Fon Sundaravej
Toward a Comprehensive Framework for MIS Research
By Richard L. Nolan and James C. Wetherbe
The article proposes a comprehensive framework for MIS in order to accurately
define the domain of MIS research. The reason to do this is because it is difficult to
precisely define the scope of MIS area. MIS research can be broadly defined because of
the transformation process of MIS or the environmental interaction of MIS with other
disciplines. Five subsystems, which are hardware, software, database, procedures, and
personnel, interact with each other to transform data into information. The transformation
process can also be directed at the interaction among four output subsystems, which are
transaction processing, information reporting, decision support, and programmed
decisions. Additionally, the transformation of organizational inputs into outputs is
accomplished through five major environmental subsystems, which are goals and values,
technical, structural, managerial, and psychosocial subsystems. The diverse distribution
of subsystem interaction, as a result, illustrates why MIS research has involved scholars
from diverse academic and practitioner backgrounds.
This article is written at almost the same time as the Ives et al. (1980)’s article of
“A Framework for Research in Computer-Based Management Information Systems.”
Like Ives et al. (1980)’s article, this article is trying to define a boundary of MIS
discipline and propose a guideline for the future research direction in this area. The
authors of this article conduct the same research methodology as Ives et al. (1980) by
studying many dissertations within a certain period of time and classifying them to
different categories according to their research framework. Then, they use the result of
their study to represent the trend of MIS research areas at that time.
Summarily, we learn two things from these both articles. First, both articles
reflect a trend of MIS research when the MIS is still in a young age. Because MIS was
such a fairly new research area, prior researchers tried to build a scope for subsequent
researchers to follow. And this factor generates the second insight. Prior researchers tried
to make the MIS discipline to be different and unique from other disciplines and helped
MIS young researchers learning which areas should be considered a MIS research area
and which should not. Previous researchers helped building foundation or domain of IS
research. They might not want to see this new discipline combine with other academic
communities and become extinct later on.
IS 7890: IS Research Seminar
Spring 2006