On the concept of inter-organizational information systems

On the concept of inter-organizational information systems Reima

Suomi

Turku School of Economics SF-20500 Turku, Finland

and Business Administration,

Rehtorinpellonkatu

3-5,

Inter-organizational information systems currently form one of the most immediate topics in information systems science and practice. Possible techniques and applications of such systems are widely discussed, yet the very concept underlying them is not touched upon. This paper attempts to give a coherent picture of inter-organizational information systems by defining why they have become important, what they consist of, and to what purposes they can be used. The paper is based on literature analysis and the practical experience obtained by the author in the course of several company projects defining inter-organizational information systems. Keywords:

inter-organization

information

systems,

concept

We are living in a world of growing interdependence. Terms such as cooperation, networks, joint ventures, outsourcing, etc., all manifest the need for growing communication in the organizational world. For a long time, communication between organizations has been based on manual operations and systems, even in cases where the organizations have had sophisticated internal information systems. Of course different kinds of technical tools (telephones, faxes, etc) might have been used to make this communication easier, but a distinctive characteristic of such manual systems was, and is, the redundant data existing in many computer installations caused by the frequent re-keying of information into different company computer systems. But why limit the application of modern computer technology to within company boundaries, when available technical solutions already exist? This question has already been posed by Felix Kaufman in an early article’, considered to be a classic in the field of inter-organizational systems (10%): Company boundaries are not the only, or even the most meaningful system boundaries. Therefore, even though internal systems may still be far from totally integrated, perceptive management needs to begin to consider the new possibilities for coordinating data processing outside its own organizational limits. Kaufman’s insights have since been adopted widely. IOSs have become one of the themes most often discussed in the field of MIS, as attested by various Revised paper received Tapio Reponen November

Vol 1 No 2 March

October 1991

1992

1991:

accepted

by

Professor

0963~8687/92/020093-08

analysis

examples from the academic world’-‘” and from the world of practitioners (e.g. the famous networks of SWIFT, IVANS,,American Hospital Supply and the airline reservation system in Europe and the USA. In spite of all this attention paid to IOSs, many still feel confused when they are discussed as to what they actually are, and to what purposes they can be put. It is no wonder that such confusion exists in these days of numerous hardware and communication architectures, and booming usage of distributed computing and networks. Current discussion on information systems is full of buzzwords such as total systems”, communication systems 19. transaction networks I8, distributed networks. telecommunication-based systems (TBIS), electronic data interchange (EDI), inter-organizational systems, electronic markets and hierarchieslO. information networks15, communications-intensive information systems (CIIS)8 and so on. Even the term ‘inter-organizational information system’ as tackled here has several versions: inter-organizational 0 inter-organizational l inter-organizational 0 inter-organizational l

information sharing s stems2.3; information sx stems ? data systems’ ; and systems4.

It would benefit all concerned if this jungle were to be tamed and some key terms emerge. The definition of terms can be useful from many viewpoints. First of all, one of the very purposes of scienceperse is classification and definition. By defining terms the research object can be determined. Definition is needed in order to separate crucial and irrelevant viewpoints. From a practical point of view, definition helps managers and

0 1992 Buttenvorth-Heinemann

Ltd

93

Concept of inter-organizational information systems information system professionals in the structuring of their environment. In addition, a good definition is also a practical one, providing a picture of the different possibilities available and thus directing even everyday operations. It is suggested here that one key term should be interorganizational systems (IOSs), highlighting above all the sharing of the system between at least two organizations, and thus drawing a sharp contrast with traditional systems that limit themselves to just one organization. Traditional intra-organizational systems have two characteristics that facilitate their management: 1. One organization can always fully control its information system. 2. The costs incurred by the information system can always be addressed to one single organization, as can the accruing benefits. While the need for definition of inter-organizational information systems has been manifested frequently, there have been few serious attempts. Given current confusion about even the most basic terms, it is very difficult to draw conclusions from previous research. Some of the few definitions found which focus deliberately on IOSs are outlined below. One of the earliest attempts to define IOSs was that by Barrett and Konsynski: ‘Inter-organizational information systems is a general term referring to systems that involve resources shared between two or more organizations3. Some years later Konsynski, then with Cash, amended this definition to: ‘automated information systems shared by two or more companies’5. Barrett also later arrived at a new definition: ‘Inter-organizational information sharing systems are data communication/processing systems that link independent organizations so that electronic information processing resources may be shared’*. Stem and Craig, however, define an inter-organizational data system as ‘a computer-based communications system directly linking two or more firms for the purpose of information exchange’16. All the definitions seem to have at least the following components: sharing of data or other resources; 0 two or more organizations; l IOSs are based on computers.

l

In general it seems that, as discussion has matured, less and less effort has been devoted to the definition of the most basic terms. The available definitions highlight some characteristics of IOSs whilst ignoring others. Discussion of IOSs seems to be divided into three subtopics: 1. At the beginning of the 10s era, articles trying to discover and understand the reasons for the emergence of IOSs dominated the literature. 2. The second field of discussion adopted a more technical viewpoint, trying to understand IOSs from within: what do these systems consist of, technically? The purpose of this discussion is to aid in the management of these systems. 3. A great deal of current discussion deals with the competitive and other implications of IOSs. In general the discussion shows a trend in which

94

IOSs, in a few years, have declined from being a key to competitive success to becoming a competitive necessity. Since all these sub-topics have had a deep impact on the development of IOSs, they should be included in their definition. This paper is correspondingly divided into three main discussion areas: 1. Why the boom in IOSs? (pragmatic viewpoint); 2. What constitutes an IOS? (component viewpoint); and 3. To what purposes can IOSs be put? Cfunctional viewpoint). In addition to reviewing the literature, the author has collected insight into the subject from two company cases. Case Insurance is a major Finnish insurance company of institutional character, holding a strong position in domestic markets and using telecommunications to a considerable degree. This company wishes to concentrate its resources on areas which seem most promising from the competitive viewpoint. The second company, Case Manufacturing, is a middlesized Finnish electronics manufacturing firm with an export orientation. It has little experience in telecommunications but wants to initiate its first 10s applications. The author consulted both of these companies during their efforts to build up their IOSS.

Why the boom in IOSs? (pragmatic analysis) IOSs have developed for several reasons. These can be grouped into organizational, economic and technological changes, as Cash and Konsynski’ have done. There follows a list built by the author around these three areas. Organizational changes The growing need for inter-organizational contacts: Many new organizational forms have emerged, needing closer communication between participating organizations such as joint ventures or clearing houses. In the field of insurance (Case Insurance), the AngloAmerican market has a tradition of using agents and brokers, whereas European and Nordic companies have relied on direct writing. English (LIMNET) and American (IVANS) insurance networks thus have a longer tradition than European networks, which first began to emerge only recently (RINET). The liberalization of the data communications industry: New organizations and enterprises have been able to enter the telecommunications industry. This has led to a fall in service prices, and has also made way for innovative ideas and services based upon telecommunications. In Finland, as in many other countries, the break-up of the PlT monopoly took place gradually at the end of the 1980s and had a direct impact on the telecommunications activities of Case Insurance. On one hand, the company had more options and had to work harder to find the best telecommunications solutions, and on the other it found it possible to begin marketing value-added telecommunications services to other companies.

Journal

of Strategic Information

Systems

R. SUOMI

The saturation of information processing within organizof decreased costs and ations: ‘The combination

increasing capability has resulted in a broader range of internal computer applications. As more and more data is stored in computers, the natural next step is to transmit these data in machine-readable form wherever they are needed. This prevents redundant encoding of data and makes information readily accessible.‘5 This could clearly be seen in Case Insurance, where many internal systems had already arrived at their second or third version, and marginal gains from these internal investments dropped continuously. The increased size of organizations: Large organizations have already been able to practise IOS-like telecommunications between their own business units, so they have gained valuable and sufficient experience. They have in addition the resources required to invest in IOSs. When possessing ownership of the resources themselves, they are also capable of taking the risks associated with the use of IOSs. In Case Insurance, one of the key motivators for increased engagement in the 10s field was a trial aimed at taking advantage of the telecommunication resources already available for internal use. Economic changes The increased value of information as a company asset:

Enterprises are willing to pay more for accurate and timely information. In Case Manufacturing, it became increasingly apparent that customers did not actually buy hardware, as was thought before, but total solutions which had a clear information component. This information can only be provided with the aid of intelligent IOSs. The timeliness of information is especially important nowadays, in a world full of change. This trend is mainly based on shifts in shrinking geographic international competition, separation, and deregulation with more open competition. Case Manufacturing felt that big savings could be achieved if components were bought from the optimum sources. Such sources could be found only through external databases. The falling prices of telecommunications: Because of technological advances (but also because of the breaking-up of monopolies) prices for electronic information transfer are dropping on all fronts. The rising prices of traditional methods: Normal

daily routines are becoming more and more costly in all organizations. The cost of the work-force is high, as is that of the routine transactions conducted by post or telephone services. Technological changes Better hardware making more intelligent use of IOSs possible: The constant rise in the performance/price

ratio of hardware is a well known trend needing no demonstration here. Among the most important technologies for IOSs are the following: l

the increased devices;

capability

Vol 1 No 2 March 1992

of computer

input/output

better communication media, among others optic cables and satellites; faster and more secure secondary storage. Better communications

so&are:

architectures are beginning lines of major vendors.

Telecommunications to emerge in the product

The establishment of several standards and protocols:

Government regulations were, historically, the primary impetus for the establishment of standards:However, organizations such as industry associations and industry groups are now also introducing standards. Even private enterprises have the ability to set standards. IOSs have mainly been welcomed to the field of information technology. Yet much discussion has been conducted concerning their potentially unwanted consequences, such as unemployment2’, or unpredicted social and cultural consequences’** 2’-23. So, from the pragmatic viewpoint, IOSs can be defined as information systems made feasible by various technical, organizational and economic changes.

What constitutes an IOS? (component analysis) The basic elements of an 10s are few: at least two organizations and an information system that connects them. But this simple view is radically complicated when analysing what is behind these concepts, and what the differences are between IOSs and ordinary intra-organizational information systems or different computer networks. In order to clearly define the IOS, the following questions are of crucial importance and most likely to cause difficulties in definition: When is it really possible to talk about at least two separate organizations? What are the network structures that we can use? How much automation is needed; is the transfer of tapes and disks in the domain of IOSs? Taking these questions in turn: 1. When is it really possible to talk about at least two separate organizations? Different kinds of joint ventures, large international organizations with headquarters and subsidiaries with different amounts of freedom and power, competitive pushes with complex management and equity structures; there are a multitude of organizational forms. When is it possible to identify two separate organizations? In the case of IOSs, we could try to tackle the question from three viewpoints. (a) The legal viewpoint: First we could try to define an organization as jurists do; it is an entity with its own assets and liabilities. This legal definition would cause difficulties in the case of international information systems, since legislation is not the same in every country. In addition, legal entities often do not furnish a trustworthy picture of the real situation. For example, in Case Insurance it was not possible, because of Finnish law, to have life, non-life, and pension insurances within the same insurance company: three separate legal entities had thus to be created, even when

95

Concept of inter-organizational

information

systems

the practical management and running of information systems took place in one organization. (b) The technical viewpoint: From a technical viewpoint we can examine the resources available to the organization. An organization should have its own employees, facilities, production machinery and, in our case, information systems. Here, too, we run into difficulties. Organizations can use external service houses that take their information processing in hand. Even when the company has its own information technology resources, links to external networks and other computer installations make it very difficult to define where one organization begins and another ends. The technical separation of two computer installations is very hard, and goes against the basic concept: the inter-organizational information system should be divided between two or more organizations. This viewpoint must also be considered only a partial solution at best. (c) The managerial viewpoint: This viewpoint looks at the independence the company has in its application of IOSs. What should be important is the organization’s scope to make independent decisions about IOSs: when to participate and when not, and with which applications and techniques. If a parent company tells its subsidiary to use a system, this goes against the essence of a real IOS, even though the organizations are legally separate. On the other hand, two organizational entities within the same organization can be totally independent in their decision-making. In the matter of the practical management of IOSs, a lot is at stake in the question of independence. So the managerial viewpoint should be decisive. 2. What are the network structures that we can use? What are the basic networks on which an 10s can be built? In general, there are dedicated (i.e. to one company) arrangements and real networks, where all the parties involved in the telecommunications are of equal status. The networks used can be divided into three main groups: (a) Company (dedicated) networks: Networks owned by one company for its own purposes. If such a network is to be considered an IOS, it should have links to other company networks. In Case Manufacturing the primary purpose of the project was to establish a company network which would connect the three production plants and several sales offices abroad to an integrated network. Only later would major customers be given a chance to take part in the network. (b) Cooperative networks: Networks jointly owned and/or operated by at least two companies. The intention is not to make the networks maintenance a business area in itself, but to support an organization’s own basic business areas through the network. In Case Insurance two major applications in the field of motor vehicle insurances, which connected five major Finnish insurance companies, were in use. These cooperative arrangements had been a great success from the operative view-point, but did not accrue any major strategic benefits, since the five companies taking part in the network already had a dominant position (about 90 per cent of the motor vehicle

96

insurance market) before the arrangement was instigated. In their daily operation the applications relied on a commercial network. (c) Commercial networks: Network services are sold actively, and running the network is the basic business function of the network supplier (often called a facilitator). This taxonomy is a subset of the network classification by Quarterman and Hoskins24, who have presented a taxonomy of research, company, cooperative and commercial networks. 3. How much automation is needed: is the transfer of tapes and disks in the domain of IOSs? From an ideal state of memory-to-memory communication without manual operations (ED1 in its basic form) there exists a continuum toward less automated versions within IOSs. At which point should the limit be set, so that the term 10s can no longer be used? The message outputs of an IOS, either single transactions or tiles, formatted or unformatted, can be transferred by three means: (a) transfer of physical media; (b) in a batch-mode; and (c) in an on-line mode. If many of the operative goals of IOSs, such as speed of transfer or the absence of physical transportation are to be aimed at, the transfer of media is not a feasible solution. It is therefore excluded as a mode of data transfer in these definitions. In both of the cases cited here, the elimination of magnetic tapes was one of the primary goals of the 10s project. Case Insurance used magnetic tapes in various applications. However, just the daily operation with the tapes had already become too cumbersome: lots of tapes travelling here and there, with a complicated timetable for their manual control and various incompatible file formats to handle. Even the smaller Case Manufacturing had found some of its pioneering applications with magnetic tapes (such as banking connections) unsatisfactory from the viewpoint of service levels. So, an 10s is defined from the component analysis viewpoint to be a system in which two or more independently managed organizations communicate in a company, cooperah’ve or commercial network in a memory-to-memory fashion without the transfer of physical media.

To what purposes can IOSs be put? (functional analysis) Several perspectives can be derived from looking at the functions supported by IOSs. For suppliers of hardware and software, providers of networks and other telecommunication facilities, consulting firms active in the telecommunications field etc, IOSs are a phenomenon opening up new markets. The construction of IOSs has also been motivated by industry viewpoints. For financial institutions, for example, IOSs are seen as a means by which to increase the speed of the circulation of money”’ 25*26.29. For companies in the transport business, they are a means by which to streamline administrative functions

Journal

of Strategic Information

Systems

R.SUOMi

associated with the flow of physicat goodsi3. For public administration, 10% are a means of stripping down bureaucracy and reducing paperwork2’. The viewpoint here is limited to organizations using an 10s in support of some other basic business function, not p~rna~ly as a business in itself. Yet experience has shown that the delineation between being an IOS user and a seller of 10s services is very vague, as the examples of airline reservation systems have shown6. The purpose of using an IOS can be analysed from two perspectives. First we can analyse the goals at which an organization is aiming when using an 10s; they fall into two broad categories; operational and strategic. Second, we can descend to factory floor level and analyse the daily routines the system should accomplish. There seem to be three principal modes of communication (EDI), usage: computer-computer basically human-human communication (such as electronic mail) and human-computer communication (such as the application of external data banks). Goals

ofusage

Organizations attempt to extract both operational and strategic advantage from the use of IOSs. Calculations on whether or not to build an IOS are usually based on operational advantages, since future strategic benefits are often difficult to quantify. Yet most IOSs seem today to have originated without any major costbenefit calculations: the decision taken on whether or not to build an 10s has usually been justified by it being a ‘must’, in the name of building a company image or learning about the new technology. More and more discussion is being undertaken to show that IOSs are no longer a key to automatic success in strategic or operational areas. They are becoming a basic structure of business that companies cannot do without, like the telephone or banking systems. It is impossible to acquire any special advantage through them at first hand, but their application facilitates business pa~i~ipation. The advent of IOSs is a snowballing phenomenon. As new enterprises learn about IOSs, they become willing to try them out, simply in order to discover what is happening in the field and to gain experience of the technology involved. It is also a common trend to main~in some risky and demanding projects (as IOSs have so far tended to be) in the applications portfolio in order to keep staff in edp departments interested in their jobs and proud of their work. Case Insurance thought that its knowledge of telecommunications was one of the key success factors in its information technology operations, even to the extent where these services could be sold to outside companies. At first glance, 10s questions may seem to be purely technical ones. Although technical aspects naturally deserve a lot of attention, there is no reason to forget that IO!% can provide powerful competitive and strategic tools for the organizations using them and participating in their use. As Cash and Konsynski put it: An 10s can give a corporation an edge over its competitors, but an IOS can shift the balance of

Vol 1 No 2 March 1992

power between the supplier and the buyer, making for a possible unhealthy dependence on either side.5 The competitive environment of most industries has changed radically, and organizations are desperately trying to find new ways of gaining strategic advantage over their competitors. IOSs can provide such means, either in the form of falling costs, differentiation or focu$O. The marriage of IOSs and the strategic use of info~ation technology in the last few years is no coincidence: new strategic information systems are usually built around telecommunication components. This is an important distinguishing factor: operational information systems are intra-organizational, strategic information systems usual1 inter-organizational in nature. As defined by Ansoff X3, for example, strategy is about relationships with the environment; systems taking direct responsibility for these relationships have the best chance of being strategic. The connection between strategic advantage and IOSs was also evident in the two cases studied by the author. Case Manufacturing saw that it could not achieve any distinct advantage by focusing on R&D, manufactu~ng, warehousing or any other internal function, due to its relatively small size. The only field where competitors could be left behind would be customer service, which could be improved through information systems connecting customers to company. Case Insurance considered itself quite mature in its application of internal information systems, and yet no clear advantage over its competitors existed. Again, the key to success could only be found in IO!+supported customer contacts. This inter-organizational orientation has led to a situation where the users of strategic information systems are usually customers of the organization that owns or runs the system. Strategic information systems are used heavily by people other than the employees of the organization running the system, a situation not seen in the case of operative systems. This new role of users as ‘customers’ instead of ‘employees’ has also cont~buted to the lessening of social problems connected with strategic information systems. IOSs are being built to facilitate operational advantages due to lower costs and increased efficiency. Barrett and Konsynski3 speak of three kinds of potential benefit: (a) cost reduction; (b) productivity improvement; (c) product market/strategy.

and

The first two incentives are clearly operational, while product/market strategy issues are of a strategic nature. Among the operational advantages are: Reduced paperwork and manual operations: In Case Insurance, one of the two successful cooperative arrangements in use made it possible for car dealers to insure the cars they sold using EDI. That was of crucial help and avoided mistakes when handling complex data such as motor or vehicle serial numbers, etc. Lower inventory levels: In Case Manufacturing, the reduction of inventory levels was one of the first key

97

Concept of inter-organizational information systems motivators for the development of IOSs. Later, however, better customer service was given even greater priority. Faster flow of materials and products: In Case Insurance, the swift handling of customer claims is one key point of customer service. TOSS were expected to help in this process as, in cases of shared responsibility, insurance companies could discuss the amount and other conditions of that responsibility more easily. Standardization of procedures: In Case Insurance, cooperation with car dealers on an ED1 basis made it possible to ensure that all the incoming insurance applications had completed data and uniformity. Faster information about changes in demand. Lower telecommunications costs.

Mode of usage There are three principal uses for IOSs. These differ in their basic mode of communication, which can be either from machine to machine (EDI), from person to person using the computer as a medium (electronic mail, computer conferencing, bulletin boards, etc) or between a human and a computer (input or output of data from computer databases). 1. Communication between computers: Communication between the computers of two separate organizations is the archetype of IOSs, and should be aimed at if full advantage is to be taken of automation at the operational level. However, from a strategic point of view, the application of other techniques such as electronic mail may be an even more powerful means through which to outperform competitors. Very much depends on the context. Communication between computers can take place on-line or in batch-mode. As long as services are billed on a connection time basis, batch-mode tends to be dominant. If the cost of connection time is irrelevant, on-line applications become more feasible. However, it must be remembered that on-line programs and hardware are much more expensive than those meant for batchmode. In computer-to-computer communication, messages or files must be structured. 2. Communication between humans: Communication taking place between humans using computers as a channel can take many forms. It can occur in an online mode or batch-mode, but the purpose of using computers for human-human communication is to be freed from the necessity to communicate synchronously in time or place. Electronic mail is the application most used, but several extensions of it can be seen: bulletin boards, computer conferences, group decision support systems, computer supported cooperative work applications, etc. From an 10s viewpoint it is important that the humans taking part are in separate organizations. In these days of digital networks, communication nearly all electronic communication takes place through a computer system. What is considered to be important here is that the communication’s user interface is computer-based. In communication between humans, messages are usually unstructured.

98

3. Communication between a human anda computer: Most inter-organizational systems fall into this category. All instances where humans access the computers of organizations for which they do not work fall into this category: automatic teller machines, the application of public databanks, etc. Humans can use the computer either for inputting data (point-of-sale systems) or retrieving it. Applications can again be either interactive (on-line) or based on batch-processing. Because there is a computer at the other end, communication must be structured to a certain degree. This is the field where most user interface problems occur. For example, the successful application of external databases is severely inhibited by low quality user interfaces. So, from the functional viewpoint, an 10s is defined as a system used to attain van’ous operative or strategicgoals by means of communication between computers, humans through a computer, or a human and a computer.

Conclusions During the current boom in distributed computing, various hardware and communications architectures, and communications networks, it is difficult to define which systems are inter-organizational and which not. Clarification of the concept of IOSs can be found in literature. Definitions vary, but all seem to include implicitly or explicitly some common elements. A reasonable understanding can be acquired by looking at IOSs from different points of view. Pragmatic point of view Many economic, technical, organizational and competitive changes, as encountered in most industries, have made IOSs feasible. Among the most obvious enabling factors are: deregulation in the field of telecommunications; falling prices; emerging standards; the changing competitive environment; and increasingly expensive traditional communication methods. Functional point of view IOSs are built in order to gain operative and stategic advantages. Yet the building of a company image, learning about technology or simply it being a ‘must’ have often proved to be sufficient reasons for building an 10s. The three application areas of IOSs are: l l l

electronic data interchange; electronic mail; and the usage of external data-banks.

All three of these areas should be noted, even though most discussion and, more especially, work on standards revolves around EDI, which is often seen as the whole 10s field. Component point of view The key components

Journal

of IOSs are as follows:

of Strategic Information

Systems

R. SUOMI

‘%p What is an organization?

3

Technical definition Legal definition Managerial definition

\

+&,.

d

What is the information system? What is the mode of What is the network type? data transfer?

Company Cooperative Commercial

.

Transfer of media On-line &P YJ Batch d / _\‘b

organizational information system is defined here to be a system feasible because of technical, organizational and economic changes, in which two or more independently managed organizations communicate in a company, cooperative or commercial network in a memory-tomemory fashion without the transfer of physical media; in order to attain operative or strategic goals by means of communication between computers, humans through a computer, or a human and a computer. A taxonomy called the conceptual prism of IOS examination is shown in Figure 1. On the sides of the prism we can see the main questions and types of answers which have to be addressed in any trial to define IOSs.

References Kaufman, F Data systems that cross company boundaries Harvard Bus. Rev. (January/February 1966) pp 141-155 2 Barrett, S An IS* case: the closed loop scenario Inf: and ManagementVol 10 No 5 (1985) pp 263-269 1

/ What are the reasons for emergence?

Organizational Technical Economic

What is the goal of operation? Competitive advantage Strategic advantage Necessity What is the mode of operation? Between a human and a computer

Between computers Between / humans

3

(December 1982) pp 93-104 Cash, J, Jr Interorganizational systems: an information society opportunity of threat The Inf: Sot. Vol 3 No 3 (1985) pp 199-228 5 Cash, J, Jr and Konsynski, B IS redraws competitive ~;~ld$es Harvard Bus. Rev. (March/April 1985) pp

4

6 7

8

/ 9

Figure 1.

The conceptual prism of IOS examination

1. Two organizations that communicate using an IOS: What factor separates two organizations? The line could be drawn technically according to the limits of computer installations (two separate computer installations communicate), legally (two legally separate organizations communicate) or managerially (two organizations independently managing their use of the system communicate). From the viewpoint of this article, the managerial dimension seems to be the most crucial: it is important that the organizations taking part in the development and use of the system can make decisions independently. 2. The communication takes place through a computerized system: The communication flows from computer memory. The strictest definitions would necessitate online communication, but apparently many current systems which are called inter-organizational also use batch-transfer. In this article the line is drawn at magnetic tapes and other physical media. If they must be transferred, many of the benefits of computercomputer communication, such as speed and the possibility of using communication networks, will be lost. So, to sum up these three points of view, an inter-

Vol 1 No 2 March 1992

Barrett, S and Konsynski, B Inter-organization information sharing systems MIS Quarterly Vol6 Special issue

10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18 19

Clemons, E and McFarlan, F Telecom: hook up or lose out Harvard Bus. Rev. (July/August 1986) pp 91-97 Copeland, D and McKenney, J Airline reservations systems: lessons from history MIS Quarterly Vol 12 No 3 (September 1988) pp 353-370 Hammer, M and Mangurian, G The changing value of communications technology Sloan ManagementRev. Vol 28 No 2 (Winter 1988) pp 65-71 Johnston, R and Vitale, M Creating competitive advantage with inter-organizational systems MIS Quarterly Vol 12 No 2 (June 1988) pp 153-165 Malone, T, Yates, J and Benjamin, R Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies Commun. ACM Vol 30 (June 1987) pp 484-497 Runge, D and Earl, M Gaining competitive advantage from telecommunications, in Earl, M (ed) Information Management-The Strategic Dimension Oxford University Press (1988) Runge, D Using telecommunications for competitive advantage Doctoral thesis Oxford Institute of Information Management and Magdalen College (1985) Sandoval, V The impact of Minitel technology on road freight transport management in France Transporr Rev. Vol 9 No 3 pp 255-266 Stem, Land Craig, C Interorganizational data systems J. Retailing Vol 47 No 2 (Summer 1971) pp 73-91 Sullivan, C, Jr and Smart, J Planning for information networks Sloan Management Rev. Vol 27 No 4 (Winter 1987) pp 39-44 Stem, Land Craig, C Interorganizational data systems: the computer and distribution J. Retailing Vol 47 (Summer 1971) pp 73-91 Estabrooks, M Programmed Capitalism-A ComputerMediated Global Society M E Sharpe, Inc (1988) Ambrak, J Trans-border communications networks: technology-driven or social innovation? European Management J Vol 6 No 4 (1988) pp 330-337 Z/S Analyzer Canning, R (ed) Guiding distributed systems Vol 2.5 No 11 (November 1987)

99

Concept of inter-organizational information systems 20

21 22

23

24

100

Nora, S and Mint,

A The Computerization of Society: A Repot? to’the President of France MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1978) Bell, D Communication technology--for better or worse Harvard Bus Rev. (May/June 1969) pp 20-42 Kiesler, S The hidden messages in computer networks Harvard Bus Rev. (January/February 1986) pp 46260 Westin, A Social change through electronic communications, in Henderson, M M and MacNaughton, M J (eds) Electronic Communication: Technology and Impacts, Proc. AAAS Selected Symp. 52 Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado (1980) pp 141-157 Quarterman, J and Hoskins, J Notable computer networks Commun. ACM Vol 29 (October 1986) pp 932-97 1

25

Poe, R Japanese networks expand after deregulation Vol 33 No 21 (November 1 1987) pp 2426 Williams, G Banks, network providers eye ED1 Datamation Vol 34 (November 15 1988) pp 77-78 Venkatraman, N and Kambil, A Strategies for electronic integration: lessons from electronic filing of tax-returns CISR WP No. 209 Sloan WP No. 3127-90-BPS (1990) Ansoff, H Corporate Strategy McGraw-Hill (1965) War-f, Barney Telecommunications and the globalization of financial services The Professional Geographer Vol 41 No 3 (August 1989) pp 257-271 Porter, M Competitive Strategy The Free Press (1980) Datamation

26 27

28 29

30

Journal

of Strategic

Information

Systems