Centralized versus Decentralized Information Systems

Abstract

Abstract. This paper brings into question whether information systems should be centralized or decentralized in order to provide greater support for different business processes. During the last century companies and organizations have used different approaches for centralization and decentralization; a simple answer to the question does not exist. This paper provides a survey of the evolution of centralized and decentralized approaches, mainly in a Nordic perspective. Based on critical reflections on the situation in the end of the century we can discuss what we can learn from history to achieve alignment between centralized and decentralized systems and the business structure. The conclusion is that theories, management and practice for decisions on centralization or decentralization of information systems must be improved. A conscious management and control of centralization /decentralization of IT support is a vital question in the company or the organization, and this is not a task that can be handled only by IT-specialists. There is a need for business oriented IT management of centralization/decentralization.

Understanding HMIS Implementation in a Developing Country Ministry of Health Context - an Institutional Logics Perspective

“…The conflict between ownership and performance is one that has been a bane of many HMIS projects in developing countries, such that the goal of local ownership often ruins the objective of performance where the capacity for maintaining the performance is unavailable (91; 92). The other issues from this case on balancing decentralization-centralization (68; 70; 77; 93–96) and the conflict between hierarchical vs. network-centric logics (81; 82; 97) are also important reported HMIS concerns.…”

A service-oriented framework for interpersonal communication in architecture, engineering and construction

“…During the last decades, two main information system architectures evolved -centralized and decentralized [23]. Even though Bacon [24] divided the subject to two areas: a) hardware and software, and b) organization and management, it is difficult to draw the line between technological and organizational aspects of the two concepts.…”

“…The concept also brings some weaknesses as such system is expensive, has long development cycles, is prone to organizational politics and can lock the organization into an inflexible and inefficient (fixed and solid) structure. Another concern is the limited possibility of end-users to have an impact on the developed components [23].…”

“…Hugoson [23] argues that each component of the decentralized structure must fulfil specified demands for interaction with other components; nevertheless it should provide means to develop, maintain and change inner structure in each system component without dependencies to other systems, as long as the specified interaction stands. The development, maintenance and management of the system are dispersed as far down in the organization as possible, tying various parts together with inter-linked communication and a philosophy of full access to information [22].…”

“…The information systems of that type are suitable for fast changing technologies, are innovative, effective and efficient. Unfortunately, the decentralized approach can end up in a number of separate systems with unclear responsibilities, with inconsistencies and without computerized interaction [23].…”