“…Buchanan & Linowes () consider the debate as concerned with the distribution of computing, particularly the question ‘how can managers plan for the acquisition and use of minicomputers in their companies?’ (p. 144). This discussion has been rekindled by Evaristo et al () who assess whether IT hardware architecture should be centralized or decentralized (see also Ahituv et al , ; Bacon, ). Reynolds & Yetton, ; Schlosser et al, ; Williams & Karahanna, ; Choudhary & Vithayathil, ; Guillemette & Paré, ; Sia et al, ; Huang et al, ; McDonald, ; Vaast & Levina, ; Porra et al, ; Bassellier & Benbasat, ; Ranganathan & Kannabiran, ; Weill, ; Jiang et al, ; Schwarz & Hirschheim, ; Brown & Ross, ; Ross & Weill, ; Chan, ; Agarwal & Sambamurthy, ; Gordon & Gordon, ; Benmati & Lederer, ; Earl & Kahn, ; Sambamurthy & Zmud, ; Gordon & Gordon, ; Willcocks & Sykes, ; Purvis & McCray, ; Peppard & Ward, ; Brown, ; Mathiassen et al, ; El Sawy et al, ; Brown & Magill, ; Earl & Sampler, ; Fowler & Wilkonson, ; Feeny & Willcocks, (also ); Boar, ; Clark et al, ; Agarwal et al, ; Cross et al, ; Brown, ; Prager, ; Earl et al, ; Nelson & Cooprider, ; Rockart et al, ; Hodgkinson, ; Moreton, ; Wang & Barron, ; Brown & Magill, ; Venkatraman & Loh, ; Blanton et al ., ; Von Simson, ; Tavakolian, ; Swanson & Beath, ; Dearden, …”
Section: The Information Systems Organization In Research Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…' (p. 144). This discussion has been rekindled by Evaristo et al (2005) who assess whether IT hardware architecture should be centralized or decentralized (see also Ahituv et al, 1989;Bacon, 1990).…”
Section: R E S E a R C H M E T H O D A N D Data A N A Ly S I Smentioning
Do conceptualizations of the information systems (IS) organization reflect findings from research studying requirements for successfully harnessing information, systems and technology to achieve operational and strategic objectives? This paper addresses this question, reporting on an analysis of articles published in leading academic and practitioner journals. It describes how the IS organization is portrayed in these studies and examines the results of this analysis through a sensitizing lens constructed from research that has studied how organizations generate business value from IS. The lens depicts this objective as a quest to harness knowledge that is distributed enterprise wide. The analysis suggests that conceptualisations of the IS organization used by researchers do not reflect the requirements for generating business value from information technology that have been identified in the literature. Whilst highlighting that definitions are vague or more often absent, it challenges the dominant orthodoxy of the IS organization as a separate organizational unit suggesting that it is a more pervasive construct. The implications of this conclusion for practice, research and teaching are considered.
“…Buchanan & Linowes () consider the debate as concerned with the distribution of computing, particularly the question ‘how can managers plan for the acquisition and use of minicomputers in their companies?’ (p. 144). This discussion has been rekindled by Evaristo et al () who assess whether IT hardware architecture should be centralized or decentralized (see also Ahituv et al , ; Bacon, ). Reynolds & Yetton, ; Schlosser et al, ; Williams & Karahanna, ; Choudhary & Vithayathil, ; Guillemette & Paré, ; Sia et al, ; Huang et al, ; McDonald, ; Vaast & Levina, ; Porra et al, ; Bassellier & Benbasat, ; Ranganathan & Kannabiran, ; Weill, ; Jiang et al, ; Schwarz & Hirschheim, ; Brown & Ross, ; Ross & Weill, ; Chan, ; Agarwal & Sambamurthy, ; Gordon & Gordon, ; Benmati & Lederer, ; Earl & Kahn, ; Sambamurthy & Zmud, ; Gordon & Gordon, ; Willcocks & Sykes, ; Purvis & McCray, ; Peppard & Ward, ; Brown, ; Mathiassen et al, ; El Sawy et al, ; Brown & Magill, ; Earl & Sampler, ; Fowler & Wilkonson, ; Feeny & Willcocks, (also ); Boar, ; Clark et al, ; Agarwal et al, ; Cross et al, ; Brown, ; Prager, ; Earl et al, ; Nelson & Cooprider, ; Rockart et al, ; Hodgkinson, ; Moreton, ; Wang & Barron, ; Brown & Magill, ; Venkatraman & Loh, ; Blanton et al ., ; Von Simson, ; Tavakolian, ; Swanson & Beath, ; Dearden, …”
Section: The Information Systems Organization In Research Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…' (p. 144). This discussion has been rekindled by Evaristo et al (2005) who assess whether IT hardware architecture should be centralized or decentralized (see also Ahituv et al, 1989;Bacon, 1990).…”
Section: R E S E a R C H M E T H O D A N D Data A N A Ly S I Smentioning
Do conceptualizations of the information systems (IS) organization reflect findings from research studying requirements for successfully harnessing information, systems and technology to achieve operational and strategic objectives? This paper addresses this question, reporting on an analysis of articles published in leading academic and practitioner journals. It describes how the IS organization is portrayed in these studies and examines the results of this analysis through a sensitizing lens constructed from research that has studied how organizations generate business value from IS. The lens depicts this objective as a quest to harness knowledge that is distributed enterprise wide. The analysis suggests that conceptualisations of the IS organization used by researchers do not reflect the requirements for generating business value from information technology that have been identified in the literature. Whilst highlighting that definitions are vague or more often absent, it challenges the dominant orthodoxy of the IS organization as a separate organizational unit suggesting that it is a more pervasive construct. The implications of this conclusion for practice, research and teaching are considered.
“…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.…”
Section: The Concept Of Centralization and Decentralization Of Informmentioning
Subject reviewIn collaborative engineering environments communication and information sharing among participants is essential for successful project delivery. Modern information technology is driving the world towards two divergent communication topologies: 1) the industry is driven towards a centralized one around an information model, 2) citizens using information technologies at home are driven towards a meshed one where each can communicate whenever to whoever using communication services like those in social media. This paper presents the analysis, conceptual framework, architecture and prototype of a system that is bringing the latter to the engineering community. The framework consists of two main components: 1) a framework engine providing working environment and support for core services such as locale storage and module integration, and 2) external modules, extending core capabilities of the framework. For the purpose of this research work the SWOT analysis has been carried out revealing main characteristics of the proposed approach.
Keywords: communication in construction; decentralized information system; interpersonal communication network; service-oriented architectureUslužno orijentiran sustav za međuljudske komunikacije u arhitekturi, inženjerstvu i izgradnji Pregledni članak U suradničkim tehničkim okruženjima razmjena komunikacije i informacija među suradnicima je od bitne važnosti za uspješno izvršenje projekta. Moderna informatička tehnologija vodi ka dvije divergentne komunikacijske topoligije: 1) industrija je usamjerena ka centralizaciji oko informatičkog modela, 2)
“…One example is Allen and Boynton who advocate a centralized structure, mainly from an IT point of view, and they argue that central structures are flexible since one can make changes centrally [1]. On the other hand, Bacon analyzes how systems decentralization can be derived from organizational principles [2].…”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
