skip to main content
10.1145/2664591.2664597acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Misfit and Reinvention in Information Systems: The Case of a South African Metropolitan Municipality

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Achieving alignment between business and IT represents a desired but mostly unattainable goal for large organisations. While the adoption of vanilla ERP solutions offers a variety of advantages, organisations generally fail to align such artefacts with every aspect of their operations. An important symptom of such failure is that users of these systems experience task-technology misfit in the context of their day-to-day organisational work. In a limited number of studies IS (Information Systems) scholars have investigated users' behavioural responses to experiences of misfit. This study extends that line of research by investigating the adoption of reinvention practices by users as they attempt to cope with or overcome misfit. The paper reports the analysis of data collected through a survey involving 794 users as part of a cross-sectional, multi-method case study. Findings suggest that experiences of misfit trigger the adoption of reinvention practices which, while creating data-related risks, promote flexibility in an IS.

References

  1. Steven Alter. Defining information systems as work systems: implications for the IS field. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5):448--469, October 2008. ISSN 0960-085X. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2008.37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Auditor General of South Africa. Consolidated General Report on the Local Government Audit Outcomes 2009-10 {Online}, 2011. URL http://www.agsa.co.za/audit-reports/MFMA.aspx {15 February 2013}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Auditor General of South Africa. Consolidated General Report on the Local Government Audit Outcomes 20010-11 {Online}, 2012. URL http://www.agsa.co.za/audit-reports/MFMA.aspx {15 February 2013}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D. E. Avison and Guy Fitzgerald. Information systems development: methodologies, techniques & tools. McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN 0077114175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Michel Avital and Dov Te'eni. From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information Systems Journal, 19(4):345--367, July 2009. ISSN 13501917.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Bijan Azad and Nelson King. Enacting computer workaround practices within a medication dispensing system. European Journal of Information Systems, 17 (3):15, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Henri Barki, Ryad Titah, and Céline Boffo. Information system use--related activity: an expanded behavioural conceptualization of individual-level information system use. Information Systems Research, 18(2):173--192, June 2007. ISSN 10477047. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Anne Beaudry and Alain Pinsonneault. Understanding user responses to information technology: a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3):493--524, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Marie-Claude Boudreau and Daniel Robey. Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16(1):3--18, January 2005. ISSN 1047-7039. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. João Álvaro Carvalho. Information System ? Which One Do You Mean ? Information Systems, (September 1999):259--280, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P Checkland. Information systems and systems thinking: time to unite? International Journal of Information Management, 8(4):239--248, December 1988. ISSN 02684012. doi: 10.1016/0268-4012(88)90031-X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Peter Checkland and Sue Holwell. Information, Systems and Information Systems, making sense of the field. Wiley, Chichester, 1998. ISBN 0-47195820-4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D De Vaus. Surveys in social research. Social Research Today. Routledge, London, 4 edition, 1995. ISBN 9780415268585.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. William H DeLone and Ephraim R McLean. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1):60--95, 1992. ISSN 10477047. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. William H DeLone and Ephraim R McLean. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4):9--30, 2003. ISSN 07421222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Dale L Goodhue and Ronald L Thompson. Task-technology fit and individual performance. Management Information Systems, 19(2):213--236, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ioannis Ignatiadis and Joe Nandhakumar. The effect of ERP system workarounds on organizational control: an interpretivist case study. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21(2):59--90, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kailash Joshi and Arun Rai. Impact of the quality of information products on information system users' job satisfaction: an empirical investigation. Information Systems Journal, 10(4):323--345, October 2000. ISSN 1350-1917. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2575.2000.00087.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. P Kanellis, M Lycett, and R J Paul. Evaluating business information systems fit: from concept to practical application. European Journal of Information Systems, 8(1):65--76, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Panagiotis Kanellis and Ray J Paul. User behaving badly: phenomena and paradoxes from an investigation into information systems misfit. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(2):64--91, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Katherine C Kellogg, Wanda J Orlikowski, and Joanne Yates. Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1):22--44, 2006. doi: 10.1287/orsc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. John Leslie King and Kalle Lyytinen. Reach and Grasp. MIS Quarterly, 28(4):539--551, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Wanda J. Orlikowski. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3):398--427, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wanda J. Orlikowski and C.Suzanne Iacono. Research commentary: desperately seeking the 'IT' in IT research - a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2):121--134, 2001. ISSN 10477047. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. N. Pollock. When is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(4):496--514, October 2005. ISSN 0162-2439. doi: 10.1177/0162243905276501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Republic of South Africa. National Treasury. Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act (Act No. 56 of 2003). Government Gazette no. 35500, 13 July, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Siew Kien Sia and Christina Soh. An assessment of packageâĂŞorganisation misalignment: institutional and ontological structures. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(5):568--583, October 2007. ISSN 0960-085X. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. C Soh and S Sia. An institutional perspective on sources of ERP package-organisation misalignments. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4): 375--397, December 2004. ISSN 09638687. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2004.11.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Diane M. Strong and O Volkoff. Understanding organization-enterprise system fit: a path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34 (4):731--756, 2010. ISSN 02767783. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Y. Wand and R. Weber. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11):1282--1292, 1990. ISSN 00985589. doi: 10.1109/32.60316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Robert K. Yin. Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 4 edition, 2009. ISBN 1412960991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Misfit and Reinvention in Information Systems: The Case of a South African Metropolitan Municipality

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SAICSIT '14: Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientist and Information Technologists Annual Conference 2014 on SAICSIT 2014 Empowered by Technology
      September 2014
      359 pages
      ISBN:9781450332460
      DOI:10.1145/2664591

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate187of439submissions,43%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader