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 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.

As part of my doctorate work, I’ve been looking at many different research methodologies.  One of the more interesting qualitative methods is the use of the case study in information systems research.

While reviewing the case study, I found a few articles that discuss the use of the case study approach in the field of inforamtion systems and that i’d provide a brief review of each.

Over the coming weeks, I’ll be publishing reviews of the following articles:

• Cavaye, A. L. M. (1996). Case study research: A multi‐faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6, 227‐242.
• Lee, A. S. (1989). A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33‐50.
• Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74‐82
• Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273‐289.

My plan is to publish one review per week.  Check back later this week for the first article review.

As mentioned previously, one of the courses I’m taking for the Fall 2009 semester is INFA 713 – Managing Information Security Risks.

The courses looks like a good one.

Our first assignment?  Define Information Assurance.

I don’t have much experience in the world of information security & assurance.  With that in mind, my first thought of a definition of Information Assurance was:

“methods to ensure information and systems are secured in such a way as to protect the information from unauthorized access and changes”.

In looking through the research and definitions on the topic, I came across the National Security Agency’s definition [1] that supports my original definition but adds more specific information.  The NSA defines information assurance as:

INFORMATION ASSURANCE – The protection of information systems against unauthorized access to, or modification of, information, whether in storage, processing or transit, and protection against the denial of service to authorized users, including those measures necessary to detect, document, and counter such threats[1].

McKnight (2002) describes five attributes to information assurance: availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality and non-repudiation [2].    These five attributes match up nicely with the NSA’s definition but cause me to rethink my definition to ensure these five attributes are considered.

With the definitions of the NSA and McKnight in mind, I’ve developed the following definition of Information Assurance:

Information assurance is the science and art of protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access and use.  While protection of these systems is key, they (and the information contained within) must remain accessible by authorized users and systems while maintaining their integrity and confidentiality.  In addition, the information must be maintained in such as a way as to provide an auditing and authentication mechanism to provide proof of origin and integrity.

What do you think of this definition?  Good? Bad? What’s it missing?

References

1.            Agency, N.S. Frequently Asked Questions Terms and Acronyms.  2009  [cited 2009 Sept 7 2009]; Available from: http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/terms_acronyms.shtml.

2.            McKnight, W.L. What Is Information Assurance? 2002; Available from: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/07/mcknight.html.

I’ve got an update on my Fall 2009 courses.  I mentioned in my post titled “Doctorate Work – 49% Complete“, that I was taking two courses…but I added another one to get over 6 hours (considered half-time).

My coursework for the fall is now:

• INFS 810 – Qualitative Research Methods
• INFA 713 – Managing Information Security Risks
• INFS 890 – Seminar

Looks like it’s going to be an interesting (and busy) semester.

I’ve just completed my first semester of my doctoral program and I’m ready for a break.

I took 2 courses this semester worth 6 hours. The courses are:

• Introduction to Research (INFS 614) -  This course was a bear.  I did more research and writing in this course than I’ve done in the last 5 years I think.   I’m glad this course was required as it made me sit back and really think about research, research methodologies and Information Systems.
• Systems Analysis and Design using CASE Tools (INFS 720) – This course was your normal graduate level IS course but was very informative.  I’ve never taken an IS Systems Analysis course and did enjoy this one for the most part.

Time to take a few weeks off….Spring semester starts in exactly one month (Jan 16).  I’ll be taking two courses (6 hours) in the Spring: Project & Change Management (INFS 724) and Knowledge Management (INFS 834).  I’m really looking forward to the Knowledge Management course as it should cover a lot of really interesting material.   Look for another post in January once the semester starts.

Starting September 5, 2007, I will be a student in the Doctor of Science in Information Systems program at Dakota State.

The school is one of the very very few non-profit, regionally accredited universities in the country that offers a doctoral program in information systems via an external (or distance learning) program. The DSU D.Sc. program is still fairly new with only about 15 students and the faculty seem very good and very experienced.

The program looks very interesting and very thorough and my specialization will be Decision Support, Knowledge Management and Data Management Systems (DSS for short) although I have no real idea what my research and dissertation topic will be yet.

If everything goes according to plan, I will be done sometime in 2010 or 2011 if everything goes according to plan. Yikes…another 3 to 4 years of school.

Why do I want a doctorate? Personal satisfaction is the biggest reason and the only one that will really drive me to finish but I also have an interest in the process of earning a doctorate. The research, writing and pure critical thinking that is utilized during the doctorate program is something that I’m very interested in and can’t wait to get into. Ask me in six months and I may say that those things don’t really interest me as much.

A by-product of the journey to my doctorate will be the my improved research and writing abilities as well as my knowledge in the field of Information Systems. I hope to be able to leverage this knowledge and experience into an interesting consulting career down the road.

If anyone out there has an interest in the non-traditional education methods (e.g., external research, distance learning, etc) then you should read the page that I created titled “Education“. This page has a brief outline of my journey over the last 1.5 years to find a doctoral program that works for me as well as a good description of why I didn’t choose some of the other programs out there.. There are a lot of programs out there, but few that focus on IT & Technology, are non-profit and regionally accredited.

For those that are interested, I looked very closely at the following schools during my search…all have great programs and should be considered by anyone else looking for an IT/Technology type of program:

• Univ of Alabama @ Huntsville – PhD in Engineering Management – Little emphasis on business & IT but that may change soon according to the school. Would be a great school for someone from an engineering background and who wants to stay in engineering.
• Indiana State University – PhD in Technology Management – Good program but limited specialization options. I think this program’s use of a ‘consortium of schools’ should be the model for other schools around the country to follow for DL doctorate programs.
• Grenoble – DBA Program – Great program with excellent credentials but just not what I was looking for.
• Walden - PhD in Applied Management & Sciences – Expensive compared to the others + it is a for-profit….but well regarded around the country by people ‘in the know’.
• Colorado Tech University – Doctor of Management – Good program. Another for-profit school that has some detractors and some cheerleaders. The lack of a dissertation bothered me…but also intrigued me.
• Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Lille – PhD in Strategy & Project Management. Good program for someone looking to specialize in PM for their career.

There were a few other schools that I ran across, but none that really tweaked my interest like the above schools.

Keep checking in…I hope to keep posting updates to this blog to let everyone know how the program is going.