Environmental and institutional models of system development: a national criminal history system

This article tests two competing theories of system development referred to here as environmental and institutional models. These models form the basis for most explanations of why systems are developed and utilized. We will examine both models in detail and apply them to a single set of data concerned with the emerging national computerized criminal history system (CCH). A hybrid model, which combines elements of environmental and institutional approaches, is also developed and tested. A substantive result of this new model will alter our understanding of why a national CCH system is being developed. At the theoretical level, we conclude that a hybrid model is more powerful than either an environmental or an institutional model taken separately and that future research must take this into account.

[1]  G. PITT-RIVERS.  Human Ecology , 1936, Nature.

[2]  S. H. Mansbridge.  ORGANIZATION THEORY AND PRACTICE , 1961 .

[3]  M. Crozier.  The Bureaucratic Phenomenon , 1964 .

[4]  Robert Blauner,et al.  Alienation and Freedom , 1965 .

[5]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[6]  Ben S. Meeker.  The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society , 1968 .

[7]  A. Stinchcombe.  Constructing Social Theories , 1970 .

[8]  M. Aiken,et al.  Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. , 1968 .

[9]  G. Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision , 1971 .

[10]  Ronald E. Anderson.  Sociological analysis of public attitudes toward computers and information files , 1971, AFIPS '72 (Spring).

[11]  C. Argyris.  Management Information Systems: The Challenge to Rationality and Emotionality , 1971 .

[12]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[13]  D. Bell.  The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society , 1973 .

[14]  R. Hill.  The Coming Of Post Industrial Society , 1974 .

[15]  R. Nolan,et al.  Managing the Four Stages of EDP Growth , 1974 .

[16]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Why information systems fail , 1975 .

[17]  A. Mowshowitz.  The conquest of will , 1976 .

[18]  K. Laudon.  Computers and cultural imperatives. , 1976, Science.

[19]  Robert K. Yin,et al.  Tinkering with the system: Technological innovations in state and local services , 1977 .

[20]  Kenneth C. Laudon,et al.  Communications technology and democratic participation , 1977 .

[21]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  James N. Danziger,et al.  Computers as an innovation in American local governments , 1977, CACM.

[23]  A. Vezza,et al.  Applications of information networks , 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[24]  Rob Kling,et al.  Automated welfare client-tracking and service integration: the political economy of computing , 1978, CACM.

[25]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The Federal Push to Bring Computer Applications to Local Governments , 1979 .

[26]  R. Parker,et al.  Deterrence, Poverty, and Type of Homicide , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.

[27]  M. Markus,et al.  Understanding information system use in organizations : a theoretical explanation , 1979 .

[28]  Rob Kling,et al.  Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research , 1980, CSUR.

[29]  Henry C. Lucas Jr.,et al.  A Corporate Strategy for the Control of Information Processing , 1981, Sloan management review.