I recently read The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context by Perlow, Okhuysen  & Repennning.

This paper describes a nineteen-month ethnographic research project undertaken by one of the authors (with assistance from a research assistant) studying a ‘dot-com’ company during the late 1990’s.  This company, given the name ‘Notes.com’ for the purposes of the research paper, was a start-up company who began with initial seed money, moved into venture capital money and was eventually bought out for $125 million by another ‘dot-com’.

As mentioned, the research was conducted using the ethnographic research method with a researcher spending twenty to forty hours per week with the company and, in addition, a research assistant spending sixty hours per week observing the organization.  During this time spent observing, the researcher was focused on decision-making speed and how this speed might affect performance.   To perform this study, the researcher and assistant had access to the entire senior leader meeting as well as all documents available to any of the senior leadership of the organization.

After completing the research project and performing an initial review of the collected data, the authors found two findings that stood out.  The first was that the speed of the decision making process increased dramatically over the life of company while the second finding showed that the process used to make decisions changed significantly during the research project (Perlow, Okhuysen, & Repennning, 2002).  These two findings are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.

The first major finding showed a dramatic increase in decision speed through the life of the organization. The authors used ‘strategic decisions’ as the object to be measured and defined these decisions as those that involved “novelty, complexity and open-endedness” (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Theoret, 1976, p. 250).  Using these criteria, the authors were able to identify thirty-eight strategic decisions during a nine-month period during the research project.  Out of these thirty-eight strategic decisions, 24% of these decisions made during the first five and one-half months (hereafter known as the first-half) of the project and 76% of these decisions occurring during the last three and one-half months of the project (hereafter known as the second-half) (Perlow, et al., 2002).

With these thirty-eight decisions selected, the authors reviewed the amount of time the senior leaders spent in meetings discussing these decisions.  For the first-half decisions, the Notes.com leadership team spent an average of 208 minutes of meeting time while during the second-half the leadership team spent an average of 58 minutes of meeting time (Perlow, et al., 2002).    While this isn’t proof that the ability to make decisions increased for the senior leadership team, it does show that less time was spent on making decisions during this time and that more strategic decisions were made during a shorter period of time.

The second major finding by the authors claim to show that the process by which the Notes.com senior leadership made decisions changed.   Using the same data as above, the authors reviewed the meetings and compared the process for decision making in the first-half to the decisions making process in the second-half and found that the process changed dramatically.  During the first-half, the senior leaders discussed and debated issues and spent time reviewing options while during the second-half, senior leaders made more decisions with little discussion or debate.

While the authors claim that the speed at which decisions were made as well as the decision making process negatively affected Notes.com decision making abilities and ultimately the future of the company, I have to wonder if the senior leadership team wasn’t employing the fast decision making process described by Eisenhardt (1989). This fast decision-making process is claimed by Eisenhardt to be the main factor in success in high-velocity environments, which the ‘dot-com’ industry most certainly was in the late 1990’s.

While this paper touches on an interesting topic, I fail to see the connection between speed of decisions and ultimate failure of Notes.com.  The authors do not go into detail on the background of the senior leadership team nor their experience in running startups.  The authors also fail to include which of the senior leaders are involved in the decision making during the first- and second-half of the period reviewed.  Does the speed of the decisions made during the second-half show that the senior leadership team has matured and/or more senior leaders are involved? These types of questions bring the outcome of this research project into question.

References

• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.
• Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of” unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246-274.
• Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repennning, N. P. (2002). The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 931-955.

The article by Street and Meister (2004) titled “Small business growth and internal transparency: The role of information systems” describes an action research project that was undertaken by the authors working with a small manufacturing company (hereafter known as ‘manufacturer’) in Canada.  The project investigated the role of information systems in small business growth and how a small business management team can plan for and build an appropriate information system strategic plan to address current and future growth needs.

The authors were placed in contact with the manufacturer by a third-party governmental funding agency.  This introduction and source of funding helped the manufacturer tremendously as they didn’t feel as though they were paying a consultant to recommend a system…they were getting answers to the main issues they were facing. The authors also were able to gain from this introduction, as they were able to put their academic and research experience to good use in a real-world setting.

The main contribution of this paper is subtle but very important one: when a small business begins to move into a growth cycle, the internal communication within the organization must be maintained.  The authors describe this as ‘internal transparency’ and claim that by ensuring that internal transparency is maintained, an organization can navigate the dangerous perils found during growth periods.  Using internal transparency as a means of guidance, organizations can begin to consider the use of information systems as a way to increase (or at least hold steady) internal communications throughout the organization.

As mentioned, the authors conducted this research project as an action research project using three separate phases with different planned outcomes for each phase. The three phases were split into three separate activities: Baseline Analysis, Strategic Planning, Requirements Specification (Street & Meister, 2004).  Each phase is briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Baseline Analysis phase was performed to determine the existing systems, policies and procedures within the manufacturer.  It was during this phase that the authors determined that the communications between the management team of the organization was breaking down due a lack of proper information systems.  Prior to the growth that they were experiencing, the management team had ample time to communicate with each other but while planning for the future growth, their ability to communicate clearly about operational activities was impeded due to the poor information systems in existence.  The authors realized during this phase that the organization didn’t have any strategic plan for growth nor was there a plan for information system growth.

Phase two of the project was the Strategic Planning phase.  During this phase the authors and manufacturer deviated from the original plan for developing a growth plan for information systems and instead built a strategic plan for the business, which included a plan and strategy for the IS of the organization. This phase also saw some investigation into what was causing the internal transparency issues found in phase 1.   The authors found that the lack of proper IS planning was to blame for the reduction in internal transparency within the organization.   Because the management team didn’t have the proper information systems in place, they had to spend more time finding and reviewing operational data in a format that was not easy to review or digest. The more time spent reviewing operational data in this manner, the less time the management team had to focus on internal communications, which caused a reduction the reduction in internal transparency.

Phase three of this project was the Requirements Specification phase where the authors and manufacturer developed a “Request for Quote” (RFQ) to send out to vendors to bid on developing and implementing three distinct information systems.   This final phase of the research project was a key factor for the project as it forced the authors and the manufacturer’s management team to specifically state what their needs were in an information system.  This forced both parties to realize that the biggest need at hand wasn’t a need for automated manufacturing or some other manufacturing related information system. Their biggest need was for an information system that would provide communication across the different functions of the organization to improve internal transparency.

This paper provides an excellent walk-through of using action research in a real world. More importantly though, this paper provides a significant contribution to the world of IS research by showing the connection between information systems, strategic planning and growth in business.

References

• Street, C. T., & Meister, D. B. (2004). Small Business Growth and Internal Transparency: The Role of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 473-506.

This is part 5 of a 5 part series on using case study research methods in information systems research

This essay provides an overview and review of Eisenhardt’s (1989) article titled “Building theories from case study research” published in Volume 14 of the Academy of Management Review in 1989. In this paper, Eisenhardt (hereafter known as ‘the author’) the author presents a roadmap to help researchers use case study research to build theories.  The roadmap is made up of nine ‘building blocks’. These building blocks are described in more detail in the following paragraphs and examples from research are given for each.

The first building block for using case studies is arguably the most important.  Prior to starting any research project, the basic research question must be determined so that the research project is well defined.  This holds true for case study research as well. Santora & Sarros (2008) clearly defined their research question to be specifically around the reasons that an interim executive director wouldn’t seek to become the full-time executive director of a non-profit organization.  This narrow focus helped set the stage for the case study research.   Another example can be seen in Haunschild & Eikhof’s (2009) case study use to build a theoretical basis for managing a mobile workforce.  In this case study, the authors defined their research question in terms of human resource practices and policies for managing telecommuting and mobile workers in the creative industry.

The second building block consists of selecting appropriate cases for the study.  By ‘appropriate’, it is meant that the theory being built should be tested against a population that allows for testing of the specific theory being built as well as providing variation in environments.  An example of this can be in the case study by Moller, et al., (2005) that reports on school leadership in Norway. The authors chose their cases based on a set of criteria that allowed them to use ‘good schools’ (as defined by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research) and school size, structure, location and the principal’s gender.  This variation allowed the researchers to vary the demographics across their cases to test their theories.  Another example can be found in a case study by Opoku (2006) where the author conducted multiple case studies on different small and medium sized businesses to conduct research on these types of companies’ methods of collecting customer feedback.  The author used similar sized companies with similar backgrounds to try to have a similar population across multiple organizations.

The third building block has to do with research methodologies, data collection methods and types of data to be used in the case study.   Prior to beginning any research project, the research methodology should be determined and a game plan for collection, storing and analyzing data should be created.  An example of this building block can be found in Masterman, Jameson & Walker’s (2009) article describing their use of data collection techniques during a research project to determine best practices for learning design.  Yet another example can be found in Abdullah & Zainab’s (2008) article that describes data collection methods during a research project on digital libraries.

The fourth building block is the aspect of entering the field to simultaneously collect and analyze data.  By collecting and analyzing data at the same time, researchers are able to adjust data collection methods as needed. Abdullah & Zainab’s (2008) article describe this in detail as they use data collection methods to collect user requirements and analyze said requirements while working in the field. Haunschild & Eikhof’s (2009) article also provides a good example of collecting and analyzing case study data while in the field.

The fifth building block is analyzing and writing up case data on a per-site basis.  This provides a few benefits to the research; namely by writing up and analyzing data for each site (case), the research becomes intimately familiar with each case while staying away from ‘data overload’ trap that multiple-site case studies normally create (Eisenhardt, 1989).   Excellent examples of the use of within-case analysis can be found in Yeo’s (2003) research on linking organizational learning to performance and  Seawright & Gerring’s (2008) article on case selection techniques.

The sixth building block is analyzing data across the multiple cases to find patterns that may exist.  In performing cross-case data analysis, it is imperative to use multiple analysis methods to keep from over-simplifying the outcomes and/or to keep from jumping to any conclusions based on initial impressions. Great examples of the use of cross-case analysis can be seen in Doolin & Ali’s (2008) research on mobile technology adoption in the supply chain and Masumoto & Brown-Welty’s (2009) case study of leadership practices and community relationships in high school education in California.

The seventh building block involves using the within-case and cross-case analysis that was performed in previous steps to shape a hypothesis.  This is done by reviewing the cases and data collected and refining the definition of the theory and ensuring that the collected data provides evidence to help solidify the hypothesis. An example of building and shaping a hypothesis using cross-case and within-case analysis (and other methods) can be see in Kambil’s (2008) article that looked at multiple organization’s recesession strategies to create a hypothesis for organizational strategies for recession planning.  Another example can be seen in Scholes, Westhead & Burrows (2008) research project involving family firm succession planning and buyout/buy-in rules and strategies.

The eighth building block involves performing an extensive literature review to determine if the theory being developed is similar to other theories and/or to determine if there are other studies that support or conflicts with the theory. An example of an extensive literature review can be found in many of the previously mentioned papers with Abdullah & Zainab (2008) and Haunschild & Eikhof’s (2009) articles.

The ninth building block is the final block and involves closing the case study process down.   This is an important step in theory building, as it requires the researcher to really think about how much data and how many cases are ‘enough’.   While no specific examples were found that specifically mentioned ‘closure’, two good examples that show some signs of selecting the ‘right’ number of cases to study can be seen in Moller, et al., (2005) and an excellent write-up of case selection techniques (including choosing the number of cases) can be found in Seawright and Gerring’s (2008) article.

References

• Abdullah, A., & Zainab, A. N. (2008). The digital library as an enterprise: the Zachman approach. The Electronic Library, 26(4), 446.
• Doolin, B., & Ali, E. (2008). Adoption of Mobile Technology in the Supply Chain: An Exploratory Cross-Case Analysis. International Journal of E-Business Research, 4(4), 1.
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Haunschild, A., & Eikhof, D. (2009). From HRM to Employment Rules and Lifestyles. Theory Development through Qualitative Case Study Research into the Creative Industries**. Zeitschrift f¸r Personalforschung, 23(2), 107.
• Kambil, A. (2008). What is your recession playbook? The Journal of Business Strategy, 29(5), 50.
• Masterman, E., Jameson, J., & Walker, S. (2009). Capturing teachers’ experience of learning design through case studies. Distance Education, 30(2), 223.
• Masumoto, M., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case Study of Leadership Practices and School-Community Interrelationships in High-Performing, High-Poverty, Rural California High Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education (Online), 24(1), 1.
• Moller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A.-M., Skrovset, S., et al. (2005). Successful school leadership: the Norwegian case. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 584.
• Opoku, R., A. (2006). Gathering customer feedback online and Swedish SMEs. Management Research News, 29(3), 106.
• Santora, J., & Sarros, J. (2008). Interim Leadership in a Nonprofit Organization: A Case Study. The Business Review, Cambridge, 11(2), 66.
• Scholes, L., Westhead, P., & Burrows, A. (2008). Family firm succession: the management buy-out and buy-in routes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(1), 8.
• Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294.
• Yeo, R. (2003). Linking organisational learning to organisational performance and success: Singapore case studies. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1/2), 70.

This is part 4 of a 5 part series on using case study research methods in information systems research

This essay provides an overview and review of Darke, Shanks & Broadbent’s (1998) article titled “Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism” published in the Information Systems Journal in 1998. In this paper, Darke, Shanks & Broadbent (hereafter known as ‘the authors’) provide an excellent overview of using case studies in information system research.  In providing this overview, the authors have touched on every aspect of the use of case studies and provided guidance on how to prepare for, perform and present research to ensure rigor and relevance.

Unlike papers that attempt to show the case study as a means to perform information systems research, this paper provides a great deal of pragmatic advice in an easy to read and comprehend manner.  Compared to other papers like Lee (1989), Eisenhardt (1989), Gable (1994) and Kaplan & Duchon (1988), this paper is much more readable and informative, especially for students and practitioners new to the world of information systems research.   This paper would be an ideal ‘first step’ for any person moving into the world of using case studies in information systems research. Once the concepts of this paper are understood and mastered, it would seem much easier for the novice information system research to move on to the more involved articles mentioned previously.

The main contribution of this paper is found in the five frequently asked questions that the authors constantly hear about case study research (Darke, et al., 1998).  These five questions are summarized and briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

The first frequently asked question has to do with the types of research that can be addressed using the case study approach.  The authors suggest, based on research from other authors, that the case study is best used in those circumstances where a phenomenon needs to be studied in its real-world environment in the context in which it exists (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987; Darke, et al., 1998; Yin, 2009).  In addition, the case study research approach is a better fit when the theory of a phenomenon is not fully formed nor understood (Benbasat, et al., 1987; Darke, et al., 1998; Yin, 2009).

The second frequently asked question revolves around the design and scope of a case study so that it can answer a research question in an appropriate manner.  The first step in designing a research project is to develop a valid and significant research question (Darke, et al., 1998). The second step in designing and scoping a case study project is to perform an in-depth literature review to understand existing theory and research. Lastly, the researcher needs to consider the usefulness and interest in their research topic to ensure that the project will be well received once complete.

The third question that the authors constantly receive has to do with obtaining the approval of an organization targeted for inclusion in the case study.  This approval and participation is key since the research may not be usable or achievable without the consent of the organization and people included in the research project.

The fourth question deals with the effective use of data collected during the case study research project.  The authors provide guidance on effectively collecting, storing and using data during (and after) a research project.  Suggestions and tips are given for collecting data during research and how to ensure that data is available for review after the research project is complete.

The fifth question is arguably the most important as it deals with writing up the research for others to consume. While the previous questions are important, the inability to clearly state reason and outcome of the research project in a meaningful way will cause any research project to flounder.  The authors suggest that any research project should be written up well but the since the case study shows real-world phenomenon in a real-world setting, the researcher must go to great lengths to show that the research was designed and performed in a rigorous manner.

As mentioned, the authors provide a great deal of background information about the use of case studies.  This background includes the various approaches for case studies, why case study research should and shouldn’t be used and how data can be collected and utilized within the case study framework.   In addition, the authors provide a  great contribution by describing providing answers to commonly asked questions about the case study research approach.

References

• Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q., 11(3), 369-386.
• Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273-289.
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126.
• Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods information systems research: a case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 571-586.
• Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Q., 13(1), 33-50.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5): SAGE.

This is part 3 of a 5 part series on using case study research methods in information systems research

This essay provides an overview and review of Walsham’s (1995) article titled “Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method” published in the European Journal of Information Systems in 1995. In this paper, Walsham (hereafter known as ‘the author’) provides a compelling argument that the interpretative approach to case studies can be a valid approach for information system researchers.

The author provides an excellent walkthrough of the background and philosophical basis for interpretative research using a literature review approach. The author does an outstanding job of providing definitions and background to the use of the interpretive approach using the ethnographic research tradition found in anthropology.  Comparing anthropology research to that of information systems research is an extremely smart thing to do since, in most instances, IS research deals with the same types of complex events and structures involving people in addition to technology.  The author makes an argument that using an interpretive approach that has been well documented and widely adopted in the world of anthropological research makes perfect sense in the world of information systems research. This argument is an interesting one that has found its way into other research in the field of information systems research (Avison & Myers, 1995; Marietta, 1999).

In addition the groundwork described above, the author provides three usage modes for using the interpretative approach in information systems case research. These three usage models, taken from Eisenhardt’s (1989) research are: as an initial guide for designing research and collecting data; as part of the data collection and analysis process; as a product of the research itself (Eisenhardt, 1989; Walsham, 1995).  The three usage models help to guide the IS researcher in the use of interpretive research in case studies.  The author provides a well-rounded argument for these three usage models and goes so far as to provide strong evidence that the usage of interpretive research isn’t a viable approach if used as an initial guide for designing research and collecting data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Walsham, 1995).

Although the previously mentioned information should be considered significant contributions to knowledge, the second part of this paper is even more significant as it provides arguments on three extremely important topics for any field of research.  These three topics are: the role of the researcher, the evidence obtained from interviews and the way in which research is reported. These three topics are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The role of the researcher in interpretive research is key as the research is providing interpretations of other people’s interpretations.   This role is tricky because the research has to be fully aware that their contextual ‘lens’ may provide a different interpretation to an interviewee’s comments.

While evidence for research can come from many different areas (documents, historical records, interviews, observations, etc), the main evidence gathering tool for the interpretive researcher is the interview.    Because of the interview being the main tool for gathering data, the author notes that the IS researcher who wants to use an interpretive case method should be aware of various interview methods.

Perhaps the most significant contribution in this section of the paper is the description of how researchers should present their research.  Because interpretive researchers are not reporting facts, the researcher has to quickly build credibility by providing as much detail on the research methods used (Walsham, 1995).

The author does a great job describing the three main topics & issues faced by interpretive researchers.  These issues, while important, can be overcome as long as the research is aware of them and has a plan to address them during their research project.

In addition to the theoretical groundings for using the interpretative approach, the author provides many examples of the use of the interpretative approach in information systems research.  These examples, from the 1980’s and 1990’s, where excellent resources but were a bit old, so a quick search in libraries found other examples of successfully using the interpretive approach in information systems research (Doolin, 1999; Lamb & Kling, 2003; Marietta, 1999; Mingers, 2004; Myers, 1999). For example, Lamb & Kling (2003) performed research on user-centered information systems and presented the concept of users as ‘social actors’ using an interpretative approach (Lamb & Kling, 2003).

While using the interpretative approach for IS research wasn’t new to the world of IS research of at the time of the paper’s publishing, the author has presented a strong argument for the interpretive approach and its use in IS research.

References

• Avison, D. E., & Myers, M. D. (1995). Information systems and anthropology: and anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture. Information Technology & People, 8(3), 43.
• Doolin, B. (1999). Information systems, power, and organizational relations: a case study. Paper presented at the ICIS ‘99: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States.
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research: Aldine Transaction.
• Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197-236.
• Marietta, L. B. (1999). Dangerous liaisons: Trust, distrust, and information technology in American work organizations. Human Organization, 58(3), 331.
• Mingers, J. (2004). Real-izing information systems: critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2), 87-103.
• Myers, M. (1999). Investigating information systems with ethnographic research. Commun. AIS, 2(4).
• Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.

This is part 2 of a 5 part series on using case study research methods in information systems research.

This essay provides an overview and review of Lee’s article titled “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies” published in MIS Quarterly in 1989. In this paper, Lee (hereafter known as ‘the author’) provides a review of using scientific methods during case study research in the information systems field.

The scientific model used by the author is based on the natural science model found in social science research and described in detail by many researchers.  On of these researchers, Behling (1980), describes the use of research methods similar to the natural science model in organizational behavior as being widely accepted and used (Behling, 1980).  This natural science model is the basis for the author’s model for us in MIS case studies.

The author defines an MIS case study as “the examination of a real-world MIS as it actually exists in its natural, real-world setting” (Lee, 1989, p. 34). This definition, while excellent, introduces a few problems with respect to the use of the scientific model described by the author.  These issues, described in detail by the author, are summarized in the next few paragraphs.

The first problem has to do with controlling the observations during the research. With the definition given of real-world system in real-world settings, it is virtually impossible to control variables and/or settings thereby taking away the scientific approaches used to control variables that are found in other types of research.

The second problem has to do with making controlled deductions from the research being performed. When looking at real-world situations using case studies, it is rare to have controlled, quantitative data to make controlled deductions.  Without quantitative data, the qualitative data that is gathered must be interpreted, which could leave room for interpretation errors.  It is worth nothing that Cavaye (1996) and Kaplan & Duchon (1988) provide some evidence that quantitative data can and is used within case research (Cavaye, 1996; Kaplan & Duchon, 1988).

The third problem revolves around the replicability of the results of the case study. Again, since the case study is looking at real-world systems in a real-world setting, it will extremely difficult for a researcher to find the exact same set of variables configured in exactly the same way (people, technology, political atmosphere, etc). This inability to replicate the case study makes it difficult for future researchers to validate and verify the results reported in the case.

The fourth problem has to do how the research and result can made to be generalizable to other problems and locations. Being as the case study is composed of real-world, non-replicable events and interactions, researchers must find ways to show that the case study outcome is valid and prepare for arguments from critics.

While the problems listed above are quite serious, the author provides excellent advice to overcome these issues while using case research for real-world systems.  The author argues that these problems can be overcome by providing for the requirements of “falsifiability, logical consistency, predictive power exceeding that of competing theories and survival of the empirical tests aimed at falsifying it” (Lee, 1989, p. 37).  Using these four requirements as guidelines, a researcher can use the case study method as defined by the author to ensure quality research.

As an example of a case study using this approach, the author provides a review of Markus (1983) “Power, Politics and MIS Implementations” case study.  This study describes an MIS implementation and looks at the competing theories on resistance to MIS implementation theories (Markus, 1983).   The author provides a detailed description of how Markus has met the four requirements to overcome the problems associated with using the scientific model for case study research.

This paper might have provided more insight if it had taken wider view of the types of research that might be undertaken.  This paper takes a positivist approach to case study research without providing and insight into how an interpretivist approach might provide different approaches to information systems research. In addition, the quickness of the author to disregard the availability of quantitative data in case study research for information systems researchers is disturbing. Cavaye (1996), Kaplan & Duchon (1988) and Gable (1994) have shown that quantitative data can be used in MIS case study research quite effectively.

This paper provides a significant contribution to IS research by describing the use of case studies as a scientific method for studying management information systems.  Although there are some limitations, the problems described and the descriptions for overcoming these problems are excellent.

References

• Behling, O. (1980). The Case for the Natural Science Model for Research in Organizational Behavior and Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 483-490.
• Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). Case study research: A multi‐faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6, 227-242.
• Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-126.
• Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods information systems research: a case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 571-586.
• Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Q., 13(1), 33-50.
• Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Commun. ACM, 26(6), 430-444.

This is part 1 of a 5 part series on using case study research methods in information systems research

This essay provides an overview and review of Cavaye’s (1996) article titled “Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS” published in Volume 6 of the Information Systems Journal in 1996. In this paper, Cavaye (hereafter known as ‘the author’) provides an impressive description of the case study research method and the various ways in which case research can be used by information systems researchers.

While there is no generally agreed upon definition of case research, the author uses the characteristics of case research to help describe this valuable research method. Case research is often used by researchers when they are attempting to fully understand the “context of a phenomenon” (Cavaye, 1996, p. 229) and attempts to contribute to subject knowledge by relating research output to generalizable theories (Cavaye, 1996). While describing the strengths and weaknesses of case research, the author also provides a description of related research strategies that utilize the case method.  These methods are: Field Study, Action Research, Application Descriptions and Ethnographic Research (Cavaye, 1996).  Including these related research methods helps the reader to understand the different approaches that the case method can take.

The author takes a much-appreciated approach of providing a non-critical and seemingly unbiased view of case research as it is used in the field of information systems research.  The non-critical approach taken by the author of this paper is appreciated because it steps away from the mindset of previous researchers that there are ‘better’ approaches for IS research (Cavaye, 1996).  The dominant approach used in information systems research is positivist (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987; A. S. Lee, 1989; Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Yin, 2009) with most researchers and authors claiming that the positivist approach is the superior approach (Cavaye, 1996).  The author argues, using contributions and research from the field, that while the positivist approach may be the dominant one, there are other methods (e.g., the interpretivist approach) for case research is a valid method and one that beginning to appear in more information systems case research.  This open-ended and non-biased approach is quite refreshing when compared to other articles that do not mention other case research methods for use in information systems (Benbasat, et al., 1987).

In addition to providing a discussion of the interpretivist versus positivist approach to case research, the author provides a significant contribution to the body of knowledge by describing case research approaches and alternatives. As previously mentioned, the author’s un-biased approach to describing the various approaches and alternatives provides the reader with straightforward information about case research and its alternatives.  For example, the author provides descriptions of the interpretivist and positivist approaches as well an approach that combines both the positivist and interpretivist approaches described by using one approach to support the other (Kaplan & Duchon, 1988; A. Lee, 1991).

Another significant contribution of this paper is the simple but important descriptions of the use of case research.  The author argues that research is performed for many reasons but the basic reason for research to be performed can be found in the following three reason: To Describe, To Discover and/or To Test Theory (Cavaye, 1996, p. 234).  The author continues to argue that case research can be used for all three and describes various approaches for using case research for these three research reasons.

Lastly, the author provides evidence that case research can be used with either qualitative or quantitative research methods or using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.  The combination of these two methods is described in detail in Kaplan and Duchon’s (1988) research using both qualitative and quantitative methods in case research.

The author does a great job describing case research and the various approaches and alternatives for case research.  The author claims in the introduction that case research can be either positivist or interpretivist, deductive or inductive, qualitative or quantitative and can be used for many different types of information research (Cavaye, 1996).  After reading through the paper and many of the articles that the author provides references to, it’s clear that case research is an excellent option for information systems researchers.

References

• Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q., 11(3), 369-386.
• Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). Case study research: A multi‐faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6, 227-242.
• Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods information systems research: a case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 571-586.
• Lee, A. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.
• Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Q., 13(1), 33-50.
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, 1-28.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5): SAGE.

During my Managing Information Security & Risk class, we were pointed at a recent ComputerWorld article titled “Court allows suit against bank for lax security” that points to a recent ruling against Citizen’s Bank [1].

This is an interesting case as it sets precedence for future liability for organizations and sends a message to banks (and any other company) to keep up with security issues. I’d be interested in seeing the level of proof that the plaintiff (the couple) had that should that Citizen’s Bank didn’t follow industry standards.

While I agree that Citizen’s Bank needs to be held accountable and liable for security breaches, at what point does meeting expected standards put Citizen’s bank out of business due to cost? What are the ‘expected standards’?

Banks and other organizations must keep on top of security issues but at what cost? At what point does ‘keeping up with latest/greatest’ become too costly for a bank? Are there banks that decide the risk of litigation due to a breach is low and/or the payout is low that it makes sense to not upgrade? Is that what happened here?

Looking into this case further, it appears that the plaintiff did have plenty of ‘proof’ to show Citizen Banks negligence. David Johnson wrote about this case on his Digital Media Lawyer Blog describing the reasons for the court ruling in favor of the plaintiff. Court documents show that Citizen’s Bank had used ‘single factor identification’ instead of ‘double factor identification’ as suggested by a 2005 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) security report [2]. This factor seems to be the deciding issue in the case so far.

The fact that Citizen’s Bank didn’t implement double-factor security does show a clear act of negligence given that they had outsourced their online services to Fiserv.  Fiserv has multiple types of security and could have easily implemented the proper double-factor security [2].

This raises another question – does Fiserv have some liability in this matter? Since their business is security, they obviously knew there were security issues related to using single-factor security. Should they have pushed for Citizen’s Bank to upgrade their security? Did they?

It appears from the analysis by Johnson that some of the questions I raised previously aren’t valid. Citizen’s Bank had access to the proper security but hadn’t implemented it. There are questions remaining about costs for staying on the cutting edge of security, but it appears that the FFIEC has set the ‘expected standards’ and it is up to banks to meet those standards.

I still wonder if there are some banks that are gambling that they won’t get breached and if they do, the courts will rule on their side. This case seems to set the precedent that the courts are looking at holding banks liable.

References

1. Vijayan, J. Court allows suit against bank for lax security. 2009 [cited 2009 9-15-2009]; Available from: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137451/Court_allows_suit_against_bank_for_lax_security?taxonomyId=17&pageNumber=2.
2. Johnson, D. Shames-Yeakel v. Citizens Financial Bank: Failure to Expeditiously Implement State-of the Art Security Measures Can Create Liability for Negligence in Data Breach Cases. 2009 [cited 2009 9-15-2009]; Available from: http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/shamesyeakel_v_citizens_financ.html.

The first year of my doctorate program is done!

Actually…I finished my last course about a month ago but with the Fall 2008 semester starting next week, I figured I should claim the First Year is complete.

During the first year I took five courses:

• INFS 614 – Introduction to Research
• INFS 720 – Systems Analysis and Design
• INFS 724 – Project & Change Management
• INFS 834 – Knowledge Management
• INFS 730 – Programming for Ecommerce

The Project & Change Management course had me worried (joke!)….i was a little upset that I would have to take the course but it turned out ok…I got 45 PDU’s for my PMP continuing education out of it.

The Fall 2008 Semester finds me taking some interesting courses.   They are:

• INFS 805 – Design Research Methods

Summary: The course develops skills needed for conducting research whose aim is to invent methods and techniques that make information systems more effective and efficient. Students will also acquire skills in developing research proposals that follow the design research paradigm and will learn how to publish such research.

• INFS 830 – Decision Support Systems

Summary: The primary objective of this course is to introduce students to the concepts, techniques and applications of computer-based decision support systems. The course covers issues pertaining to the design, history, theory, practice, methods and techniques, new developments, and applications of computing technologies to support decision processes and decision-making by individuals, groups and organizations

It should be fun!  Look for more info from me as the semester unfolds.  Feel free to check out my Academic page for more info on my progress and/or the Doctor of Science program at Dakota State University.