Understanding IS Projects Evaluation in Practice through an ANT Inquiry

In this paper we propose a radical departure from the dominant conceptions in IS evaluation literature by adopting Actor-network Theory (ANT) to provide a better understanding of the development and evaluation of IS proposals in practice and examine the ways in which the evaluation process shapes and ensures the selection of the best IS projects. By drawing on a field study of the IS evaluation processes in a company with a history of IS successes, we reveal the relational nature of IS project proposals and the ways they are constitutively entangled with business processes and practices. Our ANT account demonstrates a) that the view of pre-investment IS evaluation in the literature is very narrow, b) that the practice of IS evaluation produces the ‘object’ it evaluates, c) that this object, that is the IS project proposal document, is a focal actor (an inscription device) produced by relations in the actor-network emerging around it, and d) that reconfiguration of these relations involving the translation of actors’ expertise, experiences and interests into the IS proposal documents are critical for the evaluation of IS project proposals and their chances of success.

[1]  Egon Berghout,et al.  Seven Ways to get Your Favoured IT Project Accepted – Politics in IT Evaluation , 2005 .

[2]  Lucas D. Introna,et al.  The Phenomenology of Information Systems Evaluation: Overcoming the Subject/Object Dualism , 2002, Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology.

[3]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[4]  Philip Powell,et al.  Information Technology Evaluation: Is It Different? , 1992 .

[5]  Mannus Hendrik-Jan Nijland,et al.  Understanding the use of IT evaluation methods in organisations , 2004 .

[6]  Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter , 2003, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[7]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: a practice approach , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Steven Jones,et al.  Understanding IS evaluation as a complex social process: a case study of a UK local authority , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[9]  B. Latour On Recalling Ant , 1999 .

[10]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  The entanglement of technology and work in organizations , 2008 .

[11]  A. Bruni,et al.  Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory , 2007 .

[12]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The productivity paradox of information technology , 1993, CACM.

[13]  Andrew Pickering,et al.  The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[14]  J. Law After Ant: Complexity, Naming and Topology , 1999 .

[15]  Heidemarie Winklhofer,et al.  A Case For Soft Systems Methodology. Information Analysis And Information Systems Evaluation During Organizational Change , 2002, ECIS.

[16]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Journey into space , 1992 .

[17]  Michael Sherwood-Smith,et al.  Maximise information systems value by continuous participative evaluation , 1999 .

[18]  Melanie Wilson,et al.  Power, Politics and Persuasion: a social shaping perspective on IS evaluation , 2000 .

[19]  R. Jayasuriya,et al.  Evaluating health information systems: an assessment of frameworks. , 1997, Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association.

[20]  Michael D. Williams,et al.  A Framework Facilitating Ex-Ante Evaluation of Information Systems , 2004, AMCIS.

[21]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities , 1999, MIS Q..

[22]  Murray E. Jennex,et al.  STAKEHOLDER PROCESS APPROACH TOINFORMATION SYSTEMS EVALUATION , 2002 .

[23]  Bruno Latour,et al.  The Powers of Association , 1984 .

[24]  Kenneth E. Murphy,et al.  Using cost benefit analysis for enterprise resource planning project evaluation: a case for including intangibles , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  W. Orlikowski Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work , 2007 .

[26]  T. Schatzki The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change , 2002 .

[27]  M. Callon Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[28]  Steve Smithson,et al.  Information systems evaluation in practice: a case study of organizational change , 2000, J. Inf. Technol..

[29]  Cyrus C. M. Mody Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience , 2004 .

[30]  R. Solow We’d better watch out , 1987 .

[31]  Ray J. Paul,et al.  A Quantitative Assessment of Operational Use Evaluation of Information Technology: Benefits and Barriers , 2004, AMCIS.

[32]  Egon Berghout,et al.  Seven ways to get your "Pet" IT project accepted , 2002 .

[33]  A. Mol The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .