Running head: INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Information Systems and Organizational Structure: IT Systems Case Study

Robert E. Davis
Walden University

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Abstract
Information technologies that link information systems have made intra-organizational
communication almost seamless. Resultingly, this capability has inescapably influenced
organizational formation structures. In this paper, the author synthesizes case study research
regarding information systems and organizational structures. Based on an assigned and selected
literature review; the author summarizes referenced content, compares and contrasts issues, and
extrapolates results and conclusions garnered from scholarly study of a records management
initiative.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Information Systems and Organizational Structure: IT Systems Case Study

An organizational formation exists as a social entity which has a collective purpose
(Davis, 2008; Organization, n.d.). Within the formation, organizational structures like
organizational cultures are influenced by interior and exterior environmental factors (Davis,
2008; Hitt & Brynjolfsson, 1997; Islam, Bagum, & Rashed, 2012; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
Nonetheless, these structures exist in two distinct, yet potentially integrated, forms: formal and
informal (Lucas & Baroudi, 1994; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Formal organizational structures
commonly reflect a set of constructs associated with laws, regulations, policies, directives,
procedures, standards, and rules; while informal organizational structures mirror the interlocking
social makeup governing how people work together in practice (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
However, regardless of the type, at the environmental detail level, organizational structures are
impacted by designed tasks and deployed technology (Hitt & Brynjolfsson, 1997; Meyer &
Rowan, 1977; Sor, 2004).
In this essay, the author presents an assessment of organizational challenges faced by two
universities (known as Campus A and Campus B) when deploying new information technology
(IT). Thereafter, the author explores strategic responses enacted by management and the strategy
leading to greater organizational success in deploying new IT. Moreover, the author examines
social action theory as a useful framework for understanding the relative success or failure of
these institutions in implementing the new IT initiative and the implications for organizations
that are less bound by tradition. Lastly, the author considers the degree these case studies
confirm or deny theories and models proffered in assigned journal articles.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Challenges and responses to a new IT initiative

A record furnishes an existence proof and when sought is used to recreate or validate an
existence state, regardless of applied medium or defined attributes (Overview of records, n.d.).
Each organizational record is either created or received in pursuance of compliance with
statutory responsibilities, or sustaining an activity accountability (Davis, 2005; Overview of
records, n.d.). Records can exist as either tangible items, such as paper documents or intangible
items, such as digitally encoded data sets (Davis, 2008). Thus, records management is the
practice of governing organizational data sets throughout their life-cycles (AIIM - What is
ERM, n.d.). Characteristically, this practice area addresses identifying, classifying, prioritizing,
preserving, securing, archiving, tracking, retrieving, and destroying data sets (AIIM - What is
ERM, n.d.).
As a technological solution, record management systems (RMS) store, process, and
retrieve data sets. Furthermore, well-designed RMS aid in protecting an organization from
unauthorized data set manipulation, demonstrating compliance with applicable laws and
regulations, and increasing organizational efficiency by promoting the disposition of outdated or
reclassified items (Overview of records, n.d., para. 2). Given this indicated context, the
replacement of paper documents with electronic records can have a significant impact on the way
that an institution conducts business and organizational structuring. Specifically, several of the
traditional processes for paper-based systems may be reduced or relinquished with the
deployment of electronic record workflow. Likewise, new tasks must be designed and
operationalized within the automated processes to ensure encoded information cannot be altered,
lost, or erased.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

In the case studies presented by Kahn (2000), the challenges faced by Campus A and
Campus B were converting existing paper-based records and the integration of new technology
into the organizational workflow. While singularly, Campus A had to cope with inadequate
documentation as well as maintaining and preserving potentially important historical and legal
electronic records (Kahn, 2000). Whereas Campus B had to address limited organizational
support, lack of manager-leader subject matter expertise, staffing and management problems, and
spatial dispersion (Kahn, 2000).
The Campus A archive offices strategic responses to challenges presented by the
introduction of new technology encompassed authority decentralization, alliance building,
budget management system utilization, and boundary spanning management techniques (Kahn,
2000, p. 341). Contrastingly, the Campus B archive offices strategic response to challenges
presented by the introduction of new technology was to focus on policy development and project
team subject matter knowledge acquisition (Kahn, 2000). Of these two divergent strategic
responses, the archive office of Campus A appears to have achieved greater success in expected
outcomes (Kahn, 2000).
Social action theorys relevance to IT initiatives
Authority, accountability, and responsibility are commonly transparent within a formal
organizational structure based on hierarchical arrangements or predefined controls and opaque
within an informal organizational structure due to the leadership selection criteria (Schatz, n.d,
para. 5). Informal organizational structures typically reflect connections where the formed
relationships are considered beneficial to the participating parties (Schatz, n.d.). Whereby, when
considering social action theory as the foundation of informal organizational structures,

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

individual interactions enable achieving expected performance (Kahn, 2000). Consequently, the
capacity to motivate is reliant on the skill for obtaining the reverence and alliance of others
within the organizational formation (Kahn, 2000; Schatz, n.d., para. 5).
As a case in point, when budgetary responsibility decentralization occurred throughout
Campus A, technological deployment and linked process changes became dependent on
agreement by each formal organizational unit (Kahn, 2000). Therefore, the archive office had no
direct authority, accountability, or responsibility for ensuring organizational units invested in and
supported new technology to reduce record management costs (Kahn, 2000). Nevertheless,
through the archive director utilizing alliance building and boundary spanning management
techniques, new record management technology and processes were successfully implemented
(Kahn, 2000).
On the other hand, the Campus B organizational units were dependent on conventional
centralized budgetary authorization for new technology deployments and associated processes
(Kahn, 2000). Moreover, the director of the archive office believed organizational unit support
would emerge through policy enactment and consequently did not pursue alliance building or
boundary spanning management techniques (Kahn, 2000). As a result, the IT initiative utilized a
limited project approach and received limited organizational support which led to a relatively
unsuccessful new deployment (Kahn, 2000).
Implications for organizations that are less bound by tradition
Traditional organizational structures represent inherited, established, or customary
business architectures (Tradition, n.d., p. 1). As described by Mukherji (2002), traditional
organizations typically utilize the Simple, Bureaucratic, Professional, or Divisional

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

organizational structures. Whereas, where complexity, bureaucracy, and centralization are

excessively confining, Henry Mintzberg donated the Adhocracy organizational structure for
supporting the need to innovate and operate situationally to endure environmental circumstances
(Mukherji, 2002). Consequently, less traditional companies should rely on informal
organizational structures strengthened through alliance building and boundary spanning
management techniques. In other words, as exemplified by the Campus B case study, using a
traditional bureaucratic organizational structure in a rapidly changing environment can generate
disastrous results especially if the firm is dealing with complex and turbulent events (Kahn,
2000).
The degree the case studies confirm or deny assigned academic research journals
Henry Mintzberg suggested implementation of a formal organizational structure conveys
labor and task divisions for subsequent coordination to achieve adopted objectives (Lucas &
Baroudi, 1994). Thereby, when designing a formal organizational structure, it totally depends on
the firm's opinion concerning employees and the definition of tasks, especially decision making
(Lucas & Baroudi, 1994, p. 20). Nevertheless, according to Lucas and Baroudi (1994),
compared with classical organization structure, centralized and decentralized control merge as
the firm focuses more on projects and processes than on standard procedures and tasks (p. 11).
Thus, three factors: people, processes and technology affect organizational structure design and
deployment (Hitt & Brynjolfsson, 1997; Kahn, 2000; Lucas & Baroudi, 1994; Mukherji, 2002;
Sor, 2004).
Comparatively, Kahn (2000) case studies confirm the roles people play in supporting new
IT deployments and accepting change based on the organizations assumption about employees

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

and the definition of process tasks. In particular, upper management of Campus A made the
decision to implement a formal divisional-based organizational structure with the transferring of
budget authority enabling RMS integration through an informal organizational structure (Kahn,
2000).

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

References
AIIM - What is ERM? What is Electronic Records Management?. (n.d.). In Association for
Information and Image Management website. Retrieved from http://www.aiim.org
Davis, R. E. (2005). IT auditing: An adaptive process [CD-ROM version]. Retrieved from
http://www.pleier.com
Davis, R. E. (2008). IT auditing: Assuring information assets protection [CD-ROM version].
Retrieved from http://www.pleier.com
Hitt, L.M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1997). Information technology and internal firm organization: An
exploratory analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 81-101.
Retrieved from http://mesharpe.com
Islam, M. A., Bagum, M. N., & Rashed, C. A. (2012). Operational disturbances and their impact
on the manufacturing business- an empirical study in the RMG sector of Bangladesh.
International Journal of Research in Management & Technology 2(2), 184-191.
Retrieved from http://www.iracst.org
Kahn, R. L. (2000). The effect of technological innovation on organizational structure: Two case
studies of the effects of the introduction of a new technology on informal organizational
structures. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(3), 328-347.
doi:10.1177/105065190001400305
Lucas, H.C., & Baroudi, J. (1994). The role of information technology in organization design.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 9-23. Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

10

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2), 340-363. doi:10.1086/226550
Mukherji, A. (2002). The evolution of information systems: Their impact on organizations and
structures. Management Decision, 40(5/6). doi:10.1108/00251740210430498
Organization. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster website. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/organization
Overview of records management in SharePoint Server 2013. (n.d.). In Microsoft website.
Retrieved from http://technet.microsoft.com
Schatz, T. (n.d.). Basic types of organizational structure: Formal & informal. In Houston
Chronicle website. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com
Sor, R. (2004). Information technology and organisational structure: Vindicating theories from
the past. Management Decision, 42(1/2), 316-329. doi:10.1108/00251740410513854
Tradition. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster website. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/tradition