Background

The information system literature provided thorough coverage on designs, features and implementation methods for computer-based information systems. Numerous studies examined broad varieties of systems-solutions for organization needs (Applegate, 1995; McLeod, 1998; O' Brien, 2002). Much attention has been on the development of information systems since the lack of them can impede an enterprise in its competitive success. The projected value of information technology has been formulated based on a rough assessment of the possibilities without full appreciation of the limitations due to resistance to organizational and social changes (Osterman, 1991). Lesser known was guidelines for information system managers to ensure a positive contribution to business performance. Well-managed information systems may not guarantee any business value. The information system function must create the conditions that enhance user effectiveness and efficiency in using the information to improve value delivery for the organization (Parker, 1996).

Increasingly, management has realized that massive deployment of information systems on a global basis is not producing the desirable outcomes of value generation. Recent studies confirmed the significant role of cultures towards the success of transferring information technology beyond the Western world. National culture, organization culture, and MIS cultures induced influence over the successful development and management of information resources (Hofstede, 1980; Raman and Watson, 1997). Shea and Lewis (1996) suggested the desirability of placing close attention to user absorptive rate in the transfer of new technology into a different cultural environment. It became apparent that adaptation of information system designs to new cultural environment was insufficient to guarantee successful implementation. User selection of technological features, driven by cultural preferences, could be a key factor for designing information systems in multi-cultural environment.

New challenges emerged as non-technical issues clouded the measurement of information system performance. Since computer information systems were often promoted for the increased speed of data processing, users became conditioned to evaluate the performance of information systems based on the speed of data report delivery. However, the timely delivery of information is only one of several factors for quality information. Data reports must contain all the required information with accurate representation of events. The reports needed to be generated in a timely fashion and in a format usable by the users (McLeod, 1998). To complicate matters, a typical information system was designed to provide information to users with common needs, in the form of standard reports. Information systems were seldom designed to meet the individual needs of users in specific circumstances. However, information users tended to value information systems for their abilities to generate custom reports (Heeks, 1999). The initial excitement of users seeking data reports would be ultimately transformed to total frustration in the flood of data in unusable report formats. The confidence in the information system would be further eroded with inconsistent information reports, representing shifts in data points through time. Damaging criticisms surfaced from questionable data quality, due to lack of attention to the data acquisition and processing activities.

Organizations, especially those in the public sector, faced the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance as they attempted to fulfill their responsibilities for both confidentiality and access to data (Osterman, 1991; Duncan, 1999). The department that owned the information system controlled the data and became obligated to provide information to other units (Oz, 2002). Under uncertainty in liability and severe budget constraints, some department heads shifted the data reporting responsibilities to other divisions, creating a bureaucratic night-mare for the data users. Some data managers ignored data requests, and others manipulated the data flows with respect to organizational politics (Oz, 2002; Rocheleau, 1999).

Makeshift management decision generated new dynamics in several ways. In the spirit of promoting the free exchange of information, some organizations instructed the custodian of valuable information to provide it to others. However, the new responsibility seldom came with additional resources. The appointed information owner became reluctant to supply information; doing so would take away resource from other regular tasks (Davenport, 1997). Some information owners would release a data sample, fulfilling their obligation, but had the least concern about the data quality. Other managers would shift the data responsibilities to other divisions (Oz, 2002). The ability to locate information reports through internal alliances became a new dynamic in organizational politics.

Cultural backgrounds shaped the preference Information System model. In a multicultural setting, some managers would be intuitive, and feelings based, and had vague expectation for the performance of information system. Other managers would be more interesting in simple information system providing operational information for task performance. The controlling manager would be interested in complex and broad information system providing qualitative data (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Lane and DiStefano, 1992; Shea and Lewis, 1996). It became obvious that a single system design may not satisfy all users in a cross-cultural environment.