Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Interorganizational Information Systems (IOIS)
Stefan Schellhammer
University of Münster
[email protected]
Abstract
The development of interorganizational information
systems over long timescales has not been of prime
interest to IS scholars in the past. Recent studies revealed the need to account for the resilience of IOIS
over extended periods of time. While these IOIS persist
over time they are not free of any change. This seemingly paradoxical coexistence of change and persistence is at the core of this paper. A theoretical apparatus is needed that may account for both phenomena
over extended periods of time. Against this backdrop
the notion of evolution of IOIS is explored. The paper
proposes the theoretical concepts of “natural drift”
and “structural coupling” as a promising venue for an
evolutionary perspective on IOIS. The paper finds that
conceiving IOIS as structurally coupled systems offers
a new and promising venue to account for long-term
phenomena in IOIS studies.
1. Introduction
Since its inception the IS discipline is deeply interested in the interconnection between advancement of
information technology and organizational change. For
instance, [1] identify different conceptions of causality
in this interrelationship. So far research on information
systems and interorganizational information systems
(IOIS) in particular did not put much emphasis on studies covering long timescales. Most scholars focus
their studies on the timescale of single projects. In a
review on IOS-literature [2] classify articles into three
categories: (1) factors influencing organizational adoption of IOS, (2) impact of IOS on governance structures, and (3) organizational consequences of IOS
adoption. As such these studies take a snapshot in the
life of the organization that most likely represents a
rupture or major change. This is often the reason for
studying the episode in the first place. In fact, because
fast technological progression diminishes the value of
past research [2] call for the development of theoretical
explanations that fit new technologies. This demonstrates the difficulty to apply existing theoretical
frameworks to the study of phenomena evolving over
large periods of time.
Building on the aforementioned literature review
([2]) [3] observe that IOIS literature similar to information systems research (ISR) is concerned with the
adoption and implementation of systems over short
timescales like that of single projects. The authors argue for an evolutionary perspective on IOIS. Their own
empirical evidence as well as the continuing existence
of IOIS reported in the literature (e.g. [4], [5]) motivates this attempt. This continuing existence of IOIS is
surprising given the generally perceived fast and profound changes in information technology. In line with
[3] we can thus concede that some (IO)IS show a surprising degree of resilience in the light of fast-changing
environments. Furthermore, IOIS are of particular interest in this regard as IOIS incorporate two or more
separate organizations that need to maintain their
alignment through time. Despite their resilience IOIS
are not fixed artifacts but change considerably over the
years. Thus, phenomena of change and stability seem
to be coimplicated into the same object. Consequently,
[3] called for a theory capable to account for the “simultaneous resilience of IOIS and their ability to
evolve” (ibid p.2).
This paper aims to contribute to this discussion by
proposing the theoretical concept of “structural coupling” as a promising venue for an evolutionary perspective on IOIS. Although not in the scope of this paper
such undertaking may ultimately contribute to an evolutionary theory of IOIS.
[6] find that empirical studies often focus on the intentional aspects of using a technology. They argue
that the continuing use of technology is explained in
these theories by the continuing existence of factors
that already triggered the initial adoption decision.
Such “inertia theories” as they term them are built on
the assumption that ongoing use of technology can be
interpreted as a continuous renewal of the decision to
use a system. On the contrary, theories emphasizing
the habitual use of information systems perceive ongoing use as non-reflective, automatic performance of
actors due to learning ([7]). Once established behavior
is performed automatically (habitual) change of the
1530-1605/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
usage of IS does not occur as long as the context remains stable.
Along with [6] this paper argues that both streams
of theory are inappropriate for the explanation of the
longevity of IOIS reported on in the literature. It aims
to extend the work of [3] by investigating evolutionary
theories for alternative concepts that may inform IOIS
research covering large periods of time. In doing so,
the notions of “natural drift” and “structural coupling”
are discussed which may enable scholars to adopt an
evolutionary perspective. As such IOIS would be conceived as “structurally coupled systems”. The implications of the underlying autopoietic theory as well as the
notion itself are evaluated in regard to studying IOIS.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the subject
of interest in terms of long-term studies is laid out. In
this regard, evolutionary theories are identified as a
possible candidate among other theories of change deserving further consideration. The study by [3] is presented more fully as it represents an attempt to research
the evolution of IOIS. Next, the approach and conception of “evolutionary” theory in the literature is presented. This is followed by a closer investigation of the
origins of modern evolutionary theory and frequent
misunderstandings of the core concept of “natural selection”. Subsequently, Autopoiesis and “natural drift”
are introduced. Next the implication of such a conception for research on IOIS is sketched.
2. Long-term studies in IOIS-research
This section engages with what is meant by large
timescales in the IS literature. It motivates the use of
evolutionary theory for the mentioned purposes. After
evaluating other theories of change it concludes that
evolutionary theories seem to offer the required characteristics and therefore deserve further investigation.
The example of [3] is presented more fully as its shortcomings motivate the remainder of the paper.
2.1. The meaning of ‘long-term’
This paper seeks to contribute on theoretical
grounds to studies that cover several decades. Few examples of studies with such large timescales can be
found. Recently, [3] reported on the evolution of an
electronic ordering system in the pharmaceutical distribution industry. Their study covers a time period of
over 25 years. The seminal paper by [5] on the evolution of airline reservation systems equally covers several decades. Likewise, the study by [4] on Baxter’s
ASAP system traces back the origins of the system
until the 1960s. This paper argues that an appropriate
theoretical framework is needed that enables the re-
searcher to examine change, adaptation, and evolution
of an IOIS.
2.2. Theories of change
The above-mentioned studies have in common the
claim to study the evolution of an IOIS. They engage
with phenomena of change and adaptation taking place
over decades. The question is why an “evolutionary”
perspective is appropriate to study such phenomena.
The following will present a brief overview of the literature on change.
In organizational science (OS) numerous theories
have emerged to make sense of phenomena of organizational change ([8]). [8] distinguishes these along
time into three eras in which scholars adopt different
conceptions of change and its subjects. During the first
era (1950-1970s) organizational change is studied as a
difference between states and forms. Change is almost
equated with growth and development. Theoretical
explanations seek to identify causal relationships.
Next, (era II beginning of 1980s) the process of change
is examined more closely. It is conceptualized as a
frame-breaking, revolutionary event. Change is conceived as an episode with a starting date and an enddate. In the third era (since 1990s) the view of change
without a clear beginning or end is becoming prevalent. Scholars begin questioning the opposition between continuity and change. Both are conceived as the
outcome of the same processes.
By investigating the nature of change different
types like continuous and episodic change are analyzed
([9]). [10] categorize organizational theories of change
into four families of ideal-type theories of change: (1)
Life Cycle, (2) Teleology, (3) Dialectic, and (4) Evolution. From these families the authors derive different
motors of change that are combinable. Due to the
closeness of the units of analysis in information systems research (ISR) and OS this represents a pool of
theoretical conceptions IS scholars draw upon.
Life-Cycle theories conceive the change process of
an entity as a progression through sequential stages or
phases. An underlying logic regulates the process. The
prescribed sequence of stages or trajectory leads to a
final state. Life-cycle theories of organizational development borrow from biology and claim that like organisms organizations evolve from one stage to another
based on their genetic code.
Teleology holds that the “development of an organizational entity proceeds toward a goal or an end
state.” ([10] p. 515 f.). While the entity is in interaction
with others it constructs an envisioned state (goal) and
then takes action to reach it. Based on monitoring the
progress the entity can reformulate the goals. This
leads to a repetitive sequence of goal formulation, im-
2
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
plementation, and reformulation of goals. In contrast to
life-cycle theories there is no prescribed sequence of
events. Change is judged on the basis whether the entity has moved closer toward reaching its goal or not.
Because the goal is socially constructed reaching the
goal does not terminate the process but may lead to the
setting of new goals. The process starts from anew.
In Dialectical Theory the organizational entity itself
and its environment consist of colliding and contradicting groups and interests. All of which compete for domination and control. “[…] stability and change are
explained by reference to the balance of power between opposing entities.” (ibid, p. 517). The continuing
status quo represents stability while the resolution of
conflict either by one group wielding superior power
toward the other or by the creation of a mutually acceptable synthesis represents change.
[10] use two analytical dimensions to classify the
four ideal-type theories. The “unit of change” being
one of them differentiates the (1) internal development
of a single organizational entity and (2) the relationships between numerous entities. Life-Cycle Theory
and teleological theories operate on the level of a single entity. In both cases the change process is immanent to the entity. External factors may take influence
but are considered secondary to the internal developments. Consequently, both theories do no seem to be
valuable candidates for a theoretical framework supporting longitudinal research on IOIS on the grounds
that they are already inappropriate to the unit of analysis considering the definition of IOIS. The second dimension concerns the “mode of change”. The prescribed mode of change is contrasted with the constructed mode of change. While the former tends to
feature first-order or gradual change the latter is portrayed as tending towards second-order or revolutionary change. The authors categorize teleological and
dialectical theories as featuring a constructive mode of
change. In a prescribed mode of change the development of entities that is their change process is taking
place in prescribed sequence or in accord with a preestablished program. In contrast to that, a constructive
mode features unprecedented change. [10] conceive
life-cycle and evolutionary theories as featuring a prescribed mode of change. Although the authors acknowledge that these only represent ideal-type motors
that are combinable and may appear at various stages it
may become clearer in the later part of the paper that a
prescribed mode of change is not easily attributed to
evolutionary theories.
In the remainder of this paper evolutionary theories
take center stage. The alternative Dialectical Theory is
dismissed for several reasons: First, its emphasis on
conflicts of interest seems to reduce IOIS to political
systems on the cost of the IT-artifact that is of special
interest to ISR. Second, the previously cited studies
attribute special importance to the environment surrounding the IOIS. Here, the environment would only
come into play when considered as an opposing force
or a potential for conflict. This does not conform to the
reported findings. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that Dialectical Theory may contribute to the
understanding of episodes of conflict in the development of IOIS.
2.3. Investigating the evolution of IOIS
One of the previously mentioned studies suggested
and investigated explicitly the notion of evolution of
IOIS. The intent of this subsection is to evaluate the
approach and ultimately identify some shortcomings
that motivate the consideration of an alternative conception of IOIS proposed later in the paper.
The study by [3] reports on the development of an
electronic ordering system between pharmaceutical
wholesalers and pharmacies in Australia. On a theoretical level, their paper is motivated to provide an empirically grounded theory capable to account for the simultaneous resilience of IOIS and their ability to
evolve. For that purpose [3] traced back the origins of
the electronic ordering system over the last 25 years.
This paper aims to extend the work of [3] by
investigating evolutionary theories for alternative
concepts that may inform IOIS research covering large
periods of time. The quest to seek for an alternative
explanation to is based on two aspects of their study:
First, the authors require an extensive theoretical
arsenal in order to simultaneously account for
resilience and evolvement ([11]). An IOIS is conceived
as an aligned constellation of practices ([3]). This
definition emerges from the combination of Practice
Theory ([12]) and Structuration Theory ([13]).
Structures and patterns are the authors key concepts. In
line with Structuration Theory the structures are
reproduced
in
communities-of-practice
by
practitioner’s actions. Giddens notion of duality of
structure allows for a simultaneous incorporation of
resilience (structures enable/contrain actions) and
change (actors may change their patterns and thereby
alter the reproduction of structures). Thus, the
alignment of practices in an IOIS is a continuous sociotechnical achievement. The combination of multiple
theories increases the complexity of the theoretical
framework. The theoretical framework is threatened by
potential incommensurabilities between combined
theories. An alternative framework commanding the
same explanatory power with less theoretical
complexity would therefore be favourable.
Second, the employed mechanism of evolutionary
change is not easily applied to the study of IOIS in
3
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
general. The authors apply [14] notion of colonial
systems to explain the evolutionary mechanisms of
change found in their data. Although the claim that the
notion of colonial systems and communities-ofpractice resonate well might be valid the authors
acknowledge that IOIS involve several communitiesof-practice. The work of Porra however does not
directly support an explanation of the evolution of
interconnected colonial systems. As the authors
concede “the evolution and continued persistence of
IOIS necessitates that the multiple communities-ofpractice linked by the IOIS must evolve to some degree
on a coordinated trajectory.” ([3] p. 14). Consequently,
the notion of colonial systems is left aside in the
remainder of the paper. An alternative evolutionary
mechanisms of change in IOIS is needed.
3. Evolutionary theories
The previous section found evolutionary theories
were found to be potential candidates. This section
engages more deeply with evolutionary theories and
aims to provide an understanding about what “evolutionary” means. As such it provides a general characterization of evolutionary theories that will be extended
in the following parts of the paper.
Giddens ([13]) proposes four characteristics that an
evolutionary theory for the social sciences should meet
in order to separate it from being a synonym for development or change (ibid, p. 231). First, the term “evolution” got its specific meaning in biology and should
thus exhibit some conceptual continuity when applied
to social systems. Second, [13] argues against scholars
conceiving social evolutionism as being merely a progression of change. In particular he requires that a mechanism of change needs to be specified. Third, a sequence of stages in development should be specifiable
in which the mechanism of change accounts for the
entity moving from one stage to another. [13] cautions
against thinking of stages in terms of progress for instance in a moral sense. Instead, he holds that these
stages may be arranged in the form of specific or general evolution or a combination of both. The former
creates diversity through adaptive modification while
the latter conceives higher forms arising from and surpassing lower. The fourth requirement refers to the
identification of a mechanism of change that is applicable to the whole spectrum of human history (p. 233).
This paper follows Giddens’ argumentation in regard
to these characteristics. Consequently, it opposes the
use of the descriptor “evolutionary” for long-term studies in general. Giddens is quite critical regarding the
applicability of any evolutionary model to human history. Due to space restrictions this paper cannot engage
thoroughly with his argumentation. For the purposes of
this paper it suffices to state that the scope of the envisioned theoretical framework in this paper is much
more limited than the one in Giddens Structuration
Theory. Giddens seeks to develop a grand theory of
social systems. This paper seeks to explain the development of IOIS over large timescales. For that purposes this paper analyzes the explanatory potential of evolutionary theories.
In regard to organization science [8] finds that the
evolutionary perspective becomes prominent in the late
1990s (ibid, p. 135). She observes that some authors
use this perspective as a framework within which other
theories can be included. Others refer to phenomena as
evolutionary when talking about long-term organizational change. [15] rather broadly define the evolution
of interorganizational relations as “a process of cumulative change involving organizations that are somehow related.” (ibid, p. 313). [16] distinguish three foci
of evolutionary theories of organizations: (1) entities
(e.g. organizations, ecosystems, etc.), (2) processes
(e.g. replication, mutation, competition, random drift,
etc.), and (3) events (e.g. transformation, speciation,
extinction, etc.). In this sense they conceive organizational evolution as being “concerned with the events in
the histories of these entities that are produced by these
processes.” (ibid, p. 4). In accordance with [16] Demers ([8]) distinguishes the genealogical and the ecological approach in evolutionary research. The former
conceives the organization as a bundle of routines that
serve a similar function to genes in biological evolution (e.g. [17]). The combination and reproduction of
these routines account for change and continuity over
time. The latter approach (e.g. [18]) may be characterized as an extension of the population ecology approach by [19]. It focuses on the level of multiple organizations which internal variations are selected
through competition.
The motor of change in evolutionary theory is
widely conceived as “repetitive sequences of variation,
selection, and retention events among entities in a designated population.” ([10] p. 521). Although [17] concede that some authors contrast “evolutionary” with
“revolutionary” change, evolutionary approaches do
not per se preclude the existence of both incremental
and revolutionary change. The competition for scarce
resources in the inhabited environment is the driving
force of this cycle.
The following section goes back to the biological
roots of evolutionary theory. At this stage it is sufficient to say that evolutionary theories are primarily
applied in long-term studies. However, this is not a
prerogative for its applicability. Furthermore, it is applied to entire populations and single entities. Evolutionary theories feature incremental as well as punc-
4
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
tuated or revolutionary changes. The environment in
which an entity operates is of major importance as a
trigger or selective force.
4. Natural selection in modern evolutionary theories
This section will introduce the concept of “natural
selection” and its implications. The following section
will then introduce natural drift as an alternative to
natural selection.
Darwins theory consists of three conclusions that
rest upon five facts ([20] p. 384).
1. Species exhibit an extraordinary fertility that
would lead to an exponential growth if all born
individuals would procreate themselves.
2. Despite some fluctuations the populations are
rather stable.
3. The natural resources are limited.
As a result the individuals of a population need to
be engaged in a constant struggle for life which only a
small fraction survives.
4. Not two individuals are identical. Each population exhibits an immense variety.
5. A large part of this variation is heritable.
The struggle for life is not contingent but depends
on the heritable constitution of the surviving individuals. Over time this process of natural selection leads to
continuous changes of the population. That is to evolution. Thus, evolution is explained as an incremental
adaptation to the immediate environment. Adaptation
is regarded as the primary mechanism of change.
Herbert Spencer significantly influenced the public
perception of Darwins theory. Mayr views his influence as being all negative ([20] p. 307). Social Darwinists as Spencer hold that humans and their institutions
can be studied like any other part of the natural world
of which they are part. Nature is conceived as a fierce
and relentless competition in which only the strongest
survives. It is a continuing struggle for existence. This
is probably best described by the quote mostly attributed to Spencer as the “survival of the fittest” and
consequently the elimination of the weak. Porra ([14])
states that information systems research is still primarily based on the Spencerian idea of progress.
In line with scholars of the new evolutionary synthesis ([20]), Gould states: “natural selection is a
theory of local adaptation to changing environments. It
proposes no perfecting principles, no guarantee of general improvement; …” ([21] p. 45). However, Mayr
acknowledges that the term “natural selection” is equivocal as it presupposes someone doing the selection.
Furthermore, Darwin, although opposing such a view,
used the Spencerian metaphor in later editions himself
([20] p. 416).
The process of change in evolutionary models of
change is generally made up by three states: Variation,
Selection, and Retention ([10]; [18]). In the first stage
variations occur for various reasons. In the second
phase the environment selects entities that best use the
resource base of an environmental niche ([10]). Thus,
the scarcity of resources puts competitive pressure onto
the entities. Retention, the last state, occurs when selected variations are preserved or reproduced.
Thus, evolutionary theory is a promising candidate
for the purpose of this paper. It is able to account for
both resilience and change (variation).
Maturana and Varela caution against the use of the
wording “natural selection” as it is easily associated
with a deliberate selection process ([22]). For instance,
that the environment selects the variations to occur. As
a result they propose the notion of “natural drift” supposing it is less misleading. Furthermore, it resonates
well with central concepts of their autopoietic theory.
In regard to the biological field Maturana and
Mpodozis ([23] p. 262) argue that modern evolutionary
theory bases on four assumptions:
(1) Adaptation is a relation of operational congruence of the living system and the medium
(environment). Adaptation is variable. It is
therefore possible to speak about organisms as
being better adapted than others.
(2) The features of the medium are preexisting to
the living systems encountering them. Thus,
evolution occurs as a process of adaptation to
a preexisting medium. However, the same is
not always assumed for niches.
(3) The evolutionary process is mainly a process
of genetic change. Phenotypic changes are the
result of genetic changes.
(4) The major force of genetic adaptive changes
is the “selective pressure” imposed by the environment upon the organisms.
The authors question the predisposition of conceiving natural selection as the mechanism creating change
and adaptation (ibid, p. 288). By conceiving adaptation
as a basic condition of living they propose to view differential survival as the result of the evolutionary
process and not its generating mechanism. In other
words modern evolutionary theory regards adaptation
of an entity to its environment as a relation of more or
less efficient exploitation of that environment. The
continuous improvement of this adaptation leads over
time to the observed diversity in the ecosystem. Natural selection, understood as an external, environmental
selective pressure onto the entities is conceived as the
generative mechanism of evolutionary change. The
authors propose to conceive adaptation and change as
5
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
basic constitutive conditions of living entities. Based
on the theory of autopoiesis they lay out the resulting
notion of natural drift that ultimately underpins their
argumentation.
The aim of this paper is not to devise a new evolutionary theory but to investigate evolutionary theories
for alternative concepts that may inform IOIS research
covering large periods of time. The following section
introduces the theoretical background of “natural drift”
more fully. Its concepts of structural coupling along
with natural drift will later be applied to the study of
evolution of IOIS.
5. Autopoiesis and natural drift
An understanding of the notion of “natural drift”
presupposes an understanding of the basic elements of
the theory of autopoiesis. This section will therefore
briefly sketch the main arguments and concepts of autopoietic theory and then engage with the resulting
conceptualization of evolution as natural drift. A more
comprehensive introduction to autopoiesis and its implications for ISR can be found in [24].
Autopoiesis is the answer provided by Maturana
and Varela ([25]) to the question what makes a living
system “living”? Instead of focusing on lists of characteristics (e.g. reproduceability) like previous attempts
did, the two argued that living systems like for instance
a single cell are “living” because of their selfproducing or autopoietic organization. The components
of a cell participate in processes of production that continuously produce these very components. Autopoietic
systems are autonomous in the sense that they do not
depend on others for their own production. Living systems are structure-determined systems ([23] p. 264).
Maturana and Varela ([25]) distinguish organization and structure of an autopoietic system. The organization is the configuration of relations between the
components that define its class identity. Structure refers to the actual way in which it is realized in a singular entity. Although an entity undergoes structural
changes the system still conserves its class identity.
Everything happening in an autopoetic system or to it
is determined by its structure and the structural dynamics at that instant. “Any external agent impinging on
them only triggers in them structural changes determined in them.” ([23] p. 264). It would thus be wrong
to assume that the environment determines or specifies
what the changes of the system will be. However, evolutionary theories and empirical evidence suggests that
organisms appear to be successfully adapted to their
environment (e.g. giraffes).
Structural coupling represents Maturana and Varela’s reformulation of the idea of adaptation. Mingers
provides the example of a person interacting with a
computer program to illustrate this aspect ([24], p. 45).
The person may interact with the computer by typing
in information and getting appropriate responses. The
computer is structure-determined. Its structure, and that
of the software, determines what triggers it. In other
words only pressing the appropriate buttons in a particular sequence will lead to the desired outputs. Over
time the person will become attuned to the system.
That is, it is not necessary any longer to reflect on how
to press the right buttons instead the focus shifts to the
task. The person is becoming structurally coupled.
An observer distinguishes the entity against some
background (environment). The environment is what
an observer distinguishes as surrounding it. Thus, it is
not determined by the entity but by the observer. It
exists for the external observer. The entity only encounters the medium in those aspects and dimensions
that its own structure specifies. This domain of existence is called an entity’s niche. The observer cannot
directly observe the niche of an entity but only describe
it relative to the entity. The niche is realized moment
after moment by the entity as a realization of its autopoiesis.
During the history of continuous interactions between the entity and its environment it needs to maintain its autopoiesis or it would disintegrate. The structural changes in the entity potentially triggered by its
environment are such that they allow a continuing autopoiesis in that environment. As a result the entity
becomes structurally coupled to its environment. This
process is referred to as structural ontogenetic drift of
an individual living system. “During its ontogenetic
structural drift, the living system and its domain of
existence change together congruently.” ([23], p. 266).
Thus, the domain of existence of the entity does not
preexist to the actual living of the living system. Both,
environment and entity are coupled and represent mutual perturbations that may trigger structural changes
([22]). Maturana and Mpodozis term this a costructural drift of a living system and its medium in the
flow of their interactions ([23] p. 267).
In this conception other entities or organisms are
part of the environment. Multiple entities may engage
in recursive interactions with one another. One
represents a perturbation to the other. The perturbation
may in turn trigger structural changes. This gives rise
to an ontogenetic structural codrift as a flow of congruent coherent structural changes in each of them. The
entities reciprocally adapt to the other until one separates or disintegrates. Maturana calls this emergent
domain of interlocked conducts a consensual domain
([26], p. 47). One example of structural coupling and
the resulting consensual domain is a dance of two (or
more) individuals ([27]). A dance is not a pre-planned
6
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
activity but unfolds from moment to moment. Each
individual acts and reacts simultaneously with the other. In doing so, they bring forth a consensual pattern
that is part of their consensual domain.
In conclusion, autopoietic theory reformulates the
idea of adaptation in two important aspects ([28]):
First, the environment/medium does not specify the
adaptive changes. And second, the environment is not
fixed or unchanging.
The role of the observer in autopoietic theory is
another important difference to the previously discussed evolutionary theories. In contrast to these, scholars of autopoiesis carefully distinguish between the
observer and the observed. Both perceive a different
domain of existence due to their different structures.
Epistemologically this means that “living system only
encounters those structural features of the medium that
its own structure specifies. Therefore, the observer
cannot see by him or herself such features of the medium, and has to use the structural changes triggered in
the living system itself as an indicator or descriptor of
them.” ([23], p. 264).
As an observer we are in a privileged position. We
have access or can observe the structure of the environment as well as the structure of the entity. From that
perspective it may appear as if the structural changes of
an entity are “selected” by its environment. In a way
this however is happening at the same time vice versa.
The fact that cells have produced oxygen in the first
million years of earth history triggered important
changes in the atmosphere. This in turn led to the “selection” of oxygen respirating organisms ([22], p. 112).
[22] illustrate “natural drift” by the analogy of a hill
with valleys and ravines. Water drops fall on the top of
the hill. Due to slight variations in weight, impulse or
obstacles on their way each drop will follow a slightly
different course down the hill. The different courses
that can be observed are the result of different individual interactions of the drops with the environment. Similarly, the observed diversity of species can be explained not by a selective environment but by the costructural drift of environment and organisms.
In this regard evolution is not to be understood as a
progress in the sense of optimizing the exploitation of
the environment’s resources. Instead, evolution is a
process of continuous structural coupling between environment and organism while maintaining adaptation
and autopoiesis ([22], p. 127). Another example demonstrates the inappropriateness of speaking of a “survival of the fittest”. When experiencing a significant
temperature decrease only those organisms will continue their phylogenesis that are suited for that temperature range. The structural changes to this perturbation
will differ. Some animals will react with the massive
growth of coat while others alter their metabolism and
again others react with massive geographical migration. These structural changes are not determined by
the environmental change but by the internal structural
dynamics of the animals. Each reaction is equally appropriate for that environmental change as long autopoiesis and adaptation can be maintained.
6. Studying the evolution of IOIS
While the previous section provided a general introduction to the notion of natural drift that was particularly focused on its biological roots this section will
show how the concept can be usefully applied to the
study of IOIS.
The theory of autopoiesis triggered an intense and
ongoing debate among social scientists whether or not
it is applicable to social systems ([24]). Despite its severity it is not the intent of this paper to engage in this
debate further. Instead, it seeks to extend the notion of
IOIS as structurally coupled systems.
Such notion features a unit of analysis different to
those mostly employed in IOIS literature ([29]). The
unit of analysis is not a specific technology (e.g. EDI),
an organization or an industry. Instead, the IOIS is situated in an industry segment value system (ISVS)
([9]). An industry segment is defined in term of interactions among firms. The firms in an industry segment
are aware of each other and monitor each others’ actions. The ISVS consists of the firms in the industry
segment and firms that have upstream or downstream
transaction relationships with these. As such the ISVS
represents an ecological niche in which organizational
entities operate. These entities engage in relationships.
They become structurally coupled to each other and
develop distinct business roles (wholesaler-retailer).
An IOS in that sense denotes a phenomenon where
at least two entities (organizations) engage in recurrent
interactions. In the sense of autopoietic theory these
entities become structurally coupled to each other. In
the case of IOIS these recurrent interactions become
supported by an information system. Thus, the study of
the evolution of an IOIS is focused on the history of a
particular structural coupling in an ISVS. It is interested in the unfolding (lat. evolatus) of the ontogenetic
structural co-drift of the involved organizations. The
mutual perturbations of each organization lead to a
flow of congruent coherent structural changes in each
of them. At the same time the participating organizations are structurally coupled to their respective environments. Their niches may overlap or be totally separate. Each may maintain recurrent interactions with
other organizations outside the IOIS as well. Each of
this represents other potential sources of perturbations
that may impact the IOIS.
7
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Thus, the continuing existence of this structural
coupling is not self-evident as each organization is
subject to perturbations arising from other parts of the
environment. These perturbations may trigger structural changes that may challenge the structural coupling
denoted as the IOIS under investigation. As such the
IOIS is a fragile arrangement.
Before exemplifying the application of “natural
drift” to the study of IOIS some epistemological considerations need to be made. Autopoietic theory and
the notion of “natural drift” emphasize that the particular niche of an entity is realized, that is enacted and
perceived by the entity itself and its structure. Thus, at
the level of perceptions of and perturbations from the
environment it is important to take into account the
unique view of the entity itself. Its structure determines
the perception and enactment of the environment. The
specification of dimensions with which to characterize
the environment is done by the observer. It should not
be assumed to conform to the perception of the entities.
In regard to IOIS this matter becomes even more complex as the observer is dealing with two entities simultaneously of which each realizes a different niche.
The following will exemplify how the application
of “natural drift” may contribute to the understanding
of the evolution of IOIS on three levels: (1) industry
structure, (2) organization, and (3) individual employee. This paper argues that on each of these levels
phenomena of structural coupling can be observed that
offer potential for further research. In the following,
the case material by [3] serves as an illustrating background. The case focuses on the evolution of an electronic ordering system between pharmacies and wholesalers in Australia. Without going into the specifics of
the case the following aspects would come into focus
when analyzing the evolution of the IOIS.
On the level of the industry structure the division of
labor and the respective business models should not be
taken for granted. The retailer (pharmacy) – supplier
(wholesaler) relationship is one instance of an ontogenetic structural co-drift. In fact, while today’s pharmacies seem to be evolving more into the role of a retailer
of pharmaceutical products they used to manufacture a
large part of their products themselves in the past.
Pharmaceutical wholesalers evolved in most cases out
of former pharmacies or cooperatives of these. Subsequently, wholesalers became structurally coupled to
pharmacies. At the same time wholesalers may offer
their services to other entities as well, e.g. hospitals.
The case material by [3] suggests that this ontogenetic
structural co-drift (wholesaler-pharmacy) carried on for
quite some time. Though, an ontogenetic drift of pharmacies can be observed as well. Originating from single store community pharmacies some of them evolved
into pharmacy chains or cooperatives incorporating
multiple stores as well. In a lot of countries the emergence of pharmacy chains represented a perturbation in
the regulatory environment that resulted in some cases
into the prohibition of pharmacy chains, limited pharmacy chains or no limit at all. In some countries wholesalers operate pharmacy chains on their own. This
can be regarded as an example of a recent ontogenetic
drift and from the perspective of the remaining pharmacies as a perturbation challenging their structural
coupling with the wholesaler, which would become a
competitor in retailing.
On the organizational level the structural coupling
between wholesalers and pharmacies translated into the
emergence of order-delivery practices. Each of these
practices can only be understood in relation to one
another. Both are structurally coupled. Once, their
structure involved orders issued by phone call. The
coupling between pharmacies and wholesalers in the
form of an electronic ordering system represents an
outcome of the ontogenetic structural co-drift. In that
regard it is an evolution of the previous ordering by
phone.
By looking into the individual organizations further
couplings with these practices can be observed. In
analogy to the example provided previously the ordering interface needs a user who over time will become
attuned to the system. This again represents a form of
structural coupling albeit on the level of the individual.
Breaking up this structural coupling e.g. by replacing
the user interface may represent a serious perturbation
in the individual’s practices. As such the individual
may refuse to adopt a new version of the software.
It has been argued before that autopoiesis reformulates the notion of adaptation in two important aspects.
First, the environment does not specify or determine
what changes will occur. Second, the environment is
not to be presumed unchanging or fixed. The former
results from the notion of structural determinism. The
entity is realizing its environment (here niche) moment
after moment. What it perceives and hence what may
serve as a trigger is determined by its structure. Thus, a
researcher as an external observer can observe the entity as well as its environment. However, it is important
to stress that being-a-wholesaler implies a different
view on the environment than being-a-pharmacist. An
observer may thus not assume that environmental
changes serve as perturbations in both of them. He may
not even assume that they are perceived by both of
them. The second aspect reminds the researcher that
the actions of each entity lead to repercussions in the
environment. For instance, the acquisition of a pharmacy chain by a wholesaler may have negative repercussions with its client base as they are unwilling to
order from a direct competitor. Another example could
be that the emergence of pharmacy chains triggers a
8
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
reaction by the regulatory bodies to limit the size
pharmacy chains.
7. Implications for the study of IOIS
While the previous section sketched the application
of autpoietic theory to the study of IOIS this section is
devoted to explicate some of the implications of studying the evolution of IOIS under such premises.
The adoption of the notion of “natural drift” that
comes along with the conception of IOIS as structurally coupled systems has several implications for researching the evolution of IOIS. In their report on the
evolution of an IOIS in the pharmaceutical distribution
industry [3] refer to it as part of study covering multiple countries. Some researcher might be tempted to
extrapolate best practices or critical success factors out
of such studies. As has been shown before a search for
the “fittest” is in vain. The “natural drift” perspective
cautions researchers to make comparisons that entail a
normative judgment. The system that evolved in one
country (environment) is not superior to one of another. In both cases organizations are structurally coupled
to each other. In the sense of viability they are fit for
the respective environment. Thus, simply transposing
one system to another environment could be detrimental and represent a destructive perturbation. The efficiency may however be evaluated from a particular
point of view. For instance researchers could compare
the transaction costs involved in the governance of the
respective systems. However, one may not deduce
from this to the viability of the system.
The previous section claims that the history and
the emergence of the structural coupling need to be
studied. The absence of change for a period of time
indicates that perturbations did not trigger any changes.
In terms of the IOIS this does not mean that there were
no perturbations at all triggering structural changes in
one or several of the coupled organizations. Instead,
these perturbations may have affected other parts of the
companies and have not (yet) impacted other parts like
those involved in the IOIS. Thus, the other organization did not experience any perturbations in its continuous interactional relationship with the organization.
The technological component of an IOIS is a reification of the structural coupling. The participating organizations need to be structurally coupled not only in
the sense of work processes but in regard to technology
as well. The technological interfaces at both ends need
to be complementary in terms of hardware and software. This could be seen as another form of structural
coupling. A seemingly outdated technological base in
an IOIS may perfectly suffice the needed support of the
structural coupling. Its structural changes may be trig-
gered by technological innovations, increasing difficulties of maintaining “outdated” hardware or structural
changes taking place elsewhere in one of the organizations. For instance, the government might subsidize the
adoption of broadband internet. This may trigger structural changes in a population of organizations in the
form of buying new computers. This, then internal,
perturbation may trigger further changes in the form of
new working practices and thereby perturb the IOIS in
its “outdated” form. It becomes “outdated” not because
of an external, objective measure (e.g. bits-per-second)
but by the internal structural dynamics.
8. Conclusion
The paper started with the observation that the development of (IO)IS over long timescales has not been
of prime interest to IS scholars. On timescales of several decades it becomes necessary to theoretically account for phenomena of change and resilience simultaneously. The paper finds that evolutionary theories
provide valuable concepts that may be usefully applied
to such studies of IOIS. While building on the work of
[3] the paper set out to explore an alternative explanatory venue based on autopoietic theory.
The engagement with the notion “evolutionary”
brought different conceptions to the fore. While some
merely oppose revolutionary with evolutionary change
others employ the notion without any specific meaning
apart from long-term phenomena. “Natural selection”
is one of the central concepts of evolutionary theory.
The paper is sympathetic with the general notion of
natural selection as proposed by scholars of the new
synthesis. However, it advocates for the concept of
“natural drift” derived from autopoietic theory. The
reason for that is twofold. First, the notion of “natural
selection” is easily misconceived. Second, “natural
drift” and autopoietic theory put special emphasis to
the mutual interdependence of entities. As such the
concept resonates nicely with IOIS and the ISVS as
unit of analysis.
As a result the paper argues for conceiving IOIS as
structurally coupled systems embedded in an ISVS.
The technological component of an IOIS is thus a reification of such structural coupling. By employing this
perspective to the case material of [3] the paper was
able to sketch its benefits. However, a confirmation or
extensive testing for its applicability is yet to be made.
Several areas of discussion needed to be left aside for
future research. Nevertheless, such perspective may be
used metaphorically without any ontological claim as a
new way to look on IOIS-phenomena and their development over time. It offers new views on the adaptation of IOIS and their embedding in as well as their
enactment of their environments.
9
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
9. References
[1] M.L. Markus and D. Robey, "Information Technology
and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and
Research," Management Science, vol. 34, 1988, pp. 583-598.
[2] D. Robey, G. Im, and J.D. Wareham, "Theoretical Foundations of Empirical Research on Interorganizational Systems: Assessing Past Contributions and Guiding Future Directions," Journal of the AIS, vol. 9, 2008, pp. 497-518.
[3] K. Reimers, R.B. Johnston, and S. Klein, "Understanding
Resilience and Evolution of IOIS in the Australian Pharmaceutical Distribution Industry," ICIS 2009 Proceedings,
2009, p. Paper 124.
[4] J.E. Short and N. Venkatraman, "Beyond Business
Process Redesign: Redefining Baxter's Business Network,"
Sloan Management Review, vol. 34, 1992, pp. 7-21.
[5] D.G. Copeland and J.L. McKenney, "Airline Reservations Systems: Lessons from History," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 12, 1988, p. 353–370.
[6] K. Reimers and R.B. Johnston, "Explaining Persistence
and Resilience of Interorganisational Information Systems:
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations," 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Galway,
Ireland, 2008.
[7] M. Limayem, S. Hirt, and C. Cheung, "How habit limits
the predictive power of intention: The case of information
systems continuance," MIS Quarterly, vol. 31, 2007, pp. 705737.
[14] J. Porra, "Colonial Systems," Information Systems Research, vol. 10, 1999, pp. 38-69.
[15] A. Lomi, G. Negro, and F. Fonti, "Evolutionary Perspectives on Interorganizational Relations," The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, S. Cropper, M.
Ebers, C. Huxham, and P. Smith Ring, Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press, 2008, pp. 313-338.
[16] J.A. Baum and J.V. Singh, "Organizational Hierarchies
and Evolutionary Processes: Some Reflections on a Theory
of Organizational Evolution," Evolutionary Dynamics of
Organizations, J.A. Baum and J.V. Singh, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, USA, 1994, pp. 3-20.
[17] R.R. Nelson and S.G. Winter, An evolutionary theory of
economic change, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1982.
[18] H.E. Aldrich, Organizations & Environments, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1979.
[19] M.T. Hannan and J. Freeman, "The Population Ecology
of Organizations," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82,
1977, pp. 929-964.
[20] E. Mayr, Die Entwicklung der biologischen Gedankenwelt, Berlin: Springer, 1984.
[21] S. Gould, Ever Since Darwin - Reflections of Natural
History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.
[22] H.R. Maturana and F.J. Varela, Der Baum der Ernd
kenntnis, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 2 ed. 2009.
[8] C. Demers, Organizational Change Theories: A Synthesis, London: Sage Publications, Inc, 2007.
[23] H.R. Maturana and J. Mpodozis, "The origin of species
by means of natural drift," Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, vol. 73, 2000, p. 261–310.
[9] K.E. Weick and R.E. Quinn, "Organizational change and
development.," Annual review of psychology, vol. 50, 1999,
pp. 361-86.
[24] J. Mingers, Self-Producing Systems, Berlin: Springer,
1995.
[10] A.H. Ven and M.S. Poole, "Explaining Development
and Change in Organizations," Academy of Management
Review, vol. 20, 1995, pp. 510-540.
[11] K. Reimers, R.B. Johnston, and S. Klein, "A Theorizing
Evolution of Inter-organizational Information Systems on
Long Timescales" Proceedings of JAIS Theory Workshop.
Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 8 (31),
2008.
[12] E. Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.
[13] A. Giddens, The constitution of society: Outline of the
theory of structuration, Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Polity
Press, 1984.
[25] H.R. Maturana and F.J. Varela, Autopoiesis and cognition, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1980.
[26] H.R. Maturana, "Biology of Language: The Epistemology of Reality," Psychology and Biology of Language and
Thought: Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg, G. Miller and
E. Lennesberg, New York: Academic Press, 1978, pp. 27-63.
[27] A.L. Goudsmit, "Towards a negative understanding of
psychotherapy," 1998.
[28] J. Mingers, Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and
Action in Management Science, New York: Springer, 2006.
[29] K. Reimers, R.B. Johnston, and S. Klein, "The Shaping
Of Inter-Organisational Information Systems: Main Design
Considerations Of An International Comparative Research
Project," 17th Bled eCommerce Conference, Bled: 2004, pp.
1-2.
10