systems – Fall 2001, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 34-46.
Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E. and Hatling, M. 1996. Developing Information
Infrastructure: The Tension Between Standardization and Flexibility. Science,
Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 4., pp. 407-426.
Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. 1991. Applications of Global Information Technology:
Key Issues for Management. MIS Quarterly, 15(March): pp. 32-49
Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. 1999. A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating
Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no.1,
pp. 67-93.
Leidner, R. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk. Berkely: University of California Press.
Rolland, K.H. and Monteiro, E. 2002. Balancing the Local and the Global in
Infrastructural Information Systems. The Information Society Journal, Vol. 18,
No. 2., pp. 87-100.
Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. 1996. Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design
and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research, Vol. 7,
No. 1, pp. 111-134.
Walsham, G. 1998. IT and Changing Professional Identity: Micro-Studies and MacroTheory. Journal og the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 49, No. 12,
pp. 1081-1089.
Walsham, G. 2000. Globalization and IT: Agenda for Research. In: Baskerville, R.,
Stage, J., and DeGross, J.I. (eds.) 2000. Organizational and Social Perspectives
on Information Technology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 195-210.
Walsham, G. 2001. Making a world of difference: IT in a global context. Chichester:
Wiley.
Weill, P and Broadbent, M. 1998. Leveraging the New Infrastructure: How Market
Leaders Capitalize on Information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.