ENABLING OR DISABLING WITH OLD SPECIFICATIONS

A New Information System Based on Old Specifications

Raija Halonen

Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 3000, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Keywords: Information system, Specifications.

Abstract: This research concentrates on the development of an information system that was based on previously made

specifications. We study the influence of before-made specifications and discuss the difficulties in adopting

them. In our case we had several universities involved in the development project and the aim was to

implement a joint information system to be used by student affairs officials and students in universities.

Implementing information systems by several organisations is highly dependent on collaboration between

the organisations. We discuss how the collaboration was managed in our case and show what the role of

previous specifications was. We conclude that despite the specifications, the information system was

finalised.

1 INTRODUCTION

Implementing information systems has been

described in several studies. Our aim is to analyse

the importance of specifications when a new

information system (IS) is implemented in the

context of several organisations participating in the

development project. Our research concentrates on

the importance of specifications and the influence of

them in a case when the specifications were made in

a previous project by other owners and participants.

Our research shows that even if the specifications

were evaluated to be perfect enough, their influence

was not only positive on the development of the new

IS project.

The research material is gathered from an IS

project where an interorganisational IS was

implemented in the context of several universities

participating in the project. The aim of the project

was to pilot an IS in order to support the

management of student mobility between

universities. Universities represent a special

environment (Hearn, 2004). Hearn continues that

academic organisations have their own cultural and

national context, where science is practiced,

organised and managed in specific, nationally-based

institutions, with specific cultural and national

characteristics.

The biggest user group consisted of students who

wanted to perform studies in other universities as a

part of their academic degrees. However, the main

user group consisted of student affairs officials who

managed the student mobility, supporting or

rejecting rights to study.

We have chosen action research and related

methods in our study relying on Baskerville and

Wood-Harper (1988) when they evaluate that action

research is ideal for studying information systems in

practice.

Collaboration is always needed when there are

people involved in one project (Barki and Hartwick,

2001; DeChurch and Marks, 2001) but our research

shows that the importance of collaboration is not

only needed but sometimes even fundamental. When

developing an interorganisational IS the role of

collaboration even increases.

2 DEVELOPING INFORMATION

SYSTEMS

IS as a concept has many descriptions and meanings.

In this paper it is discussed a wholeness that consists

of database, users, data collection device, data

sharing devices, interpretation of information,

organisational structures and processes. Lyytinen

and Lehtinen (1987) see that the information

systems development is both a political and a

symbolic process.

483

Halonen R. (2006).

ENABLING OR DISABLING WITH OLD SPECIFICATIONS - A New Information System Based on Old Speciﬁcations.

In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ISAS, pages 483-488

DOI: 10.5220/0002491404830488

 SciTePress

The literature recognises research about

implementing information systems in distributed

organisations (e.g. Munkvold, 1999; Kotlarsky and

Oshri, 2005) but there is not much literature about IS

acquisitions made by several users representing

different organisations.

Interorganisational information systems differ

from an internal or distributed IS by allowing

information to be sent across organisational borders

(Johnston & Vitale 1988). Johnston and Vitale have

studied user participation and they note that in

intraorganisational systems involving users slows

the design but pays back during implementation.

Further, involving a cross-section of company

employees helps developing new ideas and builds

support for the new system. Johnston and Vitale

continue that most organisations are accustomed to

justifying new applications of information

technology only through cost reductions, never on

the basis of increased revenues.

Organisations are ever more developing

technological tools to be used when seeking

solutions to manage knowledge (Schultze & Boland

Jr., 2000). Modern information society presumes

that knowledge is easily and quickly transferred

between participants that need that knowledge

(Loebbecke et al. 1999). Ragowsky et al. (2000)

state that information systems are vital to the

operation and management of every organisation.

The authors have studied how to analyse the benefits

of using information systems. They found no

significant relationship between organisational

characteristics and the prevailing benefit from the

IS. Further, the authors argue that organisations

should expect to gain benefits from the information

systems e.g. cost reduction and increases in

competitive capability.

Developing and implementing an IS are

instances of organisational change (Davis & Olson

1985, Lyytinen 1987) and they often lead to changes

in work processes and structures of the personnel

(Eason 1988, Sahay & Robey 1996). Markus (2004)

has reported about three different ways to carry out

the organisational change when implementing

information systems: 1) letting users not notice the

change, 2) users noticing the new information

systems and 3) both IS and process change and users

notice that.

All shortcomings that impede successful

outcome of the development process lead to stress

and change-resistive behaviours (Lorenzi & Riley,

2003). E.g. adopting information systems may face

problems (Halonen, 2004). The quality of

specifications is essential to the IS that is to be

implemented (Lyytinen & Lehtinen, 1987). Halonen

and Heiskanen (2005) have described in their study

on managing the process of acquisition how

previously made specifications can slow down IS

procurement.

Further, specifications are connected with the

success of the IS project, even if their role can be

discussed (Wateridge, 1998). Wateridge continues

that it is too simply to suggest that a project is a

success if it is delivered on time and to budget. Later

in this paper we discuss how the specifications

influence on time.

3 RESEARCH METHOD AND

STUDY MATERIAL

This study is qualitative research enabling the

researcher to explain and understand social and

cultural phenomena. Baskerville and Wood-Harper

(1998) have assessed action research to be ideal for

studying information systems in practice. Schön

(1983) points out that action research is applicable in

different environments. Action research is

characterised by 1) its multivariate social setting, 2)

its highly interpretive assumptions about

observation, 3) intervention by the researcher, 4)

participatory observation and 5) the study of change

in the social setting (Baskerville and Wood-Harper,

1998).

Greenwood and Levin (2000) describe action

research by four definitions:

1. Action research is inquiry in which

participants and researchers cogenerate

knowledge through collaborative

communicative processes in which all

participants’ contributions are taken

seriously.

2. Action research treats the diversity of

experience and capacities within the local

group as an opportunity for the enrichment of

the researcher/action process.

3. Action research produces valid research

results.

4. Action research is context centred; it aims to

solve real-life problems in context.

In addition, an academic action-researcher

(Lallé, 2003) as a concept belongs to this study by

meaning the researcher working in an organisation

and generating new scientific knowledge. Ayas and

Zeniuck (2001) emphasised “effective collaboration

between academics and managers, thus benefiting

both practice and theory, enhancing the significance

ICEIS 2006 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

484

of research, informing both practitioners’ and

academics’ views and actions”.

Besides action research, the means of case study

(Yin, 2003) are strongly emphasised in this research.

An exemplary case study is characterised by five

features: 1) significance, 2) being “complete”, 3)

considering alternative perspectives, 4) displaying

sufficient evidence, and 5) composed in an engaging

manner (Yin, 2003). The benefit of case research is

in its extension of experience of the researcher

(Stake, 2000). Stake continues that it is essential to

choose a case that offers possibilities for learning

and getting better understanding about

implementation. Therefore this case is a pertinent

choice in this paper. Stake (2000) writes:

“Knowledge is socially constructed [---] case study

researchers assist readers in the construction of

knowledge.”

This research is described as a case bearing in

mind the idea of van der Blonk (2003) when he

states that cases are written with a purpose that

heads to the goal of the research project. He

continues that the researcher is interpreting the case

when writing it down. Writing has also been very

personal and the approach is linked with experiences

of the researcher, following the notes by van der

Blonk (2003).

The research material consists of memorandums

from meetings, emails to the project manager and a

personal diary (Coghlan and Brannick, 2002) written

by the researcher. The nature of the diary is personal

research diary in contrast of being a project protocol.

In the diary there are notes from about 350 days

including personal observations from meetings and

encounters and copied SMS’s from vendors.

In qualitative research studies the benefit of

diaries is realised when writing out the cases

(Newbury, 2001). In addition, the researcher has

made observations when working in the project. The

approach is subjective and interpretative (Walsham,

1993) because the observations and findings reflect

strongly on our personal presence. Mason (2002)

states: “Writing autobiographical and other notes,

keeping a journal, and mentally re-entering salient

moments can assist professional development and be

integral to research.”

4 EXPERIENCES FROM AN

INFORMATION SYSTEM

IMPLEMENTATION

Our empiric material comes from an implementation

project where a joint IS called MoSu was designed

and taken into use by three universities. The goal of

the project was to implement and to pilot the IS that

was to be taken into nation-wide use after the

piloting phase. The aim of the IS was to support the

student affairs officials when they managed student

mobility in their universities, and to enable students

to apply for rights to study using electronic system.

Student mobility happens when a student performs

studies as a part of his or her academic degree in

another university. This right is subject to licence.

Student mobility is increasing between

universities. In June 2003 all universities in the

country agreed that they will allow students to pass

exams in other universities as a part of their master’s

degree. In addition to that, 33 European Ministers

agreed on a unified educational system in Europe

(Bologna, 2003). That is expected to extend the

student mobility over national frontiers in the future.

Furthermore, unified studies may increase student

mobility also nation-wide.

4.1 Background of MoSu

Student mobility had been specified in another

project by other participants and the output of this

previous project was to be used when implementing

this new IS (memorandum September 12, 2003).

The targets of this previous project were to produce

specifications for an IS and to implement and pilot

the designed IS. However, due to lack of resources,

the total output was never achieved and it is out of

the scope of this paper.

The project manager wrote her diary in August,

2003: “When reading the memorandums from the

pilot phase of the IS (“Students’ mobility”) I

understood that I should have read them more often

and more carefully in order to realise what has been

done and what was to be done during the next years.

So far I could not see any pilot and I was the one to

execute the implementation of this IS to be used by

three universities in the first phase.”

The most important document that the previous

project had done was the specification of the process

of student mobility. This description of the mobility

was available and useful when starting with the

actual IS implementation. The description included

actions needed by students, student affairs officials

ENABLING OR DISABLING WITH OLD SPECIFICATIONS - A New Information System Based on Old Specifications

485

and invoicing affairs, added with issues connected

with data administration offices in universities. In

addition, also actions connected in registering into

universities and signing in the courses were

described in the process document. The document

appeared to be very useful later when the diversified

nature of managing student mobility was introduced

in several seminars and it realised the high-felt need

of MoSu that was built later.

In parallel with the MoSu project there was a

project that produced a joint application form to be

used nation-wide when applying for rights to study

in other universities. That appeared to be an effort

but the output was thanked and it acted as a basis for

the electronic form that was produced in our project.

4.2 MoSu and Specifications

The first meeting of MoSu was called in June 2003.

The new project was established in order to produce

an interorganisational IS to support student mobility

in universities. The starting point was to pilot the IS

in three universities (Alfa, Beta and Gamma) and

according to the output, enable start-ups also in other

universities nation-wide (memorandum in June

2003). A fourth university (Delta) was called in to

act as a process university. These universities had

already had mutual student mobility and they had

developed processes of their own to manage it.

Knowledge about information technology and

information systems was scarce in the project group.

IS view was introduced mainly by the vendor who

tried to explain what the decisions meant “in IS”. “If

anybody mentions ‘interface’ I’ll scream”, warned

one official in a meeting.

Further in October 2004 there was discussion

about codes in the electronic application form. The

vendor had to explain the differences between

electronic and paper files and how they had to be

considered when implementing the process into the

IS.

Occasionally several discussions about the

functionality and coding them into the process were

felt annoying by the student affairs officials: “You

may do yourself an IS that you can learn to use and

manage the mobility of students for us.” (Diary notes

from a project meeting in March, 2005).

The process of student mobility that was

specified in the earlier phase by other stakeholders

was described using the view of student affairs

offices and the process was specified to include all

actions and functions related to student mobility.

However, the current IS MoSu was designed only to

support student affairs officials and students in

applying for rights to study and to enable the

participants to follow the process. In addition, the

information concerning accepted rights and passed

studies was offered to the student affairs by MoSu.

This project produced specifications on the

application process from the perspective of the IS. In

practice, this meant that the project members had to

specify the process how the application was

managed in their universities.

The process appeared to be difficult to specify.

The project group had to discuss several times in the

meetings about the arrows in the picture and about

the principles that lead to next steps in the process.

Several times the project group had to change the

decisions that had been earlier made (e.g. the

possibility to change information concerning studies

in the target university: disabled in May 2004 and

enabled in February 2005). However, finally MoSu

was coded according to the process and it was taken

into use in spring 2005.

There were controversies about descriptions and

specifications in the project meetings because some

of the project members expected details about the

process (memorandum in June 2004) and the

implementer responded that the old specifications

cover these details. However, the more the

implementer got acquainted with the old

specifications, the bigger grew the need to specify

and update them. Deficiencies in the old

specifications caused delays in the project

(memorandum in April, 2005) and finally the

schedule was changed to meet the work load when

finalising the specifications (memorandum in May,

2005).

It also happened that when MoSu was in use, the

student affairs officials sent emails to the

administrator asking him to perform actions that

were against the process. “Could you please restore

the application No. xxxx that I rejected back to the

process?” (September 2005). The users could not do

the actions themselves because they had to follow

the procedure that was coded in the IS. With legacy

system, they had only taken the application back

from the waste paper basket.

In the project meeting in May 2005 there were

severe discussions how the invoices should be

managed in MoSu. In the old specifications it was

specified as “the system should be able to combine

the information concerning students, studies and

invoices”. However, the current opinion was that

MoSu must not be developed as an invoicing system

but to support the management of student mobility

and to enable electronic application process. This

caused changes to the old specifications. Because

ICEIS 2006 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

486

MoSu should not invoice anything, all interfaces

concerning invoicing had to be removed from the

specifications (memorandum in May 25, 2005).

In addition, also the information concerning right

to study had to be specified and formulated in order

to be saved in the database. That caused discussion

about the student’s right to see all information

concerning the studies. “Damned, sometimes this

visibility of information is ridiculous! This kind of

interaction as in this case belongs only to those

officers that are interacting. I prefer leaving the

possibility out of the system. Let’s interact with the

old phone or an ordinary email.” (Email to the

project manager February 9, 2005).

We gathered feedback from the users during the

piloting phase. The feedback was mostly very

positive: “Really much better than filling and

sending paper forms!” (Student in May, 2005).

“Thank you for the good service with student

mobility!” (Student in May, 2005). However, we got

also some negative feedback: “That was not a user-

friendly application form!” (Student in June, 2005).

5 DISCUSSION

IS literature recognises the importance of relevant

specifications on the successful IS implementation

(e.g. Lyytinen and Lehtinen, 1987). Our MoSu

project was a special case because it was to be

implemented using specifications that had been

made in an earlier project by other project

participants. Our research shows that using

specifications that are “ready-made” is not always a

positive issue but may slow down the

implementation project.

The IS was developed keeping in mind the

possible changes in the process and the users were

involved in the change process, following notes by

Markus (2004), Eason (1988) and Sahay and Robey

(1996). The interorganisational learning ladder

introduced by Ciborra and Andreu (2001) was used

when the different processes of the universities had

to be modified to meet a joint IS that was under

design.

In the beginning the project personnel thought

that the previously made specifications were good

enough to be used when implementing the IS.

However, even in the first meetings the project

manager had thought that there are deficiencies in

the specifications (Diary in August, 2003). Despite

that, the prevailing opinion was that the

specifications should be used when implementing

the new IS. The vendors were informed about the

decision and they started their work according to

that decision.

The more the vendors got involved in the

specifications, the more they were convinced that

the specifications needed to be fulfilled and

considered carefully before designing on them. This

was discussed in project meetings where changes

were made to the old specifications. However, all

these decisions based on carefully made estimations

and all these actions spent resources of the vendors.

The application process was discussed in several

project meetings and it was taken into use looking

forward to the comments from the users. The

piloting phase gave good feedback and the process

was to be changed according to the need.

The role of collaboration was emphasised in

every project meeting. E.g. the interfaces between

course information systems in universities and

MoSu were under discussion and the earlier made

specifications on interfaces were removed from the

implementation (memorandum August 24, 2005)

because the student affairs officials told that their

universities are not able to offer the information.

According to Loebbecke et al. (1999), it is

common to wait for information to be easily and

quickly transferred between participants that need

that information. This was the case also in our

project. The student affairs officials needed the

information concerning student mobility when they

made decisions on applying or rejecting rights to

study. Before this IS, the process easily lasted for

weeks.

From the feedback received from both the

student affairs officials and students we could see

that the implementation had been a success so far.

One reason for this success can be seen in the high-

felt need of both the officials and the students. Even

if the main goal was to support the student affairs

officials in managing the student mobility, also the

relief felt by the students was highly appreciated by

the project owners.

We believe that this case serves both practice and

science, giving better understanding about IS

implementations and the importance of

specifications that are used. Further, if specifications

are done in another project by other stakeholders, the

influence of them is not only positive. Our case

shows that getting acquainted with the specifications

spent resources that could have been useful

otherwise. In our case it would have been wiser to

start “on a clean table”.

However, this kind of proceeding is wise if there is

any fear of “one-vendor-trap”. We would like to

emphasise that this fear pays. Because our project

ENABLING OR DISABLING WITH OLD SPECIFICATIONS - A New Information System Based on Old Specifications

487

was decided to be based on earlier made

specifications, we had to act according to those

decisions. We want to conclude that despite those

decisions, our project appeared to be a success so

far.

REFERENCES

Ayas, K. & Zeniuk, N., 2001. Project-based Learning:

Building Communities of Reflective Practitioners.

Management Learning, vol 32, pp. 61-76.

Barki, H. & Hartwick, J., 2001. Interpersonal Conflict and

Its Management in Information System Development.

MIS Quarterly vol 25, no. 2, pp. 195-228.

Baskerville, R. & Wood-Harper, A. T., 1998. Diversity in

information systems action research methods.

European Journal of Information Systems, vol 7, no.

2, pp. 90-107.

Van der Blonk, H., 2003. Writing case studies in

information systems research. Journal of Information

Technology, vol 18:45-52.

Bologna, 2003. http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/

(Accessed October 12, 2005).

Ciborra, C.U. & Andreu, R. 2001. Sharing knowledge

across boundaries. Journal of Information Technology,

vol 16, pp. 73-81.

Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T., 2002. Doing action research

in your own organization, Sage Publications, London.

Davis, G.B. & Olson, M.H., 1985. Management

information systems: Conceptual foundations,

structure and development. Mc-Graw-Hill Book

Company, New York, pp. 561-601.

DeChurch, L.A. & Marks, M.A., 2001. Maximizing the

Benefits of Task Conflict: The Role of Conflict

Management. The International Journal of Conflict

Management, vol 12, no. 1, pp. 4-22.

Eason, K., 1988. Information Technology and Organisa-

tional Change, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 107-

222.

Greenwood, D.J. & Levin, M., 2000. Reconstructing the

relationships between universities and society through

action research. In N K Denzin &Y S Lincoln (eds.),

Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications

Inc., Thousand Oaks.

Halonen, R., 2004. Resisting technical change – three case

studies. International Journal of Innovation and

Technology Management, vol 1, no. 3, pp. 1-15.

Halonen, R. & Heiskanen, A., 2005. Configuring

cooperation: a reflective learning history. Reflective

Practice, vol 6, no. 3, pp. 379-391.

Hearn, J., 2004. Organization Violations in Practice: A

Case Study in a University Setting. Culture and

Organization, vol 9, no. 4, pp. 253-273.

Johnston, H.R. & Vitale, M.R., 1988. Creating

Competitive Advantage with Interorganizational

Information Systems’, MIS Quarterly, vol 12, no. 2,

pp. 153-165.

Kotlarsky, J. & Oshri, I.., 2005. Social ties, knowledge

sharing and successful collaboration in globally

distributed system development projects. European

Journal of Information Systems, vol 14, no. 1, pp. 37-

48.

Lallé, B., 2003. The Management Science Researcher

Between Theory and Practice. Organizational Studies,

vol 24, pp. 1097-1114.

Loebbecke, C., Van Fenema, P.C. & Powel, P., 1999. Co-

Opetition and Knowledge Transfer. The DATA BASE

for Advances in Information Systems vol 30, no. 2, pp.

16-25.

Lorenzi, N.M. & Riley, R.T., 2003. Organizational issues

= change. International Journal of Medical

Informatics, vol 69, pp. 197-203.

Lyytinen, K., 1987. Different Perspectives on Information

Systems: Problems and Solutions. ACM Computing

Surveys vol 19, no. 1, pp. 5-46.

Lyytinen, K. & Lehtinen, E., 1987. Seven mortal sins of

systems work. In Docherty et al. (eds) System Design

for Human Development and Productivity:

Participation and Beyond, Elsevier Science Publishers

B.V., Amsterdam.

Markus, M.L., 2004. Technochange management: using

IT to drive organizational change. Journal of

Information Technology vol 19, pp. 4-20.

Mason, J., 2002. Researching Your Own Practice: The

Discipline of Noticing, Routledge Falmer, London.

Munkvold, B.E., 1999. Challenges of IT implementation

for supporting collaboration in distributed

organizations. European Journal of Information

System, vol 8, pp. 260-272.

Newbury, D., 2001. Diaries and Fieldnotes in the Research

Process. Research Issues In Art Design and Media, no.

1. http://www.biad.uce.ac.uk/research/riadm/ issueOne

/default.asp (Accessed October 15, 2005).

Ragowsky, A., Ahituv, N. & Neumann, S., 2000. The

Benefits of Using Information Systems. Communica-

tions of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 303-311.

Sahay, S. & Robey, D., 1996. Organizational Context,

Social Interpretation, and the Implementation and

Consequences of Geographic Information Systems.

Accounting, Management & Information Technology

vol 6, no. 4, pp. 255-282.

Schultze, U. & Boland, Jr. R.J., 2000. Knowledge

management technology and the reproduction of

knowledge work practices. Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, vol 9, no. 2-3, pp. 193-212.

Schön, D.A., 1983. The reflective practitioner, Basic

Books, New York

Stake, R.E., 2000. Case studies. In N K Denzin & Y S

Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research,

Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Walsham, G., 1993. Interpreting information systems in

organizations, Wiley, Chichester.

Wateridge, J., 1998. How can IS/IT projects be measured

for success? International Journal of Project

Management, vol 16, no. 1, pp. 59-63.

Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research. Research Methods,

SAGE Publications, London.

ICEIS 2006 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

488