The public procurement of information systems: dialectics in requirements specification

When acquiring information systems, public entities face a dilemma. On the one hand, they want to procure the system that best suits their needs, which often requires lengthy dialogues with vendors. At the same time, they are restricted by government regulations that mandate limited dialogue in the interests of transparency and equal opportunities for all vendors. To examine how public entities deal with this, we followed three procurement projects in Norway. We show that this dilemma manifests itself as a dialectic between the thesis of getting the system requirements right and the antithesis of strictly adhering to regulations. Public entities search for a resolution of this dialectic through two syntheses: selecting an appropriate tendering procedure, and learning how to specify requirements through networks of peer public entities. Our findings reveal that the syntheses are possible because the dialectic is actually complimentary, both the thesis and the antithesis are needed to create the joint outcome that satisfies both. The resolution of the dialectic unfolds differently over time. Our study contributes to the relatively neglected stream of IS research on dialectics that explicitly searches for a synthesis while revealing the complementarity of the dialectic. We show how time plays a nuanced role in the resolution of the dialectic situation.

[1]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Persistence and change in system development: a dialectical view , 2003, J. Inf. Technol..

[2]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[3]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions , 1989 .

[4]  Keith F. Snider,et al.  Public procurement policy: implications for theory and practice , 2008 .

[5]  R. Stake The art of case study research , 1995 .

[6]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Jarle Trondal,et al.  WHY STRONG COORDINATION AT ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH STRONG COORDINATION ACROSS LEVELS (AND HOW TO LIVE WITH IT): THE CASE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION , 2016 .

[8]  David Baccarini,et al.  The concept of project complexity—a review , 1996 .

[9]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

[10]  Sari Kujala,et al.  User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[11]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[12]  Northrop Grumman,et al.  Recommended Requirements Gathering Practices , 2002 .

[13]  Ben Light,et al.  Reflections on issues of power in packaged software selection , 2006, Inf. Syst. J..

[14]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[15]  K. Perreault,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2011 .

[16]  Corinne M. Karuppan,et al.  Resilience of super users’ mental models of enterprise-wide systems , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Ben Light,et al.  A Study of User Involvement in Packaged Software Selection , 2002, ICIS.

[18]  Maung K. Sein,et al.  Dialectics and Contradictions in Public Procurement of Information Systems , 2014, EGOV.

[19]  Carl Erik Moe,et al.  Research on Public Procurement of Information Systems: The Need for a Process Approach , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Kari Smolander,et al.  Filtering, Negotiating and Shifting in the Understanding of Information System Requirements , 2005, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[21]  E. Clemons,et al.  Newly vulnerable markets in an age of pure information products: an analysis of online music and online news , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  S. Wright,et al.  De facto privatization or a renewed role for the EU? Paying for Europe's healthcare infrastructure in a recession , 2010, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[23]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[24]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[25]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  The Dialectics of Resilience: A Multilevel Analysis of a Telehealth Innovation , 2006, The Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology for Organizational Resilience.

[26]  Sia Siew Kien,et al.  Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  David Parker,et al.  The economics of partnership sourcing versus adversarial competition: a critique , 1997 .

[28]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Explaining Development and Change in Organizations , 1995 .

[29]  J. Grandia,et al.  Public procurement in Europe , 2018 .

[30]  Varun Grover,et al.  A taxonomy of political processes in systems development , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[31]  Wei Wang,et al.  ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University , 2022 .

[32]  Gro Bjerknes Dialectical Reflection in Information Systems Development , 1992, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  W. Gibb Dyer,et al.  Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt , 1991 .

[34]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Furthering Information Systems Action Research: A Post-Positivist Synthesis of Four Dialectics , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Stig Nordheim,et al.  Implementing an Enterprise System: A dialectic perspective , 2015 .

[36]  Timo Saarinen,et al.  Procurement Strategies for Information Systems , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Dialectics of resilience: a multi-level analysis of a telehealth innovation , 2007, J. Inf. Technol..

[38]  Tero Päivärinta,et al.  Implementing enterprise content management: from evolution through strategy to contradictions out-of-the-box , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Matt Germonprez,et al.  A Theory of Tailorable Technology Design , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[40]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Dialectics of Collective Minding: Contradictory Appropriations of Information Technology in a High-Risk Project , 2012, MIS Q..

[41]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[42]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Information Asymmetry in Information Systems Consulting: Toward a Theory of Relationship Constraints , 2010, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[43]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Power, politics, and MIS implementation , 1987, CACM.

[44]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a Systematic Review , 2006, 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'06).

[45]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  A market-based perspective on information systems development , 2001, CACM.

[46]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  Enterprise System Implementations: Organizational Influence Processes for Corporate User Representatives , 2008, ECIS.

[47]  S. Brincat,et al.  Dialectics for IR: Hegel and the Dao , 2014 .

[48]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..