Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

Theory of Interorganizational Systems: Industry Structure and Processes of Change

Shirley Gregor Dept. of Computing and Information Systems Central Queensland University Rockhampton QLD 4701 Australia s.gregor@cqu.edu.au Robert B. Johnston Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne Melbourne VIC 3010 Australia RobertJ@staff.dis.unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
This paper outlines a multi-level theory of interorganizational systems (IOS) that explicitly recognizes the importance of the industry as a macrolevel unit of analysis in addition to the units (enterprises) at the micro-level. The roles of the external environment and the technology-based IOS are also recognized. Theories of intentional agency drawn from the areas of robotics, intelligent software agents and human-computer interaction are used to explain how industry-level activity occurs. Concerted activity is attributed to the reciprocal causal effect of the group upon the individual units, rather than to any form of regular group deliberation about action. It is expected that change at the industry level will tend to be incremental, building on routine, situated actions of different players. Propositions concerning industry structure, processes of change and the development of IOS are illustrated with case studies.

1. Introduction
This paper concerns the development and adoption of interorganizational systems (IOS) -- information systems that span organizational boundaries. These business-to-business e-commerce systems have considerable economic importance. In supply chains, they promise throughput acceleration and buffer-stock reduction by increasing the degree of coordination of business activities between trading partners. Internetbased systems for materials procurement, purchasing, sourcing and bidding are capable of significantly reducing buying costs and increased buying power. The development of IOS presents considerable challenges. The scope of the systems, the involvement of different organizations with differing goals and the range and nature of possible relationships between the parties involved makes the situation one of extreme complexity. As yet, there appears to be little well developed theory for the adoption and implementation of IOS systems. Work that has been done has tended to

focus on a limited range of interorganizational interactions and to ignore the relationship between analysis at the level of the individual firm and analysis at a broader industry level (an exception is [1]). Here we build on work ([2] [3] [4] that advanced some important new ideas for theory of IOS and the shape such a theory should take. These authors argued the need for multi-level analysis, with an industry group clearly recognized as an important unit of analysis, and for theory that is processual, with recognition of the dynamic interaction between influences on behaviour and the behaviour that occurs. The previous theoretical work is extended to give propositions concerning the development of IOS -- how change is related to industry structure, how change occurs, and how change can be facilitated. Because we are concerned with IOS, we focus primarily on understanding how change, adoption and innovation occur at a macro-level of analysis the industry or industry-group level, rather than adoption at the micro-level of individual organizations. The motivation for the paper is to develop the theory to a point where it can be further tested in empirical work, and at a practical level to provide a basis for insights and for practitioners assisting industries and businesses with adoption of effective e-commerce strategies. The paper proceeds by first outlining the analytical constructs on which the theory is based. The nature of industry activity is then discussed. Four propositions concerning change and industry structure are derived and illustrated with brief case studies. The paper concludes with a summary and suggestions for future work.

2. Theoretical background
In this section we discuss the basic building blocks of the theory we propose: the units of the theory at different levels, the nature of the units and the relationships between them, the external environment, and the underlying nature of change that is envisaged. Note that much of this theory could be applied to sociotechnical systems with other scales such as

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

organization-wide or enterprise-wide. Here we are developing it specifically in the context of IOS. In previous work it has been argued that theory is needed for IOS that, using the terminology of [5], has multi-level units of analysis, is processual in that it considers processes over a period of time, and is emergent rather than adopting a strongly deterministic view of causal agency [2]. A fuller description of the nature of industry-level activity is given in [3]. The theory has commonalities with structuration theory [6] in that action and structure are seen to operate as a duality, simultaneously affecting each other. However, we provide a different, and arguably simpler, mechanism for this duality based on the duality of action and environment already inherent in situated actions.

2.1. Analytical constructs

Our primary level of analysis is the industry-group level. The industry group is the group of organizations concerned with the interorganizational system or systems that are the primary focus of our theory. The industry-group could be a whole industry, a cluster of organizations within an industry, or a supply chain. We make a distinction between the industry-group unit as a focal actor and its environment. However, to explain concerted activity at the industry-group level we find it necessary to speak of the situated actions of individual members of this group and how these become coordinated. Therefore, we must include individual firms and organisations as lower level actors in the analysis. Again we make the split between these actors and their environment and find that it consists of the broader external environment plus a more immediate environment consisting of the industry group as a whole. We are thus led to a rather unusual multi-level theory. These analytical constructs are defined thus: 1) Individual industry units. These are the firms and organisations that contribute to the operations of the industry. Examples are: firms directly associated with the value chain of the product specific to the industry, that is, manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers; infrastructure providers such as transport providers, financial institutions, software providers, and communications providers such as VANs; regulatory organisations such as trade organisations, standards bodies, and industry related research organisations. These firms and other organisational entities are the smallest grain-size entities of the theory. We consider actions and intentions to be attributable to the units rather than to particular persons in them; 2) The industry group itself. This consists of the individual industry units plus the system of relationships between them. These relationships are what makes the collection of units greater than the sum of its parts, and therefore worth speaking about as an entity to which coordinated activity can be attributed. The types of relationship include trading, communicative, economic,

corporate, power, cultural connections, and geographical. An important challenge of the theory is to show how industry group action is related to industry unit activity. Since we have included not just the firms directly adding value to the focal product of the industry but also any other organisations supporting these activities, our notion of industry group is rather similar to Porters notion of industry cluster [7]. This industry group is also the immediate environment of the individual units; 3) The interorganizational system (IOS). The depiction of the IOS in our theory is problematic. It can be viewed as one aspect of the industry-group unit of analysis. This construct has such importance for our theory, however, that it is distinguished here separately and our view of its nature given. [8] define the essential characteristics of an IOS as both technological and organizational. An IOS is built around information technology, i.e., around computer and communications technology that facilitates the creation, storage, transformation, and transmission of information. An IOS differs from an internal, distributed information system by allowing information to be sent across organizational boundaries. (p. 154) Note that we do not regard the IOS as a fixed entity or thing as it has been regarded in the innovation/diffusion literature [9]. Rather we are concerned with a system that changes through processes of proposal, adoption, development, use and negotiation over time. Following [9], it is seen as important that IOS are not viewed as fixed solutions. Rather, industry groups unpack and reconfigure technologies to suit existing organizational and industry conditions. Again, we have a view that accords with elements of structuration theory. [10] describes an information system in structurational terms as a social system (information practice), supported by material resources (information technologies), which are designed and managed by a further social system. 4) The remote environment. This consists of all firms, organisation, institutions, and other factors outside the boundary of the industry group, that affect the firms and organisations within the industry group and the relations between them. Examples are: government policies, economic conditions, competing industries, foreign exchange rates, foreign competition, technological change, physical environment and geography. The distinction between the immediate unit environment and the remote extra-industry environment needs some clarification. The defining characteristic of the remote environment is that although it constrains and enables certain actions of the industry units, these characteristics are not substantially affected by the actions of these units acting individually or in consort.

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

An example is the appearance of the Internet as a communication technology. Although this has had a great effect on the practicality of EDI in certain industries [11], it would be hard to argue that the actions of any specific industry grouping have shaped the nature of the core design and protocols of the Internet. Such shaping forces occur at a larger scale than particular industries. By contrast the immediate environment, what is taken to be the industry group, is defined here to be all those firms and organisations whose actions both enable and constrain the actions of individual firms but who are also themselves influenced by the industry units through mutual interaction. For example, while the nature of the Internet at the large scale is not substantially a response to the needs of particular firms or industries, these needs, and the business opportunities they afford, have directly given rise to certain Internet-based EDI software products [11] [12]. So such software products have an effect on the activities of industry firms and are also affected by these activities. Thus they must be considered to be within the immediate environment of

the industry units as defined above, and also to be units of the broader industry group. The defining characteristic of the industry group we have in mind is this mutual interaction of all the parts, that is, a certain kind of closure by virtue of the fact that most of the organisations with which any one organisation interacts are also part of the group. Figure 1 gives a view of the main levels of analysis in our theory of IOS (industry-group and individual enterprise) and the relationship with the external environment. Inclusion of specific influences at the different levels follows from other studies of IOS. The important influences in the external environment are taken from [13]. Influences on IOS at the industry group level are identified as industry relationships [14] [15], regulatory bodies [16], EDI standards, critical mass and the nature of the product [17]. Internal influences at the enterprise level on IOS adoption include top management support [18], organizational readiness (financial and technical resource) and perceived benefits [19].

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT Market (global competition, customer expectations) Technology (innovations and obsolescences) Society (government regulations, economic conditions

INDUSTRY-GROUP LEVEL Industry structures and relationships among players, level of trust, regulatory or coordinating bodies, EDI standards, critical mass of potential participants, nature of product

Interorganizational Systems (IOS)

ENTERPRISE LEVEL Organizational readiness (financial resources, technical knowledge), perceived benefits, management support

Figure 1. Influences on the adoption, development and use of interorganizational systems

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

2.2. Dynamics of industry-level activity

To flesh out the dynamical structure of the theory we now need to take a position on the nature of on-going intentional or goal-directed activity in complex systems. Here we draw on agent theories originating in the areas of robotics [20], intelligent software agents [21] [22] and human-computer interaction [23]. A number of authors [21] [22] [23] [24] [20] [25] [26] from diverse disciplines have pointed out recently that there are essential two choices for a theory of intentional activity in complex systems generally: representational/information-processing theories of activity, and situational /interactional theories of activity. In the first kind it is assumed that the focal agent (which would in our case would be the industry) can act in its environment to achieve desired goal states by means of the construction and maintenance of a symbolic, abstract representation of its environment and its state within it, using data acquired by sensing the environment, and can determine a series of formal actions capable of taking it from its current state to the desired state by a process of logical deduction upon this abstract representation of the world of action. This series of formal actions is a plan that is then implemented in the real world. Applied to our problem this would require the industry as a group to be able to construct and share a central and common representation of its position as a group with respect to its environment, and to be able to use this shared representation to deduce and implement an agreed set of coordinated actions. This vision of industry-level activity, as with all applications of this type of plan-based activity theory, would be based on a metaphor of the industry acting as a conscious, deliberative agent, and is implicit in many project management approaches to industry reform. We argue that, although this may be possible in rare episodes of concerted formal reasoning about action, it is not a likely explanation of the nature of regular on-going industry level activity, although this notion of activity is often implicit in naive theories of interorganisational change, which do not recognise the distinction between reasoning about change and making it happen. The second type of theory of activity imagines a focal agent with simple, possibly purely reactive, responses to its environmental situation, acting in an environment that is structured in such a way as to tend to enable certain goal outcomes. These outcomes are then as much attributable to the structure of its environment as to the actions of the focal agent. In these theories the focal agent is not required to be capable of forming an aerial view of its relation to the environment, but instead acts on the basis of its direct perceptions of the environment from its particular situated ground view, and can act with distinctly bounded formal reasoning powers because the structure of the environment assumes some of the cognitive burden of intentional action [27] [28]. Activity is an interaction between the situated responses of the focal

agent and the structure of the environment in which it acts, and goal achievement is emergent from this interaction. The metaphor that encapsulates this type of activity is that of routine behaviour in familiar situations. Routines [29] are simple actions that are both triggered by situations and supported in their goal achievement by the recurring structure of situations that elicit them. We take this type of theory of goal-directed activity to be the likely mechanism of on-going, routinised industry-level activity. Applied to our problem, we see the trajectory of action of the collection of individual units, that is activity at the industry-group level, as composed of a collection of relatively simple, myopic, self-interested, situated responses of individual units to their immediately perceived environment. However, this environment consists both of the remote uninfluenced environment and the immediate environment consisting of the network of relations among the units. The structure of the immediate environment is, however, constructed by the very actions of the industry units themselves. In such a theory it is because this immediate environment is reciprocally determined by the actions of individual units that the collective trajectory of actions of the units can be said to be the activity of the industry group. In other words concerted activity is attributed to the reciprocal causal effect of the group upon individual units, rather than to any form of regular group deliberation about action. This view does not rule out the possibility of deliberative action on occasions: rather it questions deliberation as a basis of on-going concerted action.

3. Implications for processes of change

In this section we draw on our underlying theoretical base to advance some propositions concerning change and the adoption of IOS. Case studies illustrating the applicability of the propositions are presented, some conducted by the authors and other drawn from the literature. Note that these propositions are not strongly deterministic. We propose a process rather than a variance theory for IOS. Variance theories posit an invariant relationship between causes and effects when the contingent conditions obtain. In contrast, a process theory asserts that the outcomes are likely, but not certain, under some conditions and unlikely under others [5]. The propositions are advanced at a general level at this point. The constructs involved need further exploration and definition and more empirical work needs to be done using the multi-level constructs advanced here as a framework.

3.1. Basic mechanisms of change

Our theory leads to the view that change at the industry-group level in a complex environment such as that of IOS will tend to be incremental and evolutionary. Change at the industry level emerges as individual enterprises adapt and build on routine behaviours, in

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

response to influences in both their remote and immediate environments. Insofar as this change has acceptable outcomes for the individual enterprise and the wider group of which it is part, the change will be reinforced and lead to new routine behaviours and changed structures in the immediate industry-group environment. The changes in structure in the immediate environment then both constrain and enable possibilities for further change. The complexity of the situation, the reciprocal nature of change and the likely absence of an industry-group aerial view mean that the possibility of concerted action at the industry-group level is reduced. The theory asserts that actions of individual units, which are motivated by their individual concerns, are responsible for the existence of industry-wide structure which in turn constrains and enables individual selfinterested firm actions. Only structures and practices that satisfy this principle of reciprocity are able to survive and become routinized. In our view, this necessity that individual unit actions confirm industry-wide structure and vice versa is a more powerful explanation of how largely self-interested actions of industry units can become coordinated to achieve industry-wide ends than one invoking a strong role for deliberative action on the part of individual units, no matter how powerful or representative they may be. Nevertheless, units that have rich and strong connection in the industry through various kinds of relations will have more influence in this process of confirming practices. These views lead to our first proposition: Proposition 1: Goal attaining behaviour tends not to be deliberative, planned, or long-range at the industry-group level. In the absence of the external influences identified in Proposition 2, the development and use of IOS will result primarily from change that is incremental, building on routine, situated actions of different players with different self-interests. Industry structures that benefit individual enterprises, especially powerful ones, will tend to be confirmed and reproduced. Evidence for the development of IOS built on routines comes from [30] who studied IOS through six cases studies in the United Kingdom and a survey in Scotland. They concluded that development of successful routine electronic transactions between firms is probably a necessary first step for them to develop strategic collaborations based on the same or more powerful IOS. Most firms were using technology to support existing patterns of activities and organization, rather than facilitating new collaboration or collaboration in new areas. IOS were being used to support established businesses rather than to help the firms generate new business opportunities or to support new collaboration. Further evidence for the low level of industry-wide planned change in the absence of external forces is found in the case study of the beef industry discussed below under Proposition 2.

3.2. Externally triggered change

Deliberative action is possible on rare occasions but is unlikely to be the fundamental principle explaining concerted action. Concerted industry-group activity is likely to be more evident on occasions where there are compelling reasons for the industry to adopt a unified approach. Such occasions include changes in the external environment, such as a threat to the industry as a whole because of market demands, the availability of technological innovations, changes in economic conditions or government policies. These changes cause, or threaten to cause, the failure of existing routinized practices to serve the individual unit interests or even the existence of the entire industry. Such major adjustments to the playing field cannot be accommodated by the principle of reciprocity and there is no choice but to resort to deliberative action. Changes in the broader environment have such strong leverage because they act directly on the possibilities for certain types of industry structural relations. Under these circumstances, in the absence of industry failure, one would expect to see the emergence or increased legitimation of bodies, such as trade organizations, that are able to claim and deploy, on behalf of the industry or segments of it, an aerial view of the industry predicament from which to generate a plan in accordance with plan-based theories of agency described in section 2.2 . Accompanying this one would expect to see more explicit and uniform articulation across the industry of industry-wide goals, perhaps in the form of organizing visions studied by [31]. These authors propose the idea of an organizing vision of information systems innovations that is a collective, cognitive view of new technologies, allowing successful information systems innovation both within and across firms. The organizing vision is a focal community idea for the application of information technology in organizations. The organizing vision serves the functions of interpretation, legitimation and the organization and mobilization of economic roles and exchanges. The organizing vision may be one mechanism allowing concerted action a more concrete form may be the formation of industry coordinating committees and bodies. Proposition 2: Planned change, adoption of an aerial view and evidence of deliberatively coordinated action at the industry or industrygroup level is more likely to occur when change is forced upon the industry group by changes in the outside environment. These changes may arise from market, technological or societal influences. A case study that relates to both Propositions 1 and 2 concerns the development of systems for supply chain management in the Australian beef industry [32]. Data was gathered from industry participants and from archival sources dating over a number of years. The study found that efforts to introduce electronic data interchange (EDI) on an industry-wide basis had not

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

been successful. Apart from developments within vertical alliances, efforts that supported EDI and supply chain management appeared to result exclusively from external pressures. A body to oversee standard specification language for industry products (Authority for Uniform Specification Meat and Livestock, AUSMEAT) was set up following the roo-in-the-stew fiasco some years ago1. The current National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) has followed regulations introduced by the European Union for beef imports following food safety scares. There did not appear to be any initiatives relating to EDI for SCM at an industrywide level apart from responses to external pressures. These external pressures for change arose from a changing market and customer expectations with a greater emphasis on food health and safety. A second case study also supports Proposition 2. [33] presents a case study of EDI in the Australian automotive industry. He identified the principal driving force for change as The Button Car Plan, a government initiative to restructure and modernize the industry and increase efficiency, by elimination over time of all protective tariff barriers, and a reduction in the number of assemblers from 5 to 3. This push for efficiency created the incentive to adopt strategies such as EDI. In the period 1988 to 1992 approximately 81% of component manufacturers became capable of trading with EDI and the industry was credited with being the first in Australia to introduce EDI on an industry-wide basis. Increased influence of the existing parts supplier and assembler trade bodies, the creation of a Value Added Network service and an EDI standards body played a major role in this planned initiative. Here, change resulted from an essentially coercive, legislative approach by an influence in the external environment, the Australian Government. The appearance of technologies with radically new capabilities can also precipitate wholesale disruption to established routines. [34] argue that the traditional approach to EDI using a value added network, expensive message transmission software, and private wide area networks, was able to achieve only partial supply chain compliance because it failed to take account of the essential differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated trading partners. They argue that the advent of the Internet as a transmission channel, in addition to providing cheaper global communication, destabilized a network of political, normative, communicative and economic relations among various players in the case industry (grocery retailing) that formerly served to confirm the traditional EDI practice. This allowed the emergence of a new vision of supply chain electronic commerce and the potential for greater compliance in supply chains, across both sophisticated and unsophisticated industry members.

3.3. Industry pre-conditions for change

A basic principle of our theory is the reciprocal nature of the relationship between the activities of individual units and the industry structure. That is, the activities of the individual units determine the structure and the structure in turn both constrains and enables the activities of the individual units. It follows that we should be able to distinguish particular states of the industry structure that are conducive to the development of IOS, and particular states that constrain development. Proposition 3 follows from this view. The relevant attributes of industry structures that influence change have been derived from study of empirical work with IOS [32]. Proposition 3: The likelihood of the adoption and implementation of IOS across an industry group is dependent on the current industry structure. Attributes of the industry structure that will support IOS development include the existence of standards and appropriate interconnecting software, alliances and existing demonstrated trust between players, the presence of coordinating bodies, and a critical mass of potential participants. The absence of these attributes in an industry structure is expected to inhibit development. [35] compare the development of IOS in the education industry in Australia with that in the beef industry. The education industry appears to be relatively mature in its use of IOS. Access to the Internet is widespread, so that critical mass is achieved. Software (for example, PeopleSoft and WebCT) is used that is standard or inter-connectible. There is some history of cooperation and trust between organizations, at least in research. A University that wished to form alliances with other organizations supported by IOS has done so relatively easily. In contrast, the beef industry is at a very preliminary stage in the adoption of IOS. There are a number of coordinating bodies but they represent different sectors of the industry (processors, producers, and retailers) that have different interests. A standard was developed for EDI some time ago but it is poorly supported and not in widespread use. There is a low level of trust between industry players -- the meat industry is characterized as consisting of oligopolies that are fiercely competitive. Critical mass of ecommerce participants has probably not been achieved, with only approximately 20% of beef producers using the Internet. There is low level of software interconnectivity. There are many different software and hardware systems in use in processing plants and many different on-farm systems. Few of these systems can talk to each other. Given this industry structure, it is perhaps not surprising that IOS are not apparent industry-wide.

1 When kangaroo meat was substituted for beef intended for export in the early 1980s.

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

3.4. Facilitating change

It is expected that single agents, industry bodies or coordinating bodies wanting to encourage change and the development of IOS will be more successful if they note the previous propositions. These players could be government bodies, software manufacturers, industry associations or inter-firm coordinating committees. Such bodies should understand the likely mechanisms of activity and the reciprocal relationship between the structure of the industry group and the activities of the component organizations. In addition, it is necessary to consider the assumptions that are made about the goals of actors at all levels, and what is considered by these actors to be acceptable outcomes. The basic assumption is that individual enterprises are motivated by self-interest. Their goal is assumed to be maximisation of returns and minimisation of cost, risk and cognitive effort. The corporate strategy of an individual organization is assumed to aim at goals such as increasing performance and productivity, and acceptable outcomes are primarily to do with increased profit. To the extent that the industry group can be viewed as acting collectively in a goal-directed way, its goals will centre on survival of the industry against competition. Proposition 4: The success of bodies supporting the adoption of IOS will be enhanced if the body: (a) gains a good understanding of the industry context and encourages change built on existing routine behaviours. Analysis of the current industry context should take into account influences in the external environment, in the industry-group structure, and within the component enterprises (see Figure 1). (b) takes advantage of external change as a point of leverage. (c) considers the self-interest of individual players the body should appear independent and have a good knowledge of the nature of IOS so as to be able to model costs, benefits and risks to all parties involved and to demonstrate benefits. A study of the activities of a facilitating group in the Australian beef industry [32] concluded that attributes of a change agent distinguished by [36] in diffusion theory remain important in the IOS context. These attributes include (1) change agent effort, (2) a client orientation, (3) compatibility with clients needs, (4) empathy with clients, (5) homophily with clients, (6) credibility, (7) the extent to which he or she works through opinion leaders, and (8) increasing clients ability to evaluate innovations (training). The increased complexity in the context of IOS, however, means that meeting all clients needs becomes more problematic. Benefits may be easier to demonstrate when there are strong external influences for change. The body needs the ability to negotiate and build trust between potential partners in the IOS, which is aided by maintenance of a perceived position of independence and neutrality.

4. Summary and conclusions

In this paper we have outlined a theory of interorganizational systems within a framework that recognizes the importance of the external environment and both the industry-group and individual-enterprise levels of analysis. Activity and change are seen to emerge from the influences of the external environment and the interactions between individual enterprises and the industry structure in which they are situated. Four propositions were drawn concerning industry structure and the mechanisms of change. In summary, it is expected that (1) goal attaining behavior at the industry level tends to occur through the evolution of shared routines rather than being deliberative, planned or longrange, (2) changes in the remote environment (such as changes in legislation or consumer demands) may well be the most powerful causes of change in industry level behavior and adoption of IOS, (3) the likelihood of the adoption and implementation of IOS across an industry group is dependent on the current industry structure, and (4) the facilitation of the development of IOS will be enhanced when change agents use the framework and industry level theory of activity outlined here as a basis for insight and action. The applicability of these propositions was illustrated by case studies from the literature and from an ongoing program of research in which the authors are engaged. Some support was found for each proposition. Further work is needed in definition of the analytical constructs used in the theory and in empirical testing of the propositions. Each of the propositions is advanced here at a relatively general level. It is anticipated that further work will take each proposition in turn and investigate it more fully.

5. References
[1] S. Klein and H. Schad, The Introduction of EDI Systems in Health-Care Supply Chains: A Framework for Business Transformation, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 23-42, 1997. [2] S. Gregor and R. Johnston, Developing an understanding of interorganizational systems: Arguments for multi-level analysis and structuration theory, Proc of 8th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 575-582, Vienna, 2000. [3] R. B. Johnston and S. Gregor, A Theory of IndustryLevel Activity for Understanding the Adoption of Interorganizational Systems, Proc of 8th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 567-574, Vienna, 2000. [4] S. Kurnia and R. Johnston, The Issue of Mutuality in ECR Adoption: A Case Study, Proc of 8th European Conference in Information Systems, Vienna, 2000.

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

[5] M. L. Markus and D. Robey, Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research, Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 583-598, 1988. [6] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984. [7] M. E. Porter, Clusters and the New Economics of Competition, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-90, 1998. [8] H. R. Johnston and M. R. Vitale, Creating Competitive Advantage WIth Interorganizational Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Vol. June, pp. 153-165, 1998. [9] B. Galliers and J. Swan, Information Systems and Strategic Change: A Critical Review of Business Process Reengineering, in Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, W. Curry and B. Galliers, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 361387. [10] J. Rose, Frameworks for practice -- structurational theories of IS, Proc of 6th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 640-655, Granada, 1999. [11] H. C. Mak and R. B. Johnston, Tools for Implementing EDI over the Internet, EDI Forum: The Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 44-56, 1998. [12] H. C. Mak and R. B. Johnston, Leveraging Traditional EDI Investment Using the Internet: A Case Study, Proc of Hawaii International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 182, Hawaii, 1999. [13] E. Turban, E. McLean, and J. Wetherbe, Information Technology for Management, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. [14] B. H. P. Vermeer and T. F. L. Veth, Interorganisational Data Integration: Theory and Practice, Proc of Eleventh International Bled Electronic Commerece Conference, pp. 387-401, Bled, Slovenia, 1998. [15] P. Hart and C. Sanders, Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23-42, 1997. [16] J. Cameron, EDI in Australian International Trade and Transport, in Advanced IT Tools, N. Terashima and E. Altman, Eds. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996, pp. 235-248. [17] S. Gregor, S. Newman, and T. Larner, The Australian meat industry, the Electronic Markets Hypothesis and Internet Marketing, Proc of Proceedings of the 10th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, pp. 589-603, Bled, Slovinia, 1997. [18] V. Grover, An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based interorganizational systems, Decision Sciences, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 603-640, 1993.

[19] C. Iacovou and I. Benbasat, Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology, MIS Quarterly, No. Dec., pp. 465-485, 1995. [20] R. A. Brooks, A Robust Layered Control System For A Mobile Robot, IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 14-23, 1986. [21] P. E. Agre and D. Chapman, Pengi: An Implementation of a Theory of Activity, Proc of 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 268-272, Menlo Park, CA, 1987. [22] P. E. Agre, Computation and the Human Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. [23] L. A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. [24] W. J. Clancey, Situated Cognition: On Human jKnowledge and Computer Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. [25] H. Hendricks-Jansen, Catching Ourselves in the Act: Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution and Human Thought. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996. [26] R. B. Johnston and M. Brennan, Planning or Organising: The Signifcance of Theories of Activity for the Management of Operations, OMEGA, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 367-384, 1996. [27] R. B. Johnston (1999). The Problem with Planning: The Significance of Theories of Activity for Operations Management, Unpublished Thesis. Monash University, Clayton [28] P. E. Agre and I. Horswill, Lifeworld Analysis, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol. 6, pp. 111-145, 1997. [29] P. E. Agre, The Dynamic Structure of Everyday Life, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Technical 1085, 1988. [30] F. Li and H. Williams, New collaboration between firms: The role of inteorganizational systems, Proc of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, 1999. [31] E. B. Swanson and N. C. Ramiller, The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 458-474, 1997. [32] S. Gregor and D. Menzies, Electronic data transfer and supply chain management: A case study of the beef industry, Proc of 3rd Annual CollECterR Conference on Electronic Commerce, Wellington, NZ, 1999. [33] D. R. Mackay, The Impact of EDI on the Components Sector of the Australian Automotive Industry, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 243-263, 1993.

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001

[34] R. B. Johnston and H. C. Mak, An Emerging Vision of Internet Enabled Supply Chain Electronic Commerce, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 4, No. 4 , pp. 43-59, 2000. [35] S. Gregor and S. Marshall, The online world: Implications for structure and process in industry., Proc of

International Conference in Electronic Commerce, Seoul, 2000. [36] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995.

0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE