The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx

The global information infrastructure
Section:
GETTING ON BOARD THE INTERNET
From the Internet toward Worldwide Commerce
The Internet offers many resources, but its lack of robustness in
service, security, and reliability renders it an interim solution to
a true global information infrastructure (GII) that supports
worldwide commerce. The development of such an
infrastructure depends on more than improvements in
technology however; for the GII to be commercially robust,
issues concerning regulations, security, and cultural diversity
must also be resolved.
The Global Information Infrastructure (GII) is defined as an
environment that uses high-performance hardware, software,
and communications to deliver voice, data, video, graphics and
other information regardless of where the information or user is
located.
The GII will be the information highway of the future. Today,
the infrastructure is the Internet. This article describes the
Internet and, from time to time, moves forward to the GII. The
components of the information highway -- people,
communications media, communications networks, data bases,
agents, information providers, and bridges -- and their
interrelationships are shown in Exhibit 1.
THE INTERNET: USERS AND APPLICATIONS
The exact number of Internet users is not known. Estimates
range from 10 to 100 million users with interconnecting
networks stretched around the world. In 1994, there were
approximately 20,000 networks in the US, and 1,500 each in the
UK, Germany, and Japan. In countries such as Russia, South
Africa, and South Korea, networks numbered in the several
hundreds. In developing countries such as China, Kuwait, and

Egypt, three to five networks were typically operational.
Current Internet applications include:
· Find/learn -- through data bases and descriptions.
· Talk -- through E-mail, voice, and video.
· Work -- accomplished through cooperative work,
telecommuting, and videoconferences.
· Shop --using catalogs and electronic malls.
· Play -- using games and video on demand.
· Invest -- through stock market advice, order placement, and
money management.
INTERNET SERVICES
Internet applications are delivered through a variety of services
(see Exhibit 2).
E-Mail. E-mail, for example, provides capabilities for sending
messages addressed to individuals or to mailing lists. It is much
faster and less costly than traditional postal services. However,
Internet E-mail goes through multiple nodes and is subject to
delay. Furthermore, there is no address directory.
Newsgroups are a natural extension of E-mail. They allow users
to post messages for anyone to read. Another extension of E-
mail is computer conferencing. In essence, a computer
conference is a file devoted to a specific topic being discussed
by a group of people.
Telnet. Telnet allows users to access a remote computer as
though it were a local machine. Regardless of where they are
located, users can retrieve E-mail messages and download them
to the local computer. Typically, the user pays for a local
telephone call plus network charges rather than long-distance
rates. Telnet can be slow over long distances because an "echo"
has to travel back from the remote computer.
File Transfer Protocol. The File Transfer Protocol (FTP) allows
large files to be transferred between computers at high speeds.
Users can extract long files and move them from a host
computer to their computer to be edited or printed at their
leisure. Binary files can be moved using FTP.
The World Wide Web. The World Wide Web (WWW) has been

in existence for several years. It permits the use of hypertext on
the Internet. Originally, great technical skill was needed to set
up the Web. Today's browser software, such as Mosaic and
Netscape, simplifies the problem.
Mosaic and Netscape are typical of the new wave of interfaces
for the information highway. Their highly graphical hypertext
capability allows users to select information interactively. Over
a million copies are currently installed. The major disadvantage
with the software is that download times are quite long unless a
user has a very fast modem connection or a fast network
connection such as integrated services digital network (ISDN)
service.
Existing business resources on the Internet include:
· Specialized discussion groups such as UseNet.
· Information files made available by governments and by
companies.
· Information about updates on products as modifications are
made.
· Consumer information about software bugs and fixes.
BUSINESS ACCESS TO THE INTERNET
Organizations can access the Internet in three ways, each of
which entails a different level of financial investment:
· Dedicated connections.
· Dedicated dial-up.
· Modem connection.
Dedicated Connections. A dedicated connection links an entire
organization to the Internet and is most appropriately used to
send large amounts of data and to connect many workstations
and users. Because it requires installation of network hardware
and special leased lines, it is the most expensive form of
connection. The typical operating cost for a single dedicated
line in the US is $1,000 per month.
Dedicated Dial-Up. Smaller companies can reduce their up-front
costs by using dedicated dial-up. Here the Internet connection is
made from a workstation equipped with a high-speed modem
linked to a telephone line, which costs about $250 per month to

lease. Because this arrangement has a more limited speed and
supports fewer users, it is more suitable for short-term
arrangements that can be upgraded as needed. Dedicated dial-up
uses Serial Line Internet Protocol (SLIP)/Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP).
Modem Connection. This approach allows individuals to access
the Internet through a modem and a network provider. In other
words, they rent the provider's access to the Internet. It results
in shared Internet services and provides users with access to E-
mail. Easily installed and with low up-front costs of from $20 to
$30 a month, this approach is a first step toward familiarity
with the Internet.
Providers are available at each of the three levels.
Internet Service Providers
A thorough Internet provider supplies complete installation and
maintenance, including obtaining a network number and
registering a new connection, as well as training, education,
bulletin boards, and help. Being a network provider is a
business opportunity.
Businesses should ask the following key questions before
selecting a vendor:
· What level of security is provided? Is it possible to obtain a
firewall to deter hackers?
· What level of privacy (and encryption) is provided?
· How much does the service cost?
· What are the organization's responsibilities and the provider's
responsibilities regarding the operation and maintenance of
equipment?
· What level of training is provided and how much does it cost?
· What other networks can be accessed?
Managing the Internet
Internet users should be aware that the Internet is not run by a
company. It is an association of interconnected but separate
networks. Each network is owned by someone and may perform
services in addition to providing the Internet connection. The
Internet itself is managed by the Internet Society -- a nonprofit,

largely volunteer organization that accomplishes much of the
Internet's development through task forces, research groups, and
working groups.
The naming system used for Internet sites describes the type of
entity. Thus ".com" represents companies, ".edu" education, and
".gov" government. Most countries other than the US show their
name in Internet addresses. For example, Egypt is EG.
BUSINESS USES OF THE INTERNET
Several types of electronic commerce are conducted on the
Internet. The Internet allows specialty stores, for example, to
reach customers that they could not reach before. A classic
example is the Future Fantasy Bookstore in Palo Alto CA,
which specializes in hard-to-obtain science fiction books. When
the bookstore went online, it was able to reach customers
around the world. Because it already had a legendary reputation
for finding items, it was soon corresponding with and receiving
orders from many customers who previously did not attempt to
order from the store. In part, this increase in orders resulted
from the reduced transit time for inquiries and responses.
Customers could find out much more quickly whether a book
was in stock. Second, new people were introduced to the store.
The Future Fantasy Bookstore is an exception, however,
because most storefronts on the Internet receive only a few
orders. The Pizza Hut in Santa Cruz CA provides an example.
Amid much publicity, this franchise announced that, on a trial
basis, it would accept orders over the Internet. But because
customers found that it was quicker to pick up the telephone
rather than to sit at a terminal, type out the order, and wait for a
response, Pizza Hut received few online orders.
In the Pizza Hut case, several factors combined to make the
Internet a poor alternative to conventional telephone ordering:
the market is local, the system is occasionally unreliable, many
customers pay for each use of Internet service but can make
unlimited local telephone calls, additional time is needed to
connect to the system and fill out the order, and the number of
Internet users is relatively small compared to the public as a

whole. In addition, ordering involves a cash payment on
delivery by a human being; it is not a credit card or billing
transaction where cash transfer is more complicated.
A more common use of the Internet is the posting of catalog-
type information by companies with Gopher or WWW sites.
Here the objective is not sales but marketing. That is, by
presenting a catalog, often with pictures, the business seeks to
induce the viewer to contact the company through, say, an 800-
number, for additional information or to place an order.
Catalog-type information includes parts lists, specifications,
technical bulletins, and service offerings and is generally
offered mainly by computer and communications companies.
However, it is likely that this marketing application will expand
rapidly to other kinds of firms and replace the sending of
product sheets by mail and calls by salespeople. Because
printed catalogs are usually a within-country phenomenon,
online marketing gives small specialty enterprises the
opportunity to expand their market reach worldwide.
TOWARD A GLOBAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
The Internet is clearly an interim solution. Although it is used
for some business transactions, the Internet is not as yet
commercially robust. Specifically:
· It is not secure.
· It does not guarantee instant response.
· It has high costs for bandwidth.
· It is unreliable.
Several evolutionary steps are therefore necessary to achieve a
true global information infrastructure:
1. Upgrading the technology of the network itself.
2. Providing greater bandwidth to handle more traffic.
3. Increasing the level of security.
4. Creating a commercial rather than a voluntary association to
run the system.
5. Accelerating business use.
Two groups are working to develop the global information
infrastructure:

· The GII Commission -- a high-level commission whose 20
members include the president of EDS, the chairman of NEC,
the chairman of TIME Inc., and senior executives of the
Siemens and Olivetti Corporations. The commission meets
regularly.
· The US National Information Infrastructure Effort --
comprising national committees of government, university, and
commercial leaders. Several studies have also been done by
Congress.
THE BUILDING BLOCKS APPROACH
The building blocks approach to the GII was developed by
Professor El Sherif of the American University in Cairo and the
author. The approach is based on the idea that the following
seven building blocks are needed to create an effective global
system:
· People.
· Agents.
· Communications media.
· Information providers.
· Communications network.
· Bridges.
· Data base.
Each building block must meet several criteria:
· Be open to users in terms of universal connectivity; to service
providers in terms of competitive access; to network providers,
who can attach their network to the GII; and to change.
· Have appropriate architecture.
· Be technology independent.
· Have established standards.
· Be scalable.
· Be flexible.
· Allow for decentralized operations.
· Be heterogeneous.
A series of questions needs to be answered for each building
block. The questions and the blocks form the matrix depicted in
Exhibit 3.

The matrix demonstrates that the GII must meet a formidable set
of criteria. The following section considers the questions for a
typical block, providers, and for a typical provider within the
block.
The Provider Block
In some cases answers to the questions are provided; in others,
alternative issues are raised that should be resolved before the
provider begins operation.
What is it? The companies that supply access, data, and other
services for the user.
· 2. What policies and strategies should be used? The provider
should be open to all who pay for access. Should the provider
cater to specific interest groups?
· 3. What are the legal implications? Responsibility for what is
said on the network shall belong to the user. Should the
provider also be responsible? This question remains unresolved.
· 4. What are the economic implications? Should the provider
charge a flat fee per month, a fee based on connect time, a fee
based on bandwidth used, or a fee based on some combination
of these?
· 5. What are the social implications? What populations will
have access? Should the indigent have free access? If the
preponderence of users continues to be male, will the provider
deal with women's issues and needs as well as with men's?
· 6. What are the cultural implications? Which language will be
used? English, or a local language?
· 7. What infrastructure should be used at the national and the
international levels? What level of lines will be provided?
Asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)? ISDN? T3?
· 8. What are the human considerations? What education levels
and professional skills will be expected of users of the service?
Should the service be simple so that it can be broadly used or
should it require a certain level of sophistication?
· 9. What are the market and marketing implications? What
customer base will be appealed to? This question relates to each
of the other questions. For example, if the service is designed

for sophisticated users, then marketing has to address users with
the prerequisite knowledge.
ACCELERATING BUSINESS USE OF THE GII
An effective international infrastructure will be possible only
when several major problems areas are resolved. They include:
· Technology that is dispersed and unstandardized.
· Regulation -- how much is needed and who should be
responsible for it?
· Security, including verification of the authenticity of a call,
cash transfers, and the privacy of communication.
· International and intercultural issues including translation.
Improving the Technology
Because its technology is dispersed and unstandardized, the
global information infrastructure differs fundamentally from
previous technological innovations. Consider, for example, the
telephone, movies, and television. There was only one provider
of telephone service, and the provider put its telephone in
homes and businesses. To see a movie, people had to go to a
central place (i.e., the movie house) and use its technology.
Television receivers had to meet only two standards over time,
initially black and white, and later, color. The color had to be
backward compatible with the black and white.
In the case of the GII, consumers have many different types of
equipment: IBM-compatibles that range from 286 to Pentium, a
variety of Macintoshes, as well as advanced workstations. Some
communicate through mainframes and minicomputers. Some
have advanced browsers whereas others are still in an ASCII
world. Modem speeds range from 1,200 to 28,000 baud.
The net effect of this diversity is that when a vendor of services
on the GII decides which technology to use, it is preselecting a
subset of GII users to deal with. If the technology is very low
level, it lacks the capability for advanced techniques such as
multimedia or encryption. Thus even though the message being
sent is available to a large audience, it is inadequate for the
task. A subset of the audience is likely not even to look at the
message because it does not meet its standards. On the other

hand, if the level of the message is very high, requiring the
customer to have advanced hardware and software to receive it
properly, the number of people who can deal with the message
appropriately is much reduced. Vendors can resolve this
problem by devising ways in which their offerings can be
presented and understood by customers with varying levels of
technology. For example, a vendor might include appropriate
text in its Web pages notifying text-only clients that some files
and images are large and require significant bandwidth to be
downloaded in reasonable time.
At present, Internet service is not sufficiently robust. However,
at current loads, the backbone is robust most of the time. The
problem of robustness may, in fact, be in the "last mile." The
weaknesses involve the servers, which are the responsibility of
individual companies, and the local Internet service providers.
If demand on the backbone increases because of multimedia and
other high-bandwidth transmissions, the Internet would reach its
limits. The problems become more severe in countries with
lower levels of infrastructure.
In any case, because Internet service should ideally be
instantaneous and uninterrupted, major technological
improvements must be incorporated into the GII. For example,
large volumes of multimedia require the availability of much
larger bandwidths. Thus broadband services, such as ISDN and
T3, will have to be much more universally available.
Regulation and Standards
The Internet is relatively unregulated by governments. Common
consent has largely decided what online behavior is appropriate.
However, it is doubtful that the information highway will
continue to operate in this way. Several recent events and
situations in the US and abroad portend change. For example:
· Prodigy, the online service run by IBM Corp. and Sears
Roebuck, recently lost a suit for libel. Someone put a notice on
the system that a particular stockbroker was unreliable. The
stockbroker sued and won. The case is being appealed.
· Congress included a provision in its telecommunications bill

of 1995 that would regulate sexually explicit material. A
prosecutor in Germany forced CompuServe to limit access to
such material. Civil libertarians oppose these actions as the first
step toward censorship.
· There is currently no protection against fraudulent stock
offerings. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which
regulates stocks, has not intervened on the Internet because it
views the problem as minor and because it would take a massive
effort to find cases of securities fraud on such a widespread
network.
These as yet unresolved issues relate to the classic complexities
of free speech and the regulation of unethical behavior. From a
business point of view, the issue is what level of regulation is
required to ensure that business dealings are ethical and honest.
At a different level, regulation involves international technical
standards on such items as bandwidths and formats.
Establishment of standards will make it easier to conduct
business.
Security
The topic of security encompasses many issues.
Encryption and Verification. Encryption is defined as the
transformation of data into a form unreadable by anyone
without a secret decryption key. Current encryption efforts are
focused toward allowing secure communications over insecure
channels. A great deal of effort is focused on creating
authentication for digital signatures. In a sense, this is an effort
to provide verification. Users of the information highway need
to be able to verify that the person sending a message is who he
or she claims to be.
One method of encryption is public key cryptography. Each user
receives a public key that is published and a private key that
only the recipient can use for decoding. In the case of digital
signatures, for example:
· Individual A computes based on his or her private key and the
message.
· Individual B uses the message, the signature, and A's public

key to authenticate the signature.
Although various forms of encryption software are available
commercially, they are not yet widely used. Encryption is not
practical for messages designed for large groups, such as
catalogs or advertising messages that seek recipients a company
doesn't know and who are unlikely to have the needed keys both
to receive the messages and place orders.
The implication is that a business opportunity exists for
creating fast verification services. Until these services are
available, verification still reduces to mutual trust.
Protection from Hackers. As an open network, the Internet is
subject to attack by hackers. Aside from transmitting viruses,
which disrupt the local computer but can be handled, hackers
pose the risk of false transactions (e.g., credit card fraud) and of
information about a firm being obtained by competitors.
Disinformation. As the lawsuit involving Prodigy indicates, it is
possible for actions on the network to create disinformation.
The important point is that very large audiences can be reached
at very little cost. In the past, such audiences could be reached
only through the news media or through paid advertising. A
nearly free environment enables many more people to engage in
disinformation campaigns.
Funds Transfer. The biggest issue from the point of view of
commerce on the highway is the transfer of funds. When an
order is placed, a business must first verify that it is legitimate.
Once the merchandise is shipped (or, for example, a stock order
is executed), the business wants payment. It would be
convenient if the money part of the transaction could also be
executed over the highway.
Various forms of digital cash are being studied both by the
private sector and by governments. Digital cash would create
secure Internet transactions. One of the problems associated
with digital cash is that the transaction becomes anonymous and
hence untraceable by the Internal Revenue Service.
Privacy. Users are greatly concerned about maintaining their
privacy. Aside from the hacker problem, the information

highway makes it easy for businesses to find out who is buying
what products, which, in turn, provides targeted mailing lists.
International and Intercultural Issues
Because many potential customers know only their own
language, worldwide audiences are reachable only if messages
are translated. Although automated translation is still some time
away, considerable effort is going on in this area.
Fortunately, automated translation is easier for business
transactions than for ordinary speech because business
vocabulary is limited. One experimental scheme, for example,
avoids the problem of having to translate all possible pairs of
languages by translating all communications to a common
intermediary language. Thus, business communications between
Holland and Russia, for example, would be translated from
Dutch to English to Russian to English to Dutch. Regional
languages, such as Arabic, and widely used languages, such as
English and French, have an advantage here. Conversely,
complex languages such as Japanese or Chinese are at a
disadvantage.
Cultural considerations also affect business. Advertisements on
the GII have to take into account such factors as attitudes
toward gambling and pornography, dietary laws, and the
meaning of the word "yes," all of which vary from country to
country.
THE DOWNSIDE OF THE GII
All new technologies have downside risks. A simple example
from history is the telephone and the elevator. The elevator was
introduced into office buildings before the telephone. Elevators
were heavily used by messengers because messengers provided
the only alternative to postal services. When the telephone was
introduced, the need for messengers decreased. As elevators
became less crowded and more available to employees and
visitors, it became possible to increase the height of buildings.
Downtowns became more crowded as a result.
The downside risks of the GII are not yet fully known. The
following forecasts were made at a recent symposium held by

the Annenberg School of Communication in Los Angeles.
Eroding Social Bonds. As virtual communities are created,
people will transfer their loyalties to them, thus weakening their
social bonds with the people around them. A form of this
phenomenon is already seen among professionals who have
strong loyalties to their disciplines. For example, there are
programmers who are more interested in writing elegant code
than in the business application on which they are working.
Social Inequality. Computer literacy has already been added to
the list of problems that divide society. Poor or uneducated
people have less access to computing than wealthier people or
the educated. Younger people are much more computer literate
than older people. The global information infrastructure thus
becomes an additional divisive factor in society.
Freedom of Speech. The GII faces serious issues regarding
freedom of speech. What limits are to be set, and who is to set
them?
Real-Time Decision Making. In theory, the fully implemented
GII will facilitate real-time decision making in the political
arena. Governments can poll their citizens to see where they
stand at any moment on a given issue. Although real-time
decision making represents the ultimate democracy, it can also
lead to mob rule.
These downside risks seem remote at this stage of development
of the GII and may not even be the actual downside risks
encountered. History tells us, however, that downside risks of
technologies are real, and they must therefore be considered in
every action taken to move the GII forward.
CONCLUSION
Elements of the global information infrastructure are here.
However, the Internet is already reaching its limits. New
structures that come online will operate at five levels:
· Management.
· Networks.
· Applications.
· Transport (i.e., individual links).

· Information (i.e., data bases, document bases, video, and
transactions).
Opportunities exist both for conducting conventional business
electronically and for creating new businesses that use the GII.
However, it will be some time before most electronic commerce
becomes profitable.
EXHIBIT 2--Internet Services
E-Mail Text messages and all types
of files.
Gopher Menus and access to both
data bases and services.
Archie, Veronica, Jughead Archie searches for files.
Veronica and Jughead search
for the right Gopher sit.
Telnet Log on, use remote computer.
FTP Moves flies among computers.
World Wide Web (WWW) Adds hypertext capabilities.
Mosaic/Netscape Graphic interface to the WWW
and multimedia capabilities.
Voice Rudimentary phone
conversations.
CUSeeMe Elementary videonferencing
at low bandwidths.
EXHIBIT 3
Building Blocks of the Global Information Infrastructure
Legend for Chart:
A - Questions

B - People
C - Media
D - Communications Network
E - Data Base
F - Agents
G - Providers
H - Bridges
A B C D E F G H
What is it? -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Policies and Strategies -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Legal Implications -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Economic Implications -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Social Implications -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Cultural Implications -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Domestic Infrastructure -- -- -- -- -- -- --
International Infrastructure -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Human Aspects -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Market/Marketing -- -- -- -- -- -- --
DIAGRAM: EXHIBIT 1 The Structure of the Information
Highway
~~~~~~~~
By Paul Gray
PAUL GRAY is a professor in the programs in information
science department at the Claremont Graduate School in
Claremont CA and editor of this journal's BookISMs column.
Ref.
· Gray, P. (1996). The global information infrastructure: from
the Internet toward worldwide commerce. Information Systems
Management, 13(3), 7–14.
INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

A New Role for IS Managers
Corporate survival in an information economy requires that IS
managers assume the new role of information infrastructure
management, an architecture-focused approach that results in an
integrated IS and business organization with an integrated
strategic plan. The approach enables IS managers to anticipate
future organizational demands and stimulate innovative redesign
of business processes to continuously improve performance.
THE TRANSFER OF LABOR-INTENSIVE activities to low-
income countries is causing industrial countries to shift from
labor-intensive activities to knowledge-intensive activities
whose products add value based on know-how and creativity.
The resultIng information economy, which is based on
knowledge and communication, has the following
characteristics:
Accelerated technological developments.
Enhanced information- and knowledge-intensive activities.
Reduced time-to-market and life cycles of products and
services.
Globalization of the marketplace.
Fading boundaries between branches of industry.
Accelerating technological developments result from spiraling
information technology (IT) supply and demand. They
continually drive the enhancement of information- and
knowledge-intensive activities and the reduction in time-to-
market and life cycles of products and services. Businesses
seize these opportunities to distinguish themselves from their
competitors. IT also helps companies produce new products and
services and cross traditional industry boundaries.
In the information economy, enterprises engage in an ongoing
battle to increase their productivity, adaptive capacity (the
ability to rapidly adapt to changes in the external environment),
and flexibility (the ability to swiftly execute internal
organizational changes, against low costs). The shorter time-to-
market and life cycles of products and services demand drastic
cuts in throughput time.

In a globalized marketplace, an Increasing number of companies
view the world as one enormous market. These companies
develop their products and services in places where know-how
is available, buy materials and components where they are
cheapest, produce in countries with the lowest labor and
distribution costs, and sell their products internationally.
Although global companies require huge investments and must
therefore be large, they must also be small enough to respond
quickly to local markets.
A NEW IS MANAGEMENT ROLE
The application of IT in enterprises is usually based on existing
organizational characteristics, such as business strategy,
organization structure, and culture. This approach is a reactive
application of IT. To survive in the information economy,
enterprises must apply IT proactively. This means that existing
organizational characteristics are not taken as fixed facts but
are changed to profit fully from the possibilities of IT. This
approach can be achieved through business process redesign
(BPR) or even business scope redefinition (i.e., business
redesign).(n1)
The proactive application of IT requires that IS managers know
more than simply what the company needs at a given moment.
IS management's new role is to anticipate future demands and
stimulate innovative redesign of business processes. To
accomplish this, IS managers should be well informed about
market developments, business strategy, and business processes.
Because the success of a redesign project greatly depends on
fast implementation of changes, the necessary information
systems must be available quickly. This in turn requires an
appropriate information infrastructure.
In this approach, the IS strategy does not derive from the
business strategy, nor is the IS organization derived from the
business organization. One integrated strategic plan is worked
out, and an integrated IS and business organization is set up.
This new IS management role is referred to as information
infrastructure (11) management and summarized in Exhibit

1.(n2)
THE IIM METHODOLOGY
Successful launching of the new IS management role requires a
new method of information service provision. Such a method
must meet the following several requirements:
Aim at achieving business goals, not IS needs or IS goals.
Recognize processes as an organization's building blocks.
Include all business and information functions, business and
information processes, and information infrastructure
components.
Encompass the total IS organization, in terms of managing,
developing, maintaining, and using the information
infrastructure.
Assume that the organization and infrastructure are constantly
changing.
Consider both advanced and older methods, techniques, and
tools in order to ease the legacy problem inherent to most
organizations.
These requirements form the principles of the information
infrastructure management (IIM) methodology, which is based
on distributed systems integration and developed under the
supervision of Lansa Publishing.(n3) A methodology describes a
structured way of thinking and acting that alms to fulfill a
particular purpose. The purpose of IIM is to realize
organizational goals through a suitable information
infrastructure. IIM makes it possible to integrally manage,
develop, maintain, and use information infrastructures.
INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURES
The information infrastructure of an organization is defined as
all the IT resources (i.e., infrastructure components) used in the
information processes and controlled by IS management. It
includes both common and specific IT resources and consists of
the following three layers of (sub) infrastructures:
1. The application infrastructure. The application infrastructure
includes all the applications. The development infrastructure or
systems development environment (i.e., prescribed development

methods, techniques, and tools) are often also included in this
infrastructure.
2. The data infrastructure, The data infrastructure comprises the
(multimedia) data and knowledge bases, facilities for data
protection, integrity, and consistency, and the organization's
data model. The data base management systems belong to the
technical infrastructure.
3. The technical infrastructure. The technical infrastructure
consists of the hardware and system software of:
--Computer systems (i.e., mainframes, midrange computers, and
PCs). In a client/server architecture, a subdivision is made into
client (i.e., workstation) components and server components.
--Communications networks, or external and internal wide area
networks (WANs) and local area networks (LANs).
ARCHITECTURE
IIM has solved the difficulty of adequately fitting an
information infrastructure to an organization by focusing on the
architecture. Architecture is defined in IIM as the total
framework (i.e., conceptual model) of business and information
functions, business and information processes, and information
infrastructure of (a section of) an organization. In IIM thinking,
an organization is seen as a network of business processes that
contain and are supported by information processes. Support is
given where business processes are executed. The information
processes use the information infrastructure to perform the
activities (i.e., process steps). The IIM methodology
distinguishes the following (sub) architectures:
1. Functional architecture. The functional architecture describes
the most important business and information functions and their
interrelations.
2. Process architecture. The process architecture describes the
most important business and information processes and their
interrelations.
3. Application architecture. The application architecture
describes the most important applications, the processes they
support, their interrelations, and the systems development

methodologies.
4. Data architecture. The data architecture describes the most
important data and knowledge bases, the applications they
support, and the requirements regarding use, accessibility,
management, storage, and security.
5. Architecture of the technical infrastructure. This architecture
describes the technical components (i.e., hardware and system
software of computers and communications networks), their
interrelationships, and the projection of applications and data
and knowledge bases on these components. If a client/server
architecture is used, this architecture is subdivided into the
following components:
--A client architecture.
--A server architecture.
--A communications architecture.
The architecture ensures that the development of the 11
components over a period of time occurs in the same
framework. In this way, the various developments remain
compatible with each other and so-called IS islands are avoided.
In addition, the architecture aids in decisions regarding standard
components, reuse of existing components, and coordination of
custom solutions development to prevent unnecessary custom
software. IS managers can also indicate by means of the
architecture which information infrastructure components are
for common use and which are for specific use.
The IIM work method describes the processes for managing,
developing, maintaining, using, and administering the
architecture and supplies the techniques and tools required for
these activities.
THE GENERIC IIM PROCESSES
The IIM process diagram in Exhibit 2 shows the generic IIM
processes. The development of the IIM process structure aims to
achieve maximal coherence between the distinct IIM process
activities and minimal interdependence among the processes.
As previously mentioned, IIM focuses primarily on use of the
architecture, which is evaluated by inspecting and measuring

the processes and their accompanying infrastructure
components. Together with change requests, stemming from
users' difficulties, this evaluation provides information for
realizing and implementing (small) improvements or changes.
Although such improvements or adaptations do not principally
change the architecture, the measurements, inspections, and
evaluations provide input for a more thorough evaluation of the
effectiveness and efficiency of the processes, which together
with users' requests, may lead to new architectural
requirements. In turn, these new requirements may serve as
input toward structural changes to the architecture. This process
also receives input from IS managers, who are responsible for
the link to the business goals. IS management is supported by
an administrative process that registers the configuration and
structure of the architecture. After the architecture is
determined, it is adapted, renewed, or developed from scratch.
The result of this process is readied for use by the installation
and implementation process. Finally, users are also supported
by a process that solves their daily queries and problems
concerning the architecture.
The following four levels are differentiated in the IIM process
diagram:
A use level, which involves using the architecture and user
support.
A maintenance level, which comprises change requests,
evaluation, changes (i.e., improvements and adaptations),
installation, and implementation.
A development level, which executes the more drastic changes
on the basis of new or adapted requirements.
A management level, which alms at strategic change and is
responsible for the links to business goals.
Contrary to traditional methods, IIM is not divided into phases
that must be passed through successively. Instead, IIM is
characterized by continuous processes aimed at continuous
performance improvement. In other words, the model offers a
continuous improvement mechanism in which the quality of the

architecture is central. As such IIM is a total quality assurance
approach. Management, development, maintenance, and use of
the entire information infrastructure are brought together in an
integral approach. Details of the 11 IIM processes, as well as
the activities (i.e., process steps), resources, and results to be
achieved for each IIM process are available in the literature.
The following sections provide a brief description of each IIM
process.
Determining Architecture Requirements
This process alms to determine the architecture's specifications
for the benefit of line management through decisions about
which functions must be carried out to achieve organizational
goals. The process uses input from the architecture management
and evaluation-processes and from users, who relay their
requests directly to this process. The most important activities
or process steps are:
Planning the determination of the requirements.
Collecting data.
Determining the functional requirements.
Determining the quality requirements.
Determining the management and operational requirements.
Determining the security requirements.
Determining the financial requirements.
Consolidating all requirements.
Determining the Architecture.
The architecture determination process leads to the definition
and design of the architecture and of the business models for the
benefit of Is management. The architecture is determined by
grouping the necessary functions in the functional architecture,
which consists of a hierarchy of functions and can be converted
to a process architecture. The process architecture then
indicates by means of processes and process steps (i.e.,
activities) bow functions are to be carried out. Each process in
the process architecture is then worked out distinctly regarding
the determination of activities and required IT resources or
information infrastructure components, from which the data,

applications, and technical infrastructures are derived.
The architecture should be described in general terms but also
be detailed enough to enable decisions about adaptations.
Although IIM is confined to the information infrastructure, the
process of determining the architecture also results in the
determination of the business functions and business processes.
These are used to derive the specific information infrastructure
components. In this way, the information infrastructure is fitted
closely to the organization and not vice versa.
The architecture determination process is influenced by both the
requirements determination process and the architecture
management process. It yields an architectural plan, and its
most important activities are as follows:
Planning the determination of the architecture.
Determining the current architecture if it is incompletely
documented. Determining standards and guidelines.
Designing the functional architecture and the process
architecture.
Designing the applications architecture, data architecture, and
architecture of the technical infrastructure (i.e., client, server,
and communications architectures).
Administering the information infrastructure.
Evaluating and planning the architecture, which includes a cost-
benefit analysis and setting up an architectural plan for
developing the information infrastructure components.
Developing the Architecture
This process comprises further formulation of the architecture
and realization into functions, processes, and information
infrastructure components. It also ensures that the components
are obtained, developed, and delivered, which includes adapting
them to changing organizational demands. The process yields
the functions, processes, and infrastructure components desired,
together with the accompanying documentation. Its most
important activities are:
Planning the development of the architecture.
Designing functions, processes, and information infrastructure

components.
Describing (i.e., specifying and documenting) functions,
processes, and information infrastructure components.
Realizing and adapting functions and processes.
Evaluating existing components.
Developing or purchasing components.
Testing and approving components.
Integrating functions, processes, and components.
Securing components.
Documenting components.
Developing user training programs and user support.
Updating the administration of information infrastructure
components.
These three IIM processes can be consolidated
into one main process called architecture development.
Handling Change Requests
This process ensures that requests for changes, issuing from
users following problems with the architecture are dealt with
adequately (see the section on supporting architecture use). The
process results in proposals for changes to the next process and
reports to the issuers of the requests. The most important
activities or process steps are:
Planning the activities.
Receiving and analyzing change requests.
Determining how to deal with these requests.
Reporting to issuers of the requests and completing the actions.
Evaluating the Architecture
In this process, measurements of the functions, processes, and
infrastructure components are used to evaluate use of the
architecture. Proposed changes are also evaluated. More drastic
changes are passed on to the requirements determination process
as new function requirements; smaller changes that do not
fundamentally affect the architecture are passed on to the
architecture change process. The most important activities of
the architecture evaluation process are:

Measuring business processes and accompanying information
infrastructure components.
Inspecting business processes and accompanying information
infrastructure components for possible bottlenecks.
Evaluating functions and processes in terms of whether they
meet requirements.
Evaluating the applications, data, and technical infrastructures
to determine whether actual performance of the components
deviates from required performance.
Evaluating security and availability.
Evaluating costs and benefits.
Determining the actions to be taken.
Administering the evaluations.
Changing the Architecture
The architecture change process implements the requested
improvements or changes to the architecture by designing,
developing, and adapting functions, processes, and
infrastructure components on the basis of a maintenance plan.
The most important activities of this process are:
Designing changes to functions and processes.
Designing, realizing, and testing changes to information
Implementing changes to functions and processes.
Optimizing use of information infrastructure components.
Administering the changes made to the architecture.
Installing and Implementing the Architecture
The architecture installation and implementation process aims
to install and implement ready-to-use functions, processes, and
infrastructure components. As a result of this process, new and
improved functions, processes, and infrastructure components
become available. The most Important activities of this process
are:
Setting up locations.
Obtaining, transporting, and installing information

Testing Information infrastructure components and preparing
them for use.
Educating and training systems managers and users.
Implementing business processes.
Accepting processes and accompanying information
Distributing new versions.
Updating the architecture administration.
Using the Architecture
In this process, users employ the functions, processes, and
infrastructure components that are developed and maintained by
other processes. The most important activities of this process
are:
Planning use.
Receiving, processing, and entering inputs.
Processing data.
Obtaining, processing, evaluating, and distributing outputs.
Auditing data processing and security.
Providing back-up and recovery.
Measuring reliability, availability, and security.
Measuring performance and capacity.
Updating the information infrastructure administration.
Supporting Use of the Architecture
This process aims to promote effective use of the architecture
by users. It provides services (i.e., the help desk) to users who
have difficulties employing the infrastructure components.
Assistance is usually given with the execution of information
processes, rather than in performing functions and executing
business processes. The process results in advice to users and
change requests made by users. Its most important activities
are:
Planning user support.
Receiving, analyzing, and evaluating requests for support.
Educating and assisting users.
Solving users' problems through the help desk.

Assisting in ad hoc information retrieval from data bases.
Formulating change requests.
Administering requests for help.
Managing the Architecture (II Management)
The architecture management process ensures that the
architecture is tuned to the business goals and determines the
business and IS organization according to situational factors.
The process also includes operational management of the IS
organization. Information infrastructure management consists of
planning, organizing, and controlling the information facilities
according to the IIM method. The most important activities in
the process are:
Evaluating the current business organization and IS
organization.
(Assisting in) determining the business strategy and IS strategy.
Determining the business organization and IS organization
based on the results of the architecture determination process.
Setting up and executing an organization and IS plan.
Managing the development, maintenance, and use of the
information infrastructure.
Administering the Architecture
The architecture administration process comprises the
administration of functions, processes, and infrastructure
components so that an up-to-date picture of the architecture and
its components is available at any given time. This includes an
up-to-date registration of the configuration of the architecture
and the specifications of the information infrastructure
components. A version is also indicated for each component.
These versions might be operational, in development, and
planned.
An information system is usually implemented to carry out this
process; it also plays a role in controlling the information
infrastructure (i.e., network management). The process, which
is also called configuration management, results in up-to-date
architecture administration and documentation. Information
about the architecture's configuration is stored in a

configuration management data base. This process supplies data
to other processes.
The processes of handling change requests, evaluating the
architecture, changing the architecture, and installing and
implementing the architecture may be consolidated into one
main process called architecture maintenance. This main
process ensures that the architecture is available to different
users, both inside and outside the organization. The ITIL
method (IT Infrastructure Library of the CCTA, an advisor to
the British government regarding IT), which is currently
popular with many organizations, divides this main process into
several control processes, such as:
Problem management. The problem management process
controls the progress of problem solutions (i.e., incident
control), identifies and diagnoses structural imperfections in the
information infrastructure that have led to one or more incidents
(i.e., problem control), ensures a structural solution to known
imperfections in the information infrastructure and guards those
identified imperfections for which there is no affordable,
structural solution (i.e., error control), and prevents service
Interruptions (i.e., proactive problem management).
Change management. Change management accepts and registers
change requests, authorizes and plans changes, executes and
tests changes, distributes and implements changes, and
evaluates changes.
Availability management. The availability management process
assesses the availability of information infrastructure
components, ensures that the actual availability matches the
availability specified in the service-level agreement, ensures
that suppliers meet their obligations regarding reliability and
maintainability, and plans appropriate availability in the longer
term.
One of IIM's premises is that existing methods, techniques, and
tools must be fitted into IIM whenever necessary. For example,
in the architecture development process, new infrastructure
components may be realized using existing development

methodologies, including the following:
1. Linear development. In the traditional approach of linear
development, development phases are executed consecutively.
Each phase is completed with a document stating the results
achieved and the next steps to be taken (e.g., systems
development methodology or SDM).
2. Spiral development. An adaptation of the linear development
method, the spiral development methodology involves
completion of a few development phases and a pilot information
system (i.e., pilot component) that is improved in the next
series of phases, finally resulting in a full-fledged information
system. This method is also known as prototyping.
3. Interactive development. In interactive development, each
development phase, of which there are only a few, is realized in
close contact with users. This method is often referred to as
rapid application development (RAD).
The ITIL method may be used in the main process of
maintaining the architecture. The IIM process of supporting
architecture use is congruent with the ITIL control process of
problem management; the IIM processes of handling change
requests, changing the architecture, and installing and
implementing the architecture are congruent with change
management, whereas evaluating the architecture matches with
availability management. This reveals also that IIM has a
greater scope than ITIL. IIM not only considers the business
functions and business processes, it also encompasses the
management, development, and use of the architecture. IIM
therefore offers a consistent overall approach, in which ITIL
publications have a place as elaborations of (or parts of) IIM
processes.
IMPLEMENTATION OF IIM
The 11 IIM processes described indicate what should be done,
using which resources, to manage, develop, maintain, and use a
modern (knowledge and) information infrastructure. No
assumptions were made about the type of organization in which
these processes are accommodated. In other words, the IIM

process structure is generic and can be applied in all kinds of
organizations.
The IIM processes must be tailored to every situation and for
every organization. One of the activities of the architecture
management process is to structure these processes. IIM
processes can be centralized, decentralized, or outsourced
depending on situational factors. How the IIM processes should
be structured depends mainly on the organization's current stage
of development in the application of IT and IS management, or
its IT management plateau.(n4) The five such plateaus, on each
of which IT adds increasing value, are functional integration,
cross-functional integration, process integration, business
process redesign, and business scope redefinition (i.e., business
redesign). In this way, the large number of situational factors
are replaced by the characteristics of each plateau.
IIM can be implemented on each plateau and in various ways.
The following five possibilities range from minimal to
complete:
1. Implementation as a checklist. In this approach, no special
measures are used to implement IIM; the descriptions of IIM
processes and activities are used as a checklist to determine if
everything has been considered.
2. Implementation as a results-oriented approach to improve
information activities. Here, the results of the information
activities must conform to the results as described by IIM in the
activities concerning the information infrastructure.
3. Implementation of information functions and processes (the
IS organization) and information infrastructure according to
IIM. In this implementation approach, the noun architecture in
Exhibit 2 is changed into information infrastructure.
4. Implementation as a results-oriented approach to improve
business and information functions and business and
information processes. Here, the results must conform to those
described for the IIM activities.
5. Implementation of business and information functions,
business and information processes, and information

infrastructure according to IIM.
In the second and third possibilities, IIM is only used for the IS
organization. The fourth and fifth possibilities encompass the
business organization as well as the IS organization.
CONCLUSION
Many parts of the IIM methodology may not be new. What is
new is that the different parts have been consolidated into one
overall approach. Compared to existing methods, IIM offers the
following advantages:
It provides a total framework for managing, developing,
maintaining, and using an organization's information
infrastructure.
It is directly geared to achieving business goals.
It leads to continuous improvement in the performance of
business processes.
It lets the IS organization change with the business
organization.
It uses existing methods, techniques, and tools.
It results in improved cooperation among managers, users, and
IT specialists because all groups use the same goals and
terminology and focus primarily on the functioning of the
business functions and processes.
It facilitates increased control because of a consequent
administration of activities and infrastructure components; this
forms an organization's knowledge base. Such a knowledge base
is required, for example, in working with self-managed teams.
Because IIM can be implemented on each IT management
plateau, it also provides a vehicle for transforming an
organization to a higher plateau. Further information on
implementing IIM in organizations is available in the
literature.(n5)
Notes
(n1.) T.H. Davenport, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work
through Information Technology (Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1993).
(n2.) D.S. Tan, From Information Systems Management to

Information Infrastructure Management (Leidschendam, The
Netherlands: Lansa Publishing, 1996).
(n3.) G.F. Hice, DSI: Distributed Systems Integration
(Leidschendam, The Netherlands: Lansa Publishing, 1991).
(n4.) A.A. Uijttenbroek, et al., IIM: Information Infrastructure
Management, (Leidschendam, The Netherlands: Lansa
Publishing, 1996).
(n5.) D.S. Tan, "IT Management Plateaus: An Organizational
Architecture for IS," Information Systems Management 12, no.
1 (1995), pp. 44-53.
EXHIBIT 1 The Changing Role of IS Management
Prevalent IS Management
Role Supplier of IT products and services
Purpose Ensuring optimum IT facilities
Products IT products and services
Primary Knowledge Applying IT
Method of IT Application Reactive
Primary Focus Applications
IS Strategy Derived from business strategy
IS Organization Derived from business organization
Information Infrastructure
Management
Role Leader in organizational change
Purpose Optimum contribution to achieving
business goals

Products Knowledge and information
Primary Knowledge Market, business strategy, and
business processes
Method of IT Application Proactive
Primary Focus Information infrastructure
IS Strategy Integrated with business strategy
IS Organization Integrated with business organization
DIAGRAM: EXHIBIT 2 The IIM Process Structure
Ref.
· Tan, D. S., & Uijttenbroek, A. A. (1997). Information
infrastructure management. Information Systems
Management, 14(4), 33.
The Information Society, 18:87–100, 2002
Copyright c° 2002 Taylor & Francis
0197-2243 /02 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080 /0197224029007502 0
Balancing the Local and the Global in Infrastructural
Information Systems

Knut H. Rolland
Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Eric Monteiro
Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian
University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim , Norway
A considerable body of literature has demonstrated—
empirically as well as analytically—that information systems
need
to be situated to the local context of use. Yet for infrastructural
in-
formation systems that span numerous contexts spread out
globally,
this is literally prohibitive. For these systems to work, it is
necessary
to strike a balance between sensitiveness to local contexts and a
need
to standardize across contexts. We analyze a key element in
this,
namely, spelling out the (largely invisible) “costs” that the
differ-
ent actors pay to achieve working solutions. Empirically, we
draw
from an ongoing case study. We analyze the attempts of a
maritime
classi� cation company with 5500 employees located in 300
sites in
100 countries to develop an infrastructural information system
to
support the surveying of ships globally. We elaborate design
im-
plications and concepts relevant to developing information
infras-
tructures that also apply to the context of developing countries.

Keywords information infrastructure, standardization of global
work
practices, improvisation, globalization
The ongoing expansion and globalizatio n of large busi-
ness and public organization s simultaneousl y support and
are supported by information and communication tech-
Received 15 November 2000; accepted 15 July 2001.
We are grateful for feedback on an earlier version of this article
that was presented at the IFIP W.G. 9.4 conference in Cape
Town in
May 2000 aimed at IT in developing countries. We have also
bene� ted
from comments and discussions with Kristin Braa, Ole Hanseth,
Lucy
Suchman, and the involved managers at MCC. Sundeep Sahay
has
provided extensive advice as a guest editor.
Address correspondence to Knut H. Rolland, Department of
Informatics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1080, Blindern, Oslo—
0316,
Norway. E-mail: [email protected]� .uio.no
nology. There is a broad consensus about this mutually
reinforcing relationship , but there is hardly an agreement
about how this process unfolds dynamically. Developing
and using the information infrastructures these organiza-
tions require have traditionall y been regarded as a pre-
dominantly technical endeavor (Gunton, 1989). This is no
longer the case, as a rapidly expanding body of litera-
ture addressing an array of issues of social, economical,
institutional , political, and strategic nature demonstrate s

(Kahin & Abbate, 1995). Most relevant to us is the sub-
set of this literature focusing on how the development and
use of information infrastructure is interwoven with social
and strategic issues in business organization s and in de-
veloping countries. This body of work explores a number
of issues including: the heterogeneity of information sys-
tems due to different local needs (Davenport, 1998), the in-
scription of interests into artifacts (Bloom� eld et al., 1997;
Sahay, 1998 ), managerial approaches (Weill & Broadbent,
1998 ), local resistance to top-down initiative s (Ciborra,
1994 ), how basic design assumptions get taken for granted
(Bowker & Star, 1999), organizationa l politics (Ciborra,
2000 ), and how business strategies get worked out (Currie
& Galliers, 1999).
We aim at exploring one aspect of this problem com-
plex, namely, the negotiation s around striking a balance
between the need for such information infrastructure s to
adapt to the various local contexts they are to operate
across, while simultaneousl y coping with this complexity
by leaning toward universal solutions. The way univer-
sal solutions , predominantl y from the developed countries
and economies, need, but notoriousl y fail, to be negoti-
ated against the needs of developing countries illustrate s
the problem (Braa et al., 1995; Hanna et al., 1995; Lind,
1991; Ryckeghem, 1996; Sahay, 1998; Sahay & Walsham,
87
88 K. H. ROLLAND AND E. MONTEIRO
1997 ). In essence, this amounts to exploring the tensions
arising from two different strands of reasoning. The for-
mer, closely aligned with readily recognizable concerns for

curbing complexity, reducing risk, and maintaining con-
trol, is the argument that the only viable way to establish a
global information infrastructur e is to adhere to uniform,
standardized solution s (Weill & Broadbent, 1998). The lat-
ter, by now well iterated and largely internalized, argues
for the necessity of adapting information systems to lo-
cal, situated and contextual work settings (Ciborra, 1994;
Kyng & Mathiassen, 1997; Suchman, 1987).
Beyond the intellectuall y stimulating, but not neces-
sarily equally relevant, exercise of breaking down
dichotomies and replacing them with nuances, there is a
real need for such accounts (Bowker & Star, 1999;
Timmermans & Berg, 1997). Information infrastructures
like the one discussed in our case, which are to support
globally dispersed, highly interdependen t work, have to
balance the two arguments. It would simply not be possible
without it. Our analysis explores questions like: What are
the consequences of emphasizing too strongly the unique,
local and contextua l solution s or a too uniform solution ;
how is the boundary between the global and the local drawn
and maintained; what are the “costs,” and for whom, of
adopting global solutions ; what are the implication s for
control and management of such efforts; and if the global
solution is not perceived as an iron cage against which lo-
cal adoption strategies are waged, how should one describe
and conceptualiz e local use of information infrastructure ?
Empirically, we examine the challenges concerning the
design and implementatio n of large-scale infrastructural
information systems for heterogeneous environments . We
draw on material from an ongoing case study of a
Scandinavian-base d but globally operating maritime clas-
si� cation company that we dub MCC. In order to man-
age and cultivate its operations worldwide, MCC is faced
with the challenge of balancing the need to streamline

and standardize its operations across its sites against the
well-known need to tailor information systems to local
needs. MCC’s need to � nd a workable balance is acute.
This is because their key asset and core competence is their
ability to deliver high-quality surveys of ships worldwide.
As ships are mobile, this entails that the surveys MCC
conduct need to be distributed . Given the increased pres-
sure in internationa l shipping for cutting back on slack
and improving ef� ciency, it is prohibitiv e for ships to
spend extra time in ports “merely” for surveys. For MCC,
this implies that the survey work for one ship may start
in a port in one country with one surveyor, and continue
to the next port for the next surveyor to pick up where
the � rst one left off before � nishing the survey in a
third port in a third country with a third surveyor.
MCC’s customers include shipyards, manufacturers, ship
owners, and national authorities . It is essential that the
customers perceive this as one survey—that MCC’s
services, not only their technology, are standardized
(Leidner, 1993). For this to be attainable, the level of
standardizatio n of the surveyors’ work tasks has to increase
signi� cantly.
MCC has since 1999 been implementing a global in-
formation system to support surveyors’ work. The Sur-
veyor Support System, which has been regarded as fairly
successful, has gained momentum and is currently used
throughou t 130 different of� ces worldwide. Prior to the
implementatio n of this system, MCC’s entire information
infrastructure for reporting surveys was primarily based on
paper-based reports. With this paper-based infrastructur e
it was prohibitive to support a distribute d survey process
due to the lag in updated information. Consequentl y, the
Surveyor Support System enables a completely new, dis-
tributed way of conducting survey work but is currently

strugglin g to transform existing work practices that do not
use the system.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
The second section elaborates our theoretical framework.
We review the arguments and motivation s for universal,
standardize d solution s before turning to the empirical ev-
idence and analytic arguments for the situated, local de-
sign of any information system. In the third section, our
research design is described and discussed. The fourth sec-
tion presents the backdrop for our case by providing an
overview of the organization of MCC, historical material,
the information systems (IS) project, and a description of
the surveyors’ work. The � fth section provides empirical
illustration s of surveyors’ work and trade-offs between lo-
cal and global concerns. In the sixth section, we analyze
further the costs associated with working standards. The
seventh section offers a few concluding remarks where we
sum up some implication s for large-scale, infrastructural
information systems development and use in general. This
has implication s also for the “costs”—that is, the amount of
improvisation s and additional work—involved in transfer-
ring information systems from a context in the developed
world to one in developing countries.
THEORETICAL GROUNDING
Why Universal
Solution
s?

The traditiona l motivation for uniform solution s is derived
from an interest in rationalizatio n inspired by Fordist ide-
als of production (Yates, 1989 ). Hence, this motivation
is grounded in fairly general principle s and practices of
production . Despite this, it exercises an in� uential role in
portraying it as “obvious” that standardized solution s are
bene� cial (Hanseth & Monteiro, 1997; Monteiro & Hepsø,
2000; Williams, 1997). Standards, however, are never neu-
tral as emphasized in studies of transferring (Western)
BALANCING IN INFRASTRUCTURAL INFORMATION
SYSTEMS 89
standard solutions to developing countries (Hanna et al.,
1995; Sahay, 1998). These ideals, principles, and practices
of standardizatio n so in� uential in production of goods
have since been employed also to service work of the kind
MCC’s surveyors conduct.1 A beautiful demonstratio n of
standardized service work is the ethnographi c study
of Leidner (1993 ), where she looks at one extreme case
(McDonald’s) as well as an insurance company. Hence,
also for service work, standardizatio n is perceived as a
means for rationalization . Additionall y, the development

and use of comprehensive, interconnected , and integrated
modules of information systems—in short, information
infrastructure—is driven by an ambition to extend the
operations of the organization across many geographi-
cal locations. A key issue in realizing this ambition is to
� nd a way to enforce some notion of control and coher-
ence across the different contexts. As programmatically
stipulated by Mintzberg (1983 ) and demonstrate d histor-
ically by Yates (1989 ), one strategy to coordinate and
organize geographically dispersed work is through stan-
dardization. Standardizatio n enables coordination, which
in turn enables the exercise of control over distance (Law,
1986 ). This is typically aligned with the interests of man-
agement (Ciborra, 2000) or developed countries (Sahay,
1998 ). A ruthlessly single-minded, compelling, but ulti-
mately � awed (Kling, 1991 ) elaboration of this is the ar-
gument by Beniger (1986 ), where organization s constantly
experience crises, that is, situation s beyond their control.
In response, solution s for coordination and standardizatio n
are devised that resolve the crises. But the newly gained
sense of control does not prevail for long, as it subsequentl y
functions as a platform for new operations—which then
lead to a new “control crises,” and so forth. From this
point of view, the current challenges facing internation -
ally oriented organization s with regards to extending and

standardizin g their operations worldwide is but a special
form of “control crises” and the development of informa-
tion infrastructur e an attempted solution (which, follow-
ing Beniger, eventually will lead to a subsequent “control
crises;” see Ciborra, 2000).
The Argument for Situated, Contextual
Design—Once Again
There is an extensive body of both empirical and an-
alytical arguments that emphasize local variation, con-
textual design, and design for situated action (see, e.g.,
Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Kyng & Mathiassen, 1997;
Suchman, 1987; Williams, 1997). For any given informa-
tion system to work, the argument goes, it has to be tailored
according to the requirements of the local context of use.
As such, a local context will necessarily be unique, consti-
tuted by locally produced and institutionalize d practices
and the existing infrastructural resources.
There exists a substantia l body of empirical studies that
support this argument for local adoption to local contexts.
For instance, Tricker (1999 ) described the implementa-
tion of a statewide Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
network in Hong Kong and Singapore that has very differ-

ent outcomes due to the cultural differences between the
two countries. Ives and Jarvenpaa (1991 ) stated that one
of the main problems is the determination of global ver-
sus local requirements and the political and legal issues
of local ownership of data. In addition, they pointed to
the problems with outdated or unreliable communication s
systems in developing countries.
This general argument for situated design, by now a
well-establishe d and largely accepted position among in-
formation systems scholars, has been demonstrated partic-
ularly vividly in relation to the diffusion or transfer of tech-
nology from developed to less developed countries (Braa
et al., 1995; Hanna et al., 1995; Lind, 1991; Ryckeghem,
1998; Sahay, 1998). The inscribed assumptions about lo-
cal conditions, organizationa l hierarchies, and work rela-
tions clash with the context of the developing countries.
For instance, Sahay (1998 ) demonstrated how assump-
tions about the degree of familiarity with maps as well
as the strength of central governmental control inscribed
in Western geographic information systems (GIS) efforts
failed to translate gracefully to an Indian context.
However, the problem with this argument for situated,
local context is how to account for the instances of infor-

mation systems that actually do cut across contexts. Taken
literally, the argument for situated action has little or noth-
ing to offer in terms of providing an explanation for why
infrastructure technology actually works. What is called
for, then, is an approach, a vocabulary, and concepts that
help us balance between a (literal ) situated action argument
while curbing a naive belief in uniform solution s (Bowker
& Star, 1999; Hanseth et al., 1996).
The Pragmatic Turn: Making Work Explicit
The argument for situated design, when exaggerated, takes
on a rather dogmatic � avor. Detailed, situated accounts—
in the absence of additional remarks—effectively func-
tion as a way of formatting the problem so as not to
pose the question about similarities across contexts. Fur-
ther, the balance between local variation and standard-
ization often gets misconstrued as an issue of control:
The local variation is seen as a way to regain control,
to work against or “around” the top-down and enforced
structuring of information systems (Gasser, 1986; Kyng &
Mathiassen, 1997). In this way, local variation is portrayed
as a response to the intrinsic limitation s of standardiza -
tion. Hence, the standardize d categories are portrayed as
an iron cage, an enforced structure that is to be opposed. On

this account, standardizatio n presupposes docile elements
whereas local variation signals regained control. This, we
argue, is a serious misconception. It is rather the case, as
Timmermans and Berg (1997, p. 291) argued, that the di-
chotomy is illusory in the sense that the local variation,
“work-arounds,” or tinkering are necessarily required—
they are not merely the compensation for inaccurate
design:
This tinkering with the [standardized] protocol, however,
is not an empirical fact showing the limits of standardization
in practice. We do not point at these instances in order to
demonstrate the “resistance” of actors to domination. Rather,
we argue that the ongoing subordination and (re)articulation
of the [standardized] protocol to meet the primary goals of
the actors involved is a sine qua non for the functioning of
the [standardized] protocol in the � rst place.
In other words, it is not, as one might easily be led to believe
through the situated design argument, a particularly fruit-

ful position to be hostile to universal standards. It is rather
the case that the real issues circle around questions like:
How do standards come about; how do the negotiation s
unfold; who has to � ll in the glitches to make standards
work; and where should the balance between the global and
the local be drawn? Our pragmatic balance, then, amounts
to making explicit the work or “costs” associated with
establishin g working infrastructures , a task that is notori-
ously dif� cult to identify as it tends to become invisibl e
(Bowker & Star, 1999; Monteiro, 1998; O’Connell, 1993;
Timmermans & Berg, 1997).
This is inspired by Bowker and Star (1999, p. 108), who
noted that “true universality is necessarily always out of
reach.” Still, like all navigating devices, the ongoing strive
for completion is productive. A splendid example is the
prolonged study of classi� cation that has been conducted
by Bowker and Star (1999 ). The International Classi� ca-
tion of Diseases (ICD) is an arch-typical illustratio n of how
to balance between local and global needs. The ICD is a
100-years old list centrally administered list by the World
Health Organization (WHO), aimed at mapping diseases
that threaten public health. It is used by general practi-
tioners, hospitals, insurance companies, statisticians , gov-
ernments, and others worldwide. It implements WHO’s

efforts of categorizing causes of death for statistica l and
clinical purposes. In practice, however, it has proven nearly
impossibl e to fully standardiz e the ICD due to local work
practices, cultural differences, and diverging requirements
and interests. Bowker and Star (1999 ) demonstrate con-
vincingly how the aim of a global solution unfolds as an on-
going negotiatio n process around what shall be recorded,
the level of details, the purpose, and for whose bene� ts
and costs. Still, it makes perfectly good, pragmatic sense
to hold that ICD “works.”
Despite our af� nity with Bowker and Star (1999), there
are two aspects in our study that deviate from theirs. Their
emphasis is on spelling out the inscribed interests and
agendas of the different classi� cations. There is little at-
tention to the actual, everyday use of these classi� cations,
the local improvisations . In this respect, we come closer to
the more process-oriente d accounts of Timmermans and
Berg (1997 ). Hence, as in our case, the emphasis is on how
standardize d solution s and local resources are molded and
meshed � uently in the ongoing use of the system. In addi-
tion, the standardizatio n of survey work in MCC is highly
sensitive to a dilemma that is intrinsic in much service
work. Although standardizatio n is perceived as a viable

strategy for rationalizatio n also for service work, this has
a strong unintended consequence that needs to be kept
invisibl e to the customers of that service: Standardized
service is typically equated with low quality. As pointed
out by Leidner (1993, p. 30), “Uniformity of output, a
major goal of routinization , seems to be a poor strategy
for maintaining quality . . . since customers often perceive
rigid uniformity as incompatibl e with quality.”
This dilemma presents an additional element in the ne-
gotiation of where to draw the line between universal so-
lutions and situated, local variations in MCC. This line
is also subject to the perceived quality of the service that
MCC delivers through their surveys.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The empirical evidence presented in this article is drawn
from a longitudina l case study of a global organization
called MCC. It is interpretative in nature (Klein & Myers,
1999 ), aimed at “producing an understandin g of the con-
text of the information system, and the process whereby
the information system in� uences and is in� uenced by the
context” (Walsham, 1993, pp. 4–5). In addition, our ap-
proach to IS research is inspired by actor– network

theory, which focuses on tracing different actors, transla -
tions of interests, and inscriptions of interests and
intention s in artifacts (Berg, 1999; Law, 1986; Monteiro,
2000; Timmermans & Berg, 1997).
Prior to the study, one of the researchers had worked as
a consultant on the software project for 6 months in 1997.
The case study was conducted by one of the researchers
from 1998 to 2001, and included in-context interviews
and observation s on four different sites (coded A, B, C,
and HQ) located in two different Scandinavian countries.
This, of course, limits the possibilit y for making general-
ized assumption s about how local transformation s carry
over to locations where the cultural and institutiona l char-
acteristics differ substantiall y from a Scandinavian setting.
However, it was not the aim to give a complete description
or a comprehensive evaluation of MCC’s entire informa-
tion infrastructure. In this article, we focus on the ongoing
transformation s of local work practices in relation to the
standardize d information system that we have called the
Surveyor Support System. Still, all “global” phenomena

SYSTEMS 91
TABLE 1
Overview of interviews and informants
Type of informant Number of informants Coding
Surveyors in of� ce A 6 Surveyor 1–6, A
Surveyors in of� ce B 6 Surveyor 1–6, B
Engineers/support personnel at HQ 5 Engineer 1–5
Business managers at HQ 10 Manager 1– 10
Managers in the software development project 5 Software
manager 1–5
Senior software developers 2 Senior developer 1–2
Superusers 2 Superuser 1– 2
District managers 2 District manager 1–2
need to be traced to local expressions; the local feeds into
the “global.” Hence, “global” accounts are necessarily lo-
cal. We have attempted to compensate for the fact that
sets of local sites are highly restricted and con� ned by
supplementing this with indirect evidence. As background
material, we have used MCC’s own evaluation of the sys-
tem at other sites (Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Dubai, and
Rotterdam ), as well as discussion s with surveyors return-

ing from these sites.
More than 50 semistructured and in-depth interviews
lasting from 1 to 3 hours were conducted with a total of
38 informants during 1998– 2001 (see Table 1).
The key informants, such as managers in the software
development project and business managers, have been in-
terviewed up to three times. Most of the interviews were
conducted in context. The interviews of the managers were
held in the managers’ own of� ces, and in the case of
the surveyors most of the interviews were conducted while
they were working with the Surveyor Support System. In
of� ce B, three surveyors (1, 2, 3) were followed over
4 days through the entire work process of reporting a
survey job. One of the researchers spent approximately
2– 3 days a week at the head quarters (HQ) from March
2000 to August 2000. During the process of data collec-
tion, � ndings and design alternatives were actively dis-
cussed with managers and software developers. More
formal feedback was also given through seminars and
academic papers. This process helped to uncover mis-
understanding s and challenged the researchers’ views on
particular issues and problems. This also resulted in a
greater awareness of different actors’ opposing opinions

and views, thus illustrating the principle s of multiple in-
terpretations and suspicion by Klein and Myers (1999 ).
Based on discussion s with managers and developers,
interesting examples of what Anthony Giddens refers to as
the “double hermeneutics” occurred. Some of the
managers in MCC started to actively use some of the
researcher’s own vocabulary. For example the concept
of “work-arounds,” as de� ned by Gasser (1986), became
a well-known concept used to describe problems related
to use of the Surveyor Support System.
CASE STUDY OF THE MARITIME CLASSIFICATION
COMPANY (MCC)
MCC and the Business of Surveying
The MCC is a Norwegian-based but globally operating
company with 300 of� ces in more than 100 countries. It
has more than 5500 employees, organized in a divisiona l
hierarchy with one division represented in each region of
the world. Northern Europe, especially the Nordic coun-
tries, is a major cluster. MCC is a company with an estab-
lished tradition and pride after 135 years in business. A

core business area is the classi� cation of various types of
ships conducted by 1500 surveyors located in 300 differ-
ent ports worldwide. This classi� cation involves assessing
the condition of the ship and is a prerequisite in connec-
tion with issues of insurance. Classi� cation is conducted
according to the internationa l regulations provided by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) as well as
MCC’s own classi� cation rules. The internationa l busi-
ness of classi� cation is highly globalized. It is under an
increasing pressure marked by worldwide competition and
structural changes due to mergers and acquisitions .
Many ships operate globally and want to spend a min-
imum of time at dock. A so-called annual survey has to
be done within a “time window” of 3 months—otherwise,
the ship owner risks loosing his or her certi� cate. Thus,
it is critical for MCC’s customers that they can provide
identical services wherever the ship is located within the
given “time window.” Consequently, standardizin g ser-
vices globally and providing transparent access to infor-
mation regarding ships and surveys are essential to offer
� exibility and quality to the customer.
The engineers in MCC, often called surveyors, conduct
annual surveys of ships operating worldwide. During an

annual survey, miscellaneous parts of the ship including
the hull, machinery, rudder, electronic equipment, emer-
gency procedures, and safety systems are inspected. This
is to ensure compliance with classi� cation rules and inter-
national regulations , and in some cases particular national
regulations.
Most activitie s in MCC included some manipulation ,
use, or production of paper-based documents such as sur-
vey reports (surveys, for short), checklists, drawings, type
approval certi� cates, renewal lists for certi� cates, and ap-
proval letters. Traditionally, the surveys have been pro-
duced on paper. The surveyors had established a system of
74(!) different paper-based checklists for supportin g dif-
ferent types of surveys. “It is a guideline consistin g of dif-
ferent items that you should go through—but you will have
to look at other things too (Surveyor 3, A).” The check-
lists were tailored according to the different contexts and
environments . Thus, there was no standard representation
or common use of terminology, and these checklists had

not been a part of the of� cial documentation given to the
customers. This proliferation of nonstandardized , paper-
based checklists was perceived as hampering the quality
and ef� ciency of MCC’s global operations. It was a key
motivation underpinnin g the design of the Survey Support
System that has been introduced.
The Surveyor Support System and
the Guiding Visions
MCC has during the last few years invested heavily in
various information technology (IT) systems, as well as
strategic research concerned with how to adopt state-of-
the-art information technologie s related to MCC’s prod-
ucts and services. The strong commitment and emphasis
on IT-based solution s was backed by top management,
as symbolicall y gestured when the CEO announced 1997
“The year of IT.” As a consequence, MCC implemented a
common IT infrastructure for all 300 stations around the
world in 1997. This standardized infrastructure included
a physical wide-area network based on NT servers and
TCP/IP and standardized con� gurations for PCs with Mi-
crosoft Of� ce ’97. This IT infrastructure was expected to
provide all employees in MCC with transparent access
to documents, drawings, certi� cates, and all information

regarding classi� cation.
This IT infrastructure was a prerequisite for imple-
menting a common information system (here called the
Surveyor Support System) for enabling a distribute d clas-
si� cation process based on state-of-the-art software tech-
nologies and a product and process model. In short, the
Surveyor Support System is a state-of-the-art client/server
system built on Microsoft’s COM architecture as middle -
ware and a common SQL-based database server. The sys-
tem was intended to run at the largest of� ces by early 1998
but was delayed 1 year due to continuous adjustments .
The Surveyor Support System is MCC’s largest soft-
ware development project to date, and goes back to the
early 1990s when the IT department undertook several pre-
projects aimed at developing various calculation packages
for surveyors. Arguably the key element in these efforts
was a so-called product model. It was intended to provide
a standardize d way of describing the various modules of
a vessel, inspired by similar efforts in the manufacturing
of airplanes and cars. In essence, product models enable
exchanging, sharing, and storing product data within one
and among several organizations. MCC’s efforts to spell
out a product model were aligned with ongoing efforts

by the Internationa l Standardizatio n Organization (ISO).
Frustrated by ISO’s lack of progress, that is, its tendency
to produce idealized models rather than working solution s
(see, e.g., Hanseth & Monteiro, 1997; Williams, 1997),
MCC abandoned this strategy. However, even if MCC’s fo-
cus and means shifted, the aim of uniform product model to
support standardize d work processes prevailed. The man-
agement of MCC perceived strict standardizatio n as the
only viable strategy for streamlining global survey work:
I think the solution is to make it [the Surveyor Suppor t
System] as generic as possible—there is just no other way
to do it—if we really want a system to be used worldwide.
(Engineer 5)
While managers tended to focus on the organizationa l
and business related issues as reasons for standardization ,
software developers emphasized the necessity for stan-
dardizing on concepts, terminology, and a common world-
view across departments and user groups for technical
reasons:
[It] was part of the vision to have a product model because
we had to develop various applications, which will all be us-
ing the same data within the same domain—it’s utterly logical

that they should speak the same language. Like TCP/IP is the
standard on the Internet, the product model is the standard
for the domain knowledge of MCC. (Senior developer 1)
For sure, management were aware that the Survey
Support System would challenge different communities’
entrenched practices and interests (Braa & Rolland,
2000 ), and organizationa l politics was acknowledged and
expected up-front as a barrier:
Our business is 135 years old and we have long traditions—
a “stiffener” is not a “stiffener” among different groups and
departments . . . Thus, some political problems will come to
the surface. If we want a product model as a foundation, the
prerequisite is to speak the same language. (Software man-
ager 5)
Still, the extent and details of how the institutionalize d
practices, technologies , and terminology did differ were
only gradually and painfully grasped.
As of early 2001, MCC succeeded in transforming its
global work processes from being paper based to becoming

SYSTEMS 93
increasingly dependent on the Surveyor Support System in
the sense of deployment and increasing use of the system.
The system has also distribute d different work tasks that
earlier were done at the HQ, and in addition it is argued that
the system has led to a higher degree of uniformity in the
work tasks carried out by the surveyors. In this way, MCC
considers the Surveyor Support System to have provided
the organization with many bene� ts.
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS IN ACTION:
SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
Dealing With Irrelevan t Issues and Categories
The checklists and step-by-ste p work procedures in the
Surveyor Support System are designed to be universally
applicable. For particular surveys, however, this level of
standardizatio n has certain “costs” for the surveyors. Re-
gardless of their relevance to the survey job at hand, all
details (i.e., items in the checklists) and categories (i.e.,
checklists ) are exposed to the user. This implies extra work,

as the surveyors have to explicitly � ll in data and categorize
a range of items that are irrelevant to the given survey. For
any given survey, the surveyor accordingly deals with the
full-blown complexity of every type of and issue around
surveying.
The reason why this generates additiona l work is that
the information that needs to be provided is compressive.
The paper-based versions of the checklists often exceeded
90 pages. It is a time-consumin g task to explicitly cate-
gorize all items as either “Found in order,” “Found not in
order,” “Repaired/Recti� ed,” “Not applicable ,” or “Not in-
spected.” Hence, here the “costs” are the additional work
tasks that have to be carried by the surveyors and that did
not exist with the paper-based system:
In the old days we used to walk around with paper-based
checklists—and only a few of these lists were sent to HQ.
With the Surveyor Support System we get a lot of additional
work tasks because we have to explicitly write something on
every item in the checklists. It’s quite evident that this is not
an advantage for the surveyor. (Surveyor 2, B)
To illustrate, consider the following scenario where the
surveyor is using the system when reporting a survey that

includes the rudder of the ship. The surveyor has just re-
turned to his of� ce after � nishing inspecting, and is using
the Surveyor Support System to report. The problem he is
facing is how to categorize those items that are irrelevant to
his survey. Are they “Not applicable” or “Not inspected,”
he ponders:
In this system, it’s quite hard because you cannot just
say “No.” Consider this one [pointing at the screen] called
“Propeller nozzles and/or tunnels.” This vessel does not have
one so I’ve selected “Not Applicable.” But it could just as
well been “Not inspected.” [ . . . ] This can be very tricky. Our
procedures do not specify that we have to take the rudder
down, which means that this “02.09 Dismantling of Rudder”
is not a requirement. This is only supposed to be done if I
� nd something that indicates that I need to. There [pointing
to the middle of picture 1] you can write “Not applicable,”
but then the following items become irrelevant as you simply
can’t see the rudder stocks when the rudder is not dismantled.
Here [pointing] it makes sense to say “Not inspected.” This
is also true for “02.11 Rudder shaft or pintles and bearings”
and “02.12 Max. bearing clearances after repair.” Since the
rudder is not down, it is impossible to inspect these things.
And “Max. bearing clearances” gives absolutely no meaning

here—these measures are only relevant when the vessel has
been repaired. And if so, of course I would have categorized
it as “Repaired/Recti� ed.” (Surveyor 3, B)
The Surveyor Support System actually supports report-
ing a survey that includes the rudder, because it provides
a checklist where the user can � ll in collected informa-
tion concerning the rudder (see “02.00 Rudder,” Figure 1).
However, what, how, and where the collected information
regarding the rudder is to be � lled in is prede� ned and
inscribed into the electronic checklists. In the recording of
this survey job, the surveyor is simultaneousl y and intrinsi -
cally exposed to all the details concerning a rudder—which
of course are all important on a general level, but rarely
relevant in one speci� c context and situation . For instance,
in this particular case it makes no sense to report measure-
ments related to the dismantling or repair of the rudder.
In a different case, a surveyor was working with what
was considered a fairly straightforward survey job. The
surveyor had just arrived back at his of� ce after completing
an “annual survey” of a ship. Before he went onboard, how-
ever, he had to use the Surveyor Support System to select
the scope for the survey, to get an order number from a sec-
retary to � ll out the order form, and printed out the check-

lists and some other documents. Since the “intermediate
survey” for this particular ship was due shortly, the Sur-
veyor Support System automatically included checklists
both for the “annual” and the “intermediate” survey. An
“intermediate survey” covers the same as an “annual” but
with some additiona l details. It is to be conducted during
the second or third year following the “initial survey.” The
surveyor explains that the problem is “that these checklists
are nearly identical—you’ve got to enter the same infor-
mation twice” (Surveyor 2, B), and the surveyor is unable
to delete or omit one of the checklists:
You don’t know whether they want to take the interme-
diate survey now along with the annual—or if they want to
wait until next year. You only discover if it’s possible to do the
intermediate survey when you get out there. (Surveyor 2, B)
Hence, since there is no way of knowing if it is possible
to do only the annual survey or whether there is time to
do the slightly more complicated intermediate survey, the

FIG. 1. Screen showing checklists for a typical survey job
having all the items aggregated. Work tasks to be preformed by
the
surveyor are shown to the left. To the right memos and failures
are listed.
Surveyor Support System always includes support for both
cases, leaving the surveyor with the additional work tasks
of � lling out both checklists.
Adding New Categories In Situ
There are cases where improvisatio n beyond the prede-
� ned categories and work tasks is absolutely mandatory
for being able to report a speci� c survey. One of the survey-
ors was faced with the problem of reporting failures that are
directly linked to the fact that the vessel has been rebuilt:
These failures given here are directly linked to the fact
that this used to be a gas tanker. It’s gas codes. [ . . . ] But now
it’s not a gas tanker but a normal cargo ship. So now I have
to contact HQ and tell them that this ship has been rebuilt.
(Surveyor 3, B)
But this does not necessarily solve the problem for his

The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx

The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx

Similar to The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx (20)

More from cherry686017

More from cherry686017 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The global information infrastructureSectionGETTING ON BO.docx