Conclusion
Management of Information Systems in its Complexity
For the purposes of analysis, the previous parts have looked separately at three key concepts of information systems science: governance, urbanization and alignment.
We have seen how information systems governance seeks to define the structures and modalities of decision-making by information systems stakeholders, be they internal or external to the organization. We have linked information systems governance to organizational theory via the stakeholder figure. The stakeholder has thus been recognized as the crucial element in being able to design governance, because the stakeholder is the source of value creation. The issue for strategy makers is therefore to govern the stakeholders.
We have presented information systems urbanization as the approach to a representation of the information system, in its different facets, in order to be able to design and provide tools for the continuous development of information systems. We have linked information systems urbanization to organizational theory via the concept of territory. Territory is thus the operating field where the information system is deployed, with a correlation between the multiplicity of territorial levels and multiplicity of information systems representations. Planning the information system’s urbanization is thus the management role that is strategically central to territorial urbanization.
We have covered information systems alignment, showing the importance of evaluating the information system’s capacity to make a significant contribution to organizational strategy and acting to increase its strategic contribution. Information systems alignment encourages mobilization of the project concept, favored by organizational theory. The project is thus a specific implementation of strategic alignment of the information system, and management of the information systems project portfolio defines the path towards the target information system. The project director must confirm the links between the formulation of the organization’s overall strategy and the development and agility of the organization’s information system.
However, this analytical separation of the concepts of governance, urbanization and alignment may seem arbitrary. The day-to-day work of information systems managers is such that these three aspects are inextricably linked for most of the time. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate these three notions in a process focused on transversality and reflexivity. One way to meet this requirement is to link the concepts two by two. We can thus consider the model’s areas of confluence and study the links connecting governance to stakeholder, urbanization to territory and alignment to project.
Figure C.1. The complex vision of information systems management
Mobility: the meeting between stakeholders and territories raises the consideration of increased stakeholder mobility in an organizational context where the organizational boundaries are significantly pushed back or even broken down. This mobility takes four different forms and stems from multiple causes. Of their own free will or by force of circumstance, workers change jobs within the same organization and also change employers more frequently, generating internal and external mobility. The work structure requires more and more business trips, remote working and also working with remote colleagues and partners. Territories are stretching and borders are more permeable to stakeholders. Information systems management should therefore grasp this mobility to enable its organization to extend its territory by populating it with its mobile stakeholders, while maintaining remote contact via information and communication technologies. In particular, mobility is linked to the miniaturization of devices (smartphones, tablets, connected objects) and the widespread dissemination of digital technologies.
Agility: we analyze the meeting between territories and projects through the development of an agility made necessary by new expectations of customers, operators and users. These new expectations call for a review of organizational strategy and thus the projects to develop an information system aligned to strategic needs. Information systems managers have to anticipate the adjustment and spatio-temporal development of organizations at a time when collaborative software is widely extended, beyond organizational boundaries. It is therefore necessary to develop scalable, agile strategies where information and communication technologies should make it possible to respond to current needs while opening up opportunities for the future.
Maturity: the meeting between stakeholders and projects calls for a search for organizational maturity. Organizational maturity is largely the result of developments of norms, standards and benchmarks for information systems management. In order to manage the maturity and scalability of the information system, IS management must take ownership of these norms and standards, comply with them and audit its information system to identify deviations and areas for improvement. Stakeholders must be trained in project management and more generally on the benchmarks. Stakeholders should also be able to participate proactively in improving these management tools, so that they continue to be the tools that support stakeholders and agile strategies, and not burdens that fossilize the organization.
A second way of meeting the need for transversality is to focus on the point of confluence of confluences, or in other words the precise spot where mobility, agility and maturity coincide. The intersection of issues of governance, urbanization and information systems alignment can be a site of complexity management.
C.1. What does “complexity” mean?
First of all, “complex” does not mean “complicated”. The etymological origin of the word is clear: complexus means “something that is woven together”. It is therefore important to include, within the decision-making focus, complementaries and extensions of the various facets of world reality. Complex thinking rejects the Ceteris paribus (other things being equal) concept – where variables are fixed in relation to each other for the purposes of the analysis – in favor of seeking a comprehensive approach where variables are perceived in the fluidity of their interactions.
Complexity has its roots in many disciplines and research streams: cybernetic complexity [WIE 48], with the idea that dynamic systems are capable of feedback; the complexity of networks, dynamic systems and chaos theory [AUB 02]; Kolmogorov’s algorithmic and mathematical complexity [LI 14]; the system-cybernetic approach, with the work of Morin and Atlan [ATL 79, MOR 13]. Complex systems are capable of actions and feedback internally and in interaction with the environment. Informational feedback loops are managed by the system via regulation mechanisms seeking homeostasis: balance in the middle of the vortex of dynamic forces. In this vortex, dialogisms appear – contradictory dynamics that come into conflict, but are complementary and at the same time participate in the co-creation of value [MOR 13].
Complex systems are characterized by their self-organization. Complexity [MOR 13, MOR 82] is valuable in giving some clear principles of analysis. Thus, complex systems are characterized by:
- – the diversity of their components;
- – the adaptation of their components;
- – their multiple connections;
- – their mutual dependence.
Edgar Morin states that “complexity does not only involve quantities of elements and interactions that challenge our computational capacities; it also involves uncertainties and indeterminacies; random phenomena. Complexity, in a sense, always has to do with chance” [MOR 13].
C.2. Complexity and information systems management
At a time when information systems occupy a central place in organizational transformation, it is important to have a method to understand arrangements that are a mixture of human and materiality, ultra-localization and globality, standardization and agility. The functionalist and utilitarian vision of information systems does not allow for such tensions to be taken into account. It remains a prisoner of technological determinism, leaving little room for studying the human element in the utilization and ownership of systems. In response to this movement, complex thinking offers great scope for the study of information systems. Indeed, it allows us to overcome dichotomy, decontextualization and linear causality [MOR 08] and to focus instead on the study of contingencies, contradictions and their dynamics.
The link between Edgar Morin’s complexity and the analysis of information systems was made by Jean-Louis Le Moigne [MOR 99]. Complexity theory implies that every system (defined as the combination of various elements) is complex by nature since it is open to its environment, and that systems are empirically embedded in a plurality of interdependent processes. We find this particularly illuminating in understanding how information systems are technological and at the same time procedural and cultural. Thus, the complex approach suggests various unpredictability factors associated with user behavior in organizational contexts, with mobile technologies, etc. Developing a complex view of information systems therefore implies leveraging the founding principles of the complexity theory. Among these, we would highlight openness, nonlinearity, uncertainty, self-organization and autopoiesis.
Openness requires that every system interacts with its environment. This is the case for information systems. Every information system should be analyzed and understood in its extent and its capacity to provide operational bases for an extended organization or business [IDB 06].
Nonlinearity is present in a system when causes are not directly proportional to effects. Therefore, it is necessary to accept and anticipate every magnification (and reduction) rationale of events that may seem insignificant (or major) when studied in isolation. These elements of nonlinearities occur repeatedly in information systems and cannot be ignored.
Uncertainty concerns information systems that take unexpected paths, resulting from technological, human and cultural configurations arising from interaction between elements. For several decades, information and communication technologies have been undergoing astonishing growth, which puts uncertainty at the heart of innovation.
Self-organization is present insofar as today’s information systems are mainly distributed and open to multiple interactions; they develop unpredictable capacities for self-organization. The growth of the collaborative economy is the strongest proof of the significance of self-organization in the growth rationale of information systems.
Autopoiesis is the property of a system being able to create itself, permanently and in interaction with its environment, and thus maintain its structure despite changes in its components. When Maturana and Varela study the characteristics of what they call “living machines” and formulate a theory based on the dynamics of the recursive relationship between closed systems, subsystems, components and the environment [MAT 80], they are envisioning autopoietic systems. An autopoietic system (from the Greek auto, “self”, and poiesis, “production, creation”) is organized as “a network of production processes of components that (a) continually regenerate the network through the transformations and interactions that created them, and that (b) constitute the system as a concrete unit in the space where it exists, specifying the topological domain where it fulfills itself a network” [MAT 80]. Building mature, mobile, agile information systems thus means developing auto-regulating systems, via self-learning practices, repositories and stakeholders [VAR 92].
C.3. Action principles on information system
Le Moigne proposes an organizational model [LEM 90] within which the information and the organization interact: the information gives structure to the organization, which in return structures the development of information. The information system is conceived by Le Moigne as an organizational subsystem positioned at the interface between the decision-making system and the operational system. Thus, the information system shapes and steers production management and can supply qualified data to management for decision-making.
| Organizational model |
| Decision-making system |
| Information system |
| Operation system |
In relation to this perception of the organizational model, we propose a complex approach to the information system itself in its capacity to be a subsystem of the organizational system, in other words an organizational information system in Le Moigne’s sense. Taking the Stakeholder/Territory/Project approach, we can identify within the information system the Decision/Information/Operation aspects put forward by Le Moigne.
| Organizational information system model |
| Stakeholder/Governance/Decision |
| Territory/Urbanization/Information |
| Project/Alignment/Operation |
Faced with these theoretical elements, we propose to adopt a cross-disciplinary approach in order to manage and anticipate the complexity of information systems in their organizational contexts. This involves taking the technological factor into account through careful attention to the collective aspect of the action, the history of the organization, its corporate culture, its social dimension and the ethical implications of data processing. The questions to be asked are simple, but they need to be asked together. How was technology introduced into the organization? Where does it come from? Who created it? Who is steering it? Does it have self-organizational potential? Does it allow transparency and ownership of its processes? How are users connected to it? What are the current controversial issues? How big a factor is uncertainty? How can it be addressed? How can environmental constraints be met? Where are the available resources to establish seamless and sustainable development of the information system?
Behind these questions, we find the principles mentioned above, and in particular the concept of autopoiesis. In a changing and competitive environment, it is increasingly vital for organizations to seek a dynamic balance in the face of technological challenges and to know what they must change in order to maintain their identity and their autonomy. We believe that this kind of framework allows designers, developers, managers and also users to grasp the most relevant issues through a global approach that includes the information system’s stakeholders, territories and projects.