an organizational learning perspective on information systems planning

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1994 3(3) 165-177

An organizational learning perspective on information systems planning

Marleen H Huysman, Sven J Fischer and Michael S H Heng Department of Information Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,

De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

In this article, the process of formulating a plan for information systems applications and implementing the plan is considered a process of learning for the organization which carries out the process. The experience gained in this learning process must be regarded as a vital source for the future success of information systems. The success is seen as a result of mutual adjustment of both the technology and the organization taking place in an evolutionary manner in a setting which is more or less idiosyncratic. It is at the same time a process of accumulation of experience and knowledge through trial-and-error experimentation. Conceptual arguments for an organizational learning approach are provided as well as some implications.

Keywords: organizational learning, information systems planning, information planning, information systems strategy

This article offers a position statement on information systems planning (ISP), which differs from the mainstream ideas on ISP. The proposed organizational learning perspective on ISP outlined below is based on the idea that the chance of successful ISP increases when taking into account the idiosyncratic processes of organizational learning.

ISP has become an issue of major importance. However, despite the accumulated experience with ISP and the development of methodologies for ISP, planning for information systems/information technology (IS/IT) still proves to be a difficult task. The difficulties suffered by these ISP methods have been studied and commented on by, for example, Lederer and Sethi (1988).

With this article, we do not wish to provide another solution to these problems in terms of methods or tools. What we do wish to offer is an alternative perspective on ISP which, because of its more fundamental nature, does not necessarily lead to one specific ISP method. In other words, our proposed perspective on ISP

This paper was one of a small number of papers presented at the SISnet Conference held at Tilburg University, The Netherlands in June 1993 recommended for publication in JSIS by members of the SISnet Conference Programme Committee, namely Professors Pieter Ribbers (chair), Joachim Griese and Helmut Krcmar. Revised paper accepted for publication by Professor R D Galliers, January 1994

0963~8687/94/030165-13 0 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 165

Organizational learning perspective on IS planning: M H Huysman et al

challenges the hidden assumptions behind the mainstream methods instead of challenging the methods such as top-down planning, bottom-up planning or a mixture of both (Fischer and Heng, 1994).

ISP here is used as a generic term, covering similar notions such as: information planning, IT planning, information strategy formulation, as well as strategic IS planning, and IS strategic planning. This implies that ISP is not limited to the strategic angle, meaning that we will not pay attention only to strategic ISP. This general approach to ISP also implies that we do not conceive of strategic ISP as a different method to plan IS. Moreover, since mainstream ISP faces major

difficulties in planning beforehand the success of future IS/IT applications, this is even more so for making a plan for strategic IS. This crucial weakness of formal strategic ISP has been recognized by Emery (1989). In his editorial comments in a special issue of MIS Quarterl~~ on strategic information systems, he states: ‘Few organizations have the imagination and foresight to map out a long-term implementation strategy to meet future needs; it is much easier to invest in an enabling capability that allows the organization to exploit opportunities as they emerge’ (p. xv).

The process of organizational learning should be regarded as a central component of ISP. Although this learning perspective has been recognized by researchers who criticize the mainstream thinking on strategic IS/IT applications as too rigid, formal and logical, they treat it as a marginal issue or as an issue of future interest, addressed briefly as a recommendation (e.g. Earl, 1987; Zuboff, 1988; Walsham, 1993). One of the few who explicitly relate learning to the process of information planning process are Hopstaken and Kranendonk (1990). By using the metaphor of a puzzle they emphasize the zig-zagging process of developing and designing an IS plan, leading to a synthesis of, respectively, a holistic and a rationalistic process. Although their contribution deserves credit in alerting IS scholars and practitioners to the learning process, they restrict their attention to the individual level of learning. Moreover, they do not treat the formulation and implementation of ISP as interwoven activities.

Underlying our arguments is the assumption that formulating and implementing a plan for IS/IT applications should be regarded as a process of planning for (technological) innovation. Using innovation theories as a reference is not totally new. Indeed, in a review of empirical studies in which information technologies are considered technological innovations, Fichman (1992) demonstrates the increasing popularity of innovation theory among IS researchers. His review however is directed towards the diffusion theories in relation to IT. We will make use of theories on incremental innovations in which the process of innovation is considered as a process of experiential learning or learning-by-doing. These theories are based on the assumption that the eventual success of an innovation depends considerably on the capability of the organization: its history, knowledge base, experience, etc.

In the remaining sections, we first discuss briefly the problems we recognize with the mainstream theory of ISP. The subsequent three sections describe the underlying conceptual framework. Starting with a review of the theory on organizational learning, followed by an exploration of the literature on innovation from a learning perspective, a synthesis will be made of the processes of organizational learning and that of ISP. To illustrate our arguments we will then make use of a case study extensively described elsewhere (Copeland and McKenney, 1988), in which the history of a strategic IT applications was traced. Subsequently, several implications of the organizational learning perspective on ISP will be put forward. The article ends with some concluding remarks.

166 Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1994 Volume 3 Number 3


Problems with the mainstream theory of information planning

To put it succinctly, the received theory of ISP advocates the following procedure. Begin with a set of clearly defined business strategies which takes into account business trends and IT trends. Based on this strategy, formulate the information policy, and work out the information needs which are then processed and represented as the information architecture. This is the stepping stone for producing the information systems architecture and the accompanying technical architecture. A priority list of IS to be built (or updated) and implemented is then drawn up with due consideration to constraints such as existing technical infrastructure, potential benefits and likelihood of success.

This approach emphasizes the rational and formal aspects of organizational life; it ignores the complexities and messiness inherent in an actual organizational situation which is fraught with power-relation and human behavioural problems.

From a theoretical perspective, the mainstream information planning theory is an IS variant of business strategy formulation which is a special kind of problem-solving process for determining the business strategy of the firm (Hofer and Schendel, 1979). It has theoretical underpinnings in bounded-rational decision-making process as propounded by Simon (1960).

Strategy formulation is seen as an outcome of an interactive, multi-level process, where decisions are the outcomes of rational or boundedly rational debates. Certain assumptions are made within this view, such as: goals are known and consistent; actors are analytically objective in carrying out logical activities; cause-effect relationships are fairly well understood, and information is available to tackle most issues effectively. These are unrepresentative of organizational reality and generally simplistic. One other major flaw has been noted: the over-emphasis on analytical strategy content at the expense of the contexts in which these strategies are formulated. (Waema and Walsham, 1991, p.30)

It may be added that the mainstream ISP approaches emphasize top-down planning. More important, it is ahistorical, for it ignores at the earlier phase of the strategy formulation process the deadweight of the existing IT infrastructure and experiences with both successful and failed IS in the organization.

It is beyond the scope of this article to examine the causes of this overrepresentation of the formal, rigid ISP method. An extended discussion on the historical aspects is attempted elsewhere (Fischer and Heng, 1994).

A practice-oriented perspective can be obtained from the track-record of ISP methods which are intended to provide operational guidelines for formulating IS/IT strategy and implementing it. Their minor differences notwithstanding, these methods draw by and large on the mainstream ISP theory mentioned above. The problems associated with using those methods have been referred to earlier in the introduction.

The concept of organizational learning

The concept of organizational learning has received increased attention both from researchers as well as practitioners in the field of organizational behaviour. Although there is wide acceptance of the notion of organizational learning, no theory or model is widely accepted. Consequently, the increased interest has resulted in numerous publications as well as in the growth of diverse perspectives including ideas about self-organizing (e.g. Morgan and Ramirez, 1983; Morgan,

Journal of Strategic Information Systems I994 Volume 3 Number 3 167


1985; Cummings and Mohrman, 1987), innovations (e.g. Sahal, 1981; Nelson and Winter, 1982), generative learning (e.g. Senge, 1991, 1992), organizational life cycle (e.g. Kimberley and Miles, 1980; Mintzberg, 1989), organizational routines (e.g. Cyert and March, 1963; March and Olsen, 1975), organizational memories (e.g. Walsh and Ungson, 1991), organizational knowledge (e.g. Duncan and Weiss, 1979; Shrivastava, 1981), and single and double loop learning (e.g. Argyris and Schdn, 1978).

The explicit interest in organizational learning stems as far back as three decades ago when Cyert and March (1963) first paid attention to it from a behaviour theory viewpoint. With the rise of organizations acting in turbulent and uncertain environments, the issue of adaptation to changes became their major point of interest. By emphasizing experiential learning or learning by doing, they perceived the discrepancy between goals and performance as being the major stimulus for an organization to learn. In the years following, March and his colleagues continued publishing on the notion of organizational learning, thereby extending the issue of experiential learning in which the emphasis moved from simple trial and error learning to organizational experience captured in routines (March and Olsen, 1975; Levinthal and March, 1981; Herriot et al., 1985; Levitt and March, 1988; March, 1988). Organizations learn by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behaviour. The term routine is a broad one, including forms, rules, procedures, conventions, strategies and technologies around which organizations are constructed and through which they operate as well as the structure of beliefs, frameworks, paradigms, codes, culture, etc.

This learning by experience is a dynamic one, in which mutual learning of an organization and the individuals in it takes place (March, 1991). Organizations store knowledge in their procedures, norms, rules and forms. They accumulate such knowledge over time through learning from their members. At the same time, individuals in an organization are socialized to organizational beliefs.

A similar view is taken by the sociologist Dahrendorf (1979) who views organizational learning from an agency perspective. Organizational survival depends on the repertoire of skills which an individual has accumulated, and which enables choice opportunities in an environment. An organization can only experiment or institutionalize innovations if it has travelled along a learning curve. The accumulated routines that arise from this learning curve are shared by the members of the organization and cannot readily be alienated or exported (Pennings, 1992).

Organizational learning is often associated with different levels of learning. Well known is the distinction first introduced by Argyris and Schon (1978) between single and double loop learning. Single loop learning refers to learning within the traditional theories in use, when the correction of detected errors proceeds by changing organizational strategies within a constant framework or norms of performance. Double loop learning on the other hand refers to continuous learning (McKee, 1992), affecting the fundamental organizational theory-in-use. It involves restructuring of organizational norms and restructuring of strategies and assumptions associated with those norms. The central focus in the work of Argyris and Schon is on the ‘detection and correction of errors’ by the individual members of the organization.

But in order for organizational learning to occur, learning agents’ discoveries, inventions, and evaluations must be embedded in organizational memory. They must be encoded in the individual’s images and the shared maps of organizational

168 Journal of Strategic Information Systems I994 Volume 3 Number 3


theory-in-use from which individual members will subsequently act. If this encoding does not occur, individuals will have learned but the organization will not have done so. (Argyris and Sch8n, 1978, p. 19)

The notion of shared beliefs has inspired many organizational theorists who conceptualized it in terms of a collective map (Axelrod, 1976), a collective memory (Schuman and Scott, 1989), a negotiated belief structure (Walsh and Fahey, 1986), the organizational knowledge base (Duncan and Weiss, 1979) and an organizational memory (Walsh and Ungson, 1991).

Just like Argyris and Schbn, Senge (1991) emphasizes the need for continuous reflection on ‘the way things are going around here’, although they differ in the underlying motive for reflecting. Argyris and SchGn’s perspective is more directed towards reactive learning, in that they state that learning occurs when a problem is detected. The reason for reflecting posed by Senge and his colleagues at the Organizational Learning Centre at MIT is more directed towards proactive learning. Learning occurs because the organization seeks opportunities to change; learning is all about creating the future.

This perspective has been influenced by the system dynamics methodology (Forrester, 1961), thereby addressing the question of feedback information and structures. As with Argyris and Schijn, Senge considers change in the mental models of organizational members an essential dimension to learning. The research conducted at the Organizational Learning Centre is directed towards tools and methods that allow organizational members to reveal tacit assumptions and ways of thinking. These tools should enable people to ‘learn through doing’ and to cope with the learning paradox: ‘how can we learn from experience when we cannot experience the consequences of our most important decision’.

Senge distinguishes between two levels of learning: adaptive learning and generative learning. These levels of learning can be compared with single loop learning and double loop learning, except that generative learning is a broader construct than double loop learning: ‘. . . while generative learning may involve changes in underlying assumptions, norms and frames-and, in my experience, almost always does-it may also manifest in changes in information flows, how work is organized and the operating goals, measures and rewards which operationalize organizational values’ (Senge, 1992, p. 6).

In short, the insights derived from Argyris and Schijn give us a perspective on learning where the emphasis is on the sharing of private individual assumptions. With the latest interest of the Organizational Learning Centre the attention is drawn towards creating new knowledge. The ideas of March and his colleagues give us a perspective on learning as a process in which the history of the organization, captured in routines, evolves in response to organizational experience.

For the purpose of this article, we shall draw upon the notion of experiential learning. This does not imply that we reject all other ideas on learning. Indeed, each publication has provided valuable contributions to our knowledge of organizational learning. In the IS discipline for instance the perspective of Argyris and Schcn has been valuable for the analysis of system design (Salaway, 1987; Scarbrough and Lannon, 1988). Each contribution, however, is limited to its purpose, context and level of analysis. In the next section we will demonstrate that the eventual success of IS planning depends considerably on the experience the organization possesses. Therefore, the notion of experiential learning as a form of organizational learning is a valuable candidate to explore further.

Given that we consider IS/IT as (technological) innovations, we will now



examine the literature on experiential organizational learning and the process of innovation. Subsequently a synthesis of both processes will be provided in order to demonstrate our approach of IS planning viewed from an organizational learning perspective.

Organizational learning and incremental innovation

The notion of experiential learning or learning-by-doing can also be found in the work of several writers on innovation. They all share the view that innovation embodies the generation of new knowledge. Prior knowledge is presumed to be an important factor in determining whether an innovation is adopted and in what form. For the diffusion of innovations it is therefore crucial to determine what information exists already in the organization.

In line with Pennings and Harianto (1989), we treat innovation as an effort to bridge the distance between the knowledge currently available and the knowledge that an organization is striving to possess. By virtue of their unrelatedness with the current organizational knowledge, discontinuous (McKee, 1992) or big-bang (Gluck, 1985) innovations are more likely not to be adopted, or if they are, likely to fail. This general assumption has induced a large majority of innovation researches to espouse an incremental notion of innovations (Pennings and Harianto, 1989). The present study follows these insights in that we perceive IT/IS applications as innovations and in turn consider innovation as a manifestation of organizational learning, whereby organizations expand the scope of their competencies.

The ideas on experiential learning and innovation can best be comprised by the notion of the organization’s ‘absorptive capacity’ (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Absorptive capacity is the ability to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends which is critical to its innovative capabilities. In line with the incremental notion of innovations, this capacity is largely a function of prior related knowledge. This idea departs from the research on the search processes for discontinuous innovation. Within the context of discontinuous innovation, the attention is merely towards entrepreneurial, managerial, technological roles as well as the role of networks (e.g. Schon, 1963; Allen, 1977; Maidique, 1988; Tushman and Katz, 1980). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) however emphasize the importance of the existing organizational knowledge base. The extent to which new ideas can be appropriated and absorbed by an organization is a function not only of the networks through which ideas spread, but also of the knowledge capabilities of the receiving organization. Consequently, learning is cumulative and therefore is greatest when the object of learning is related to what is already known.

Nelson and Winter (1982) are probably the best known proponents of an incremental view of innovations. They emphasize that routines play a large role in innovations. The notion of routines is comparable with that of March described above. Routines spell out the appropriate activities and search for new knowledge. Consequently, innovations are not discontinuous, but rather novel combinations of old routines.

As a result of these routines, each firm is unique in accumulating experience in the use of technology. This knowledge is mostly tacit, and is acquired in problem-solving and trouble-shooting activities within the firm, remaining there in substantially uncodified state. In other words, ‘each individual firm is a focus where the progressive accumulation of technical knowledge takes place, with production processes tending to display many specific and idiosyncratic components’



(Rosenberg and Frischtak, 1985). Organizations need to be understood as entities which acquire the capabilities they have through a time-consuming and expensive process of learning. This suggests that apparently similar organizations may differ in their rate of success. More important for the present study is the implication that the knowledge, technologies or routines cannot be transformed from one organization to another without recognizing their own internal history. The diffusion of innovations is not as straightforward as some diffusion theorists seem to claim.

At the level of the individual, the difficulty to change has been investigated in the literature of psychology - what has come to be called ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Festinger, 1957) - and the writings of Machiavelli who made the following interesting observation in his often quoted book The Prince and the Discourses (1950):

There is nothing more difficult to carry out, no more doubtful of success, no more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the law in their favour, and partly from the incredulity of mankind who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

Sahal(l981) is another writer who treats the process of innovation as the process of learning-by-doing. Based on previous studies on technological innovations, he demonstrates that the innovation activity is inherently full of uncertainty. Given an environment of rapid change in either demand or supply conditions as well as the unintended consequences of human action (Merton, 1963), an explicit demand for a technological innovation cannot be the single determining factor in its development. Furthermore, case studies of the history of technology have demonstrated that ‘. . . innovations generally originate either in an attempt to overcome some limitation or bottleneck in the design of a technique or when new technical opportunities present themselves in the light of previous experience’ (Sahal, 1981, p. 123). With the use of various case examples, he demonstrates how often innovations disappear, only to be conceived again at some later point in time when the necessary know-how becomes available. In between this period, deadlock or progress takes place.

A new technology does not emerge like Minerva from Jove’s forehead. Typically, it is the outcome of countless improvements in the capabilities of some earlier, less specialized device through the gradual acquisition of practical know-how. Success in technical problem solving is never just a matter of armchair theorizing. (Sahal, 1981, p. 111)

Organizational learning and IS/IT applications

The central concern of this paper is to provide an organizational learning perspective on ISP. Given our approach to IS/IT applications as being innovations, we examined the relation between organizational learning and innovation. With this effort, we have tried to demonstrate that innovation is a process of learning by doing. Its success depends largely on the degree to which the innovation is related to the existing experience. In view of these considerations, we will now synthesize these insights. This will be done by examining IS/IT applications from an experiential learning perspective.



According to the perspectives outlined above, IS/IT applications have greater a chance of being successfully adopted when the knowledge they embody matches the existing knowledge potential in the given organization. This general assumption has some implications for our knowledge regarding IT/IS applications in organizations.

First of all, the existing IS/IT applications in an organization must be considered as a valuable potential for experiential learning. Adopting an application does not mean that its evolution has ended. Especially in the beginning, numerous unforeseen problems must be dealt with. This form of trial-and-error learning consequently increases the organizational knowledge base. After the first teething-problems, experience in the design and production of the application gradually accumulates. It then becomes possible to overcome various bugs in the performance; ‘innovation within the innovation’ may occur (Sahal, 1981).

It was six decades ago, when Schumpeter (1934) first conceived of innovations as a combination of both technical as well as organizational innovations. Innovating was seen in terms of a mutual process in which the technology adjusts to the context in which it is implemented, and in which simultaneously the context - i.e. the organization - adjusts to the technology. This insightful observation is a more general form of organizational prototyping introduced by Leonard-Barton who empirically tested this process in the context of information technology (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Leonard-Barton and Sinha, 1991). The studies of Leonard-Barton were restricted to the initial implementation stage, that is the period during which the technology is first removed from its laboratory setting and introduced into the user environment. Sahal’s (1981) study reminds us however that the examination of organizational learning in the process of innovation cannot stop with the analysis at the initial level.

Another implication is the fact that success of an IS/IT application in one organization does not necessarily mean success of the same application in another organization. Each organization is relatively unique in the capabilities it has because its learning experiences are to some extent idiosyncratic. Since progress is largely a matter of learning by direct experience, the transfer of a successful IS/IT application from one organization to another organization is a timely and costly process which involves the unfreezing of learned routines, changing these routines, and freezing the new routines obtained by learning by direct experience (Lewin, 1952).

Evidence from practice

Case studies in which the history of strategic impact of particular IS/IT applications were investigated in depth are potentially useful in revealing the evolution of IS/IT and the importance of prior knowledge and learning by doing. Unfortunately, these case descriptions are rare. In addition to problems in terms of research methods, it seems that practitioners tend to justify the capricious history of successful applications by reporting a formal process. The study of the history of the SABRE airline reservation system studied by Copeland and McKenney (1988) forms an exception to this practice and is a good illustration for our arguments outlined above. They describe how reservation systems helped American Airlines and United Airlines to gain a competitive advantage. This dominance is neither an accident nor the result of an extraordinary vision, nor the result of efficient planning. In addition to scale economics and management outlooks, its success can be attributed to experience and learning by doing. Technical competence as a result



of cumulative technological experience seemed to be a necessary component for gaining competitive advantage from IT. For instance in the 196Os, real-time teleprocessing was perceived as a solution to the core problems associated with passenger reservations. However, the complexity of this IT application became evident. By trial and error, Eastern successfully managed the intricacy of the system and appreciated the limits of the technology. The expansion of real-time teleprocessing software at Eastern was the start of a technically mature, internally stable base that made retail automation an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, technical innovation. As a result of this success, TWA and United tried to copy the system and even built a more sophisticated system. However, they failed because they lacked experience with both the application and the technology. TWA and United did not recognize the importance of congruence between task and technology.

The case study demonstrates the significant impact of learning by doing. By exploiting emergent opportunities, the reservation systems unfolded into robust systems. Copeland and McKenney (1988) refer to the notion of ‘intelligent persistence’ - the combination of learning by doing and opportunism.

Intelligent persistence leads to invaluable experience not easily imitated by rivals. Firms that begin to ride an experience curve ahead of their competitors realize a head start that will endure as long as new opportunities continue to be revealed. Technology can always be purchased, but the same can rarely be said for knowledge [emphasis added]. (Copeland and McKenney, 1988, p. 368)

Implications for practice

An organizational learning perspective has a number of important implications for IS planning in practice. We already glimpsed at some of these in the former section, in the synthesis of organizational learning, innovation, and IS/IT applications. Through the process of learning by doing, usage of IS/IT applications in practice leads to a growth of organizational knowledge. This experiential learning can be seen as an idiosyncratic process through which unique routines evolve. And as the SABRE study shows us, this idiosyncratic process can even give an organization a competitive advantage. When other organizations adopt the same IS/IT application this specific knowledge will most likely not be transferred. There is no royal road to technological transfer. These considerations mean that IS is far more difficult to plan than the term ‘IS planning’ suggests.

We will describe the implications of the organizational learning perspective on ISP in three categories: the impact on the organization of IS activities, the impact on the measurement of performance, and the impact on the various actors in the IS planning process.

The first and also the most obvious implication is that the way of carrying out IS planning should be adjusted. As discussed earlier, the traditional ISP activity can be regarded as a formal and rational approach to the definition of the IS’s purposes and goals, which function as a guide for producing the information architecture. Since a well drawn up IS/IT plan does not guarantee its eventual success, and since organizations learn while doing, the function of the IS plan acquires a role different from traditional IS planning. The continuous learning process pleads for modesty and prudence in making an information plan which is to be seen as a ‘draft’ guiding document. Meetings to work out the information plan should be of short duration, spread over regular intervals during the whole planning period. There is no such

Journal of Strategic Information Systems 1994 Volume 3 Number 3 173


thing as a ‘final document’, the information plan is incrementally defined and the content of it will change. It is not to be regarded as a sacred document, but as a basis for getting things done, and the experience of it is to be used to draw up a better document during the subsequent planning period.

Consequently, the forma1 rational aspect as well as the informal bottom-up aspect of IS planning are two activities that are closely intertwined. Not only is the forma1 plan necessary, but so is the emerging learning process. The informal learning process of IS planning cannot exist without some reflection on the current definition of the IS goals and objectives. Making a draft IS plan to function as a guiding document is the best way to reflect on the goals and objectives defined thus far. The result of ISP should be ‘. . . a shared and explicit understanding of IS’ purposes and goals, and to start the ball rolling for ongoing inspection and reflection of the IS strategy’ (Eliot, 1991, p.9).

These processes are not new in the management theories on strategy formation and implementation. As a result of the growing complexity of the internal as well as external environment of organizations, evolutionary perspectives on the process of strategy formulation have been advocated. Quinn (1989) for instance recommends ‘logical incrementalism’, thereby recognizing the cognitive and process limits that constrain forma1 strategic practices. This kind of strategy formulation allows for a continuous evolving process.

Logical incrementalism combined with the evidence from the organizational innovation theories and practices that dozens of ideas precede one single successful innovation, implies that several IS projects could be carried out at the same time, all directed at some common or global objective. These projects are loosely controlled to give room for as much creativity and innovativeness as possible. At a certain point in time, management will evaluate each of these projects and select one or several as most promising. Such a learning environment asks for tolerance towards projects being ‘formed’ within the boundaries of the shared vision that guides the planning process. Management will do well to allow more than one idea to develop, let them find their own breeding ground and let the fittest survive. Although in general this strategy requires slack resources, it can also be pursued during the conceptual stage of IS/IT formation.

A second important impact of a learning perspective on ISP is on the measurement of success of IS activities. As stated earlier, a learning environment requires tolerance towards projects. Innovation implies that several projects may be initiated with the same objective in mind with only a few of these projects becoming successful. However, the success or failure of each single project should not be attributed solely to the quality of the project management or the project members. The failure of projects is thus part of the chosen strategy. As a consequence, traditional performance measurement like return on investment (ROI) calculation for an individual project does not fit well with an organization adopting a learning perspective. Different ways of evaluating the performance are needed for both projects and individuals. In a learning environment, projects are better evaluated together with the set of other projects focusing on the same objective. Equally important is the point that the experience learned forms part of the benefit for the whole organization, and this cannot be easily captured in financial terms.

The last practical implication of the learning perspective on ISP deals with the role of the actors that are involved in the ISP process. As already discussed above, the main task of IS planners will not be the realization of a forma1 IS plan, but to support the learning/planning process and the definition of the corresponding

174’ Journal of Strategic Information Systems I994 Volume 3 Number 3


‘draft’ plans. The role of the IS manager changes in that evaluation of performance of projects will be different from before. It is not the individual project that has to be evaluated, but the overall performance of all projects focusing on the same objective. Management should stimulate the realization of a learning process of IS planning, which requires a different vision as to the role of IT/IS in organizations, and the propagation of this vision to the IS personnel involved.

This line of reasoning has consequences for other actors as well. The organizational learning perspective on ISP implies that the role of external consultants will be more restricted. It is not uncommon for external consultants to be involved in the definition of IS plans (Mantz et al., 1992). But since the role of the formal plan is more restricted, and organizational learning requires that the organization should carry out the planning activities itself, the role of the consultant will be more like a sounding board, trouble shooter or opinion provider.

Concluding remarks

In this article we have argued for an organizational learning perspective on ISP. Our arguments are based on the consideration that knowledge and experience unfolds. while using IS/IT applications. This often tacit knowledge is of major importance for its future success and that of other systems. As shown by the case description of the airline reservation systems, it may even be one of the important factors in gaining competitive advantage.

We have tried to start the ball rolling to rethink the process of ISP. The main purpose of the article is to provide a stimulus for both researchers as well as practitioners in the field of IS. The arguments and implications outlined above are of a rather conceptual nature. Numerous questions remained unanswered, such as the issue of cost/benefit analysis in a learning environment, the issue of IT transfer, how experiential learning can be stimulated, how learning processes can be monitored, which issues can be planned beforehand and which cannot, how the paradox between exploitation of existing knowledge and exploration of new knowledge can be dealt with, etc. These and other questions need to be studied in depth in order to get a better grip on the organizational learning perspective.

Besides these suggestions for future research, we hope that the article will persuade IS practitioners to inform researchers of their experiences.

References

Allen, T A (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Argyris, Ch and S&on, D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA

Axelrod, R (1976) The Structure of Decision Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Cohen, M D and Levinthal, D A (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and

innovation’ Admin. Sci. Quarterly March, pp 128-152 Copeland, D G and McKenney, J L (1988). ‘Airline reservations systems: lessons from history’ MIS

Quarterly September, pp 353-370 Cummings, Th G and Mohrman, S A (1987) ‘Self designing organizations: towards implementing

quality of work life innovations’ Res. Organ. Change Dev. 1, pp 275-310 Cyert, R M and March, J G (1963) A Behavior Theory of the Firm Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Dahrendorf, R (1979) Life Chances: Approaches to Social and Political Theory University of Chicago

Press, Chicago, IL



Duncan, R B and Weiss, A (1979) ‘Organizational learning: implications for organizational design’ Res. Organ. Behav. Autumn, pp 75-123

Earl, M J (1987) ‘Information systems strategy formation’ in Boland, R J and Hirschheim, R A (eds) Critical Issues in Information Systems Research John Wiley, Chichester, pp 157-178

Eliot, L B (1991) Information Systems Strategic Planning Computer Technology Research Corp., Charleston, SC

Emery, J C (1989) ‘What does the CIO need to know about information technology’ (editor’s comments) MIS Quarterly December, pp x-xvi

Festinger, L (1957) 2 Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Row and Peterson, Evanston, IL Fichman. R G (1992) ‘Information technologv diffusion: a review of Emoirical Research’ Proc. of the

ICIS ‘Dallas‘ACh Computer Society, Ba%imore, MD, pp 195-206 ’ Fischer, S and Heng, M S H (1994) ‘A critical study of information systems strategy formulation’ Dept.

of Information Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (research memorandum) Forrester, J W (1961) Industrial Dynamics MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Gluck, F W (1985) %ig bang management’ McKinsey Quarterly-Spring, pp 49-59 Herriot. S R. Levinthal. D A and March, J G (1985) ‘Learning from exuerience in organizations’

American ‘Economic Association 15, pp 298-302 ’ Hofer, C W and Schendel, D (1979) Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts West Publishing, St

Paul, MN Hopstaken, B A A and Kranendonk, A (1990) Informatieplanning - Puzzelen met Beleid en Plan

(Information Planning - Puzzling with Policy and Plan) Stenfert Kroese, Leiden Kimberley, J R and Miles, R H (eds) (1980) The Organizational Life Cycle, Issues in the Creation,

Transformation and Decline of Organizations Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Lederer, A L and Sethi, V (1988) ‘The implementation of strategic information systems planning

methodologies’ MIS Quarterly September, pp 445-461 Leonard-Barton, D (1988) ‘Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization’ Res.

Policy 17, pp 251-267 Leonard-Barton, D and Sinha, D K (1991) ‘Mutual adaptation as a contributor to user satisfaction in

internal technology transfer’ Working Paper, Harvard Business School Levinthal. D A and March. J G (1981) ‘A model of adaotive organizational search’ J. Econ. Behav.

Organ: 2, pp 307-333 LevittrB and-March, J G (1988) ‘Organizational learning’ Annu. Rev. Social. 14, pp 319-340 Lewin. K 119521 ‘Grouo decision and social chanae’ in Swanson, G E et al (eds) Readings in Social

Psychology Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New Y&k ~ I

Machiavelli, N (1950) The Prince and the Discourses Modern Library, New York Maidique, M A (1988) ‘Entrepreneurs, champions, and technological innovations’ in Tushmore, M L

(ed) Readings in the Management of Innovations Balinger, Cambridge, MA Mantz, E A, Kleijne, D and van der Zijden, F A P (1992) ‘Planning en realisatie informatie voorziening

nog ver uit elkaar’ (Planning and realisation of information facilties still disconnected) Znformatie 12, pp 847-856

March, J G (1988) ‘Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspiration’ J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 9, pp 5-24

March, J G (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’ Organ. Sci. 2, 1, pp 71-87 March. J G and Olsen, J P (1975) ‘The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiauitv’

Eur. J. Pol. Res. 3, pp 147-171 _ .

McKee, D (1992) ‘An organizational learning approach to product innovation’ J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 9, pp 232-245

Merton, R K (1963) On Theoretical Sociology The Free Press, New York Mintzberg, H (1989) Mintzberg on Management The Free Press, New York Morgan, G (1985) Images of Organization Sage Publications, London Morgan, G and Ramirez, R (1983) ‘Action learning: a holographic metaphor for guiding social change’

Hum. Relations 37, 1, pp l-28 Nelson, R and Winter, S G (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change Harvard Business

Press, Cambridge, MA Pennings, J M (1992) ‘Structural contingency theory: a reappraisal’ Res. Organ. Behav. 14, pp 267-309 Pennings, J M and Harianto, F (1989) ‘Technological innovation: internal versus external venture’

Working Paper, Reginald H Jones Centre, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Quinn, J B (1989) ‘Strategic change: “logical incrementalism”’ Sloan Manage. Rev. 45, Summer,

pp 45-60 Rosenberg, N and Frischtak, C (eds) (1985) International Technology Transfer Praeger, New York Sahal, D (1981) Patterns of Technological Innovations Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA



Salaway, G (1987) ‘An organizational learning approach to information systems development’ MIS Quarterly June, pp 245-264

Scarbrough, H and Lannon, R (1988) ‘The successful exploitation of new technology in banking’ J. Gen. Manage. 13,3, pp 38-51

Schon, D A (1963) ‘Champions for radical new inventions’ Harvard Business Rev. March-April, pp 77-86

Schuman, H and Scott, J (1989) ‘Generations and collective memories’ Am. Social. Rev. 54, pp 359-381 Schumpeter, J (1934) The Theory ofEconomic Development Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Senge, P (1991) The Fifth Discipline, the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization Random House,

London Senge, P (1992) ‘You can’t get there from here: why systems thinking is inseparable from learning

organizations’ Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management (April) Shrivastava, P (1981) ‘Strategic decision making process: the influence of organizational learning and

experience’ PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburg Simon, H (1960) The New Science of Management Decision Harper and Brothers, New York Tushman, M L and Katz, R (1980) ‘External communication and project performance: an investigation

into the role of gatekeepers’ Manage. Sci. 26, 11, pp 1071-1085 Wa;;T;z M and Walsham, G (1991) ‘Information systems strategy formulation’ lnf. & Manage. 18, pp

Walsh, J P and Fahey, L (1986) ‘The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making’ J. Manage. 12, pp 325-338

Walsh,JP and Ungson, G R (1991) ‘Organizational memory’ Acad. Manage. Rev. 16, 1, pp 57-91 Walsham, G Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations John Wiley, Chichester Zuboff, S (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine Basic Books, New York


an organizational learning perspective on information systems planning

Documents