The Use of Internet-based Information Systems in Organizations: An Information Environment Perspective

SUMMARY

This paper focuses on Internet based information system use within the context of the organizational information environment. Through the exploration of problem dimensions, information traits, and information use, an understanding of what types of Internet based information systems are used, in different problem situations, is provided.

INTRODUCTION

The author(s) does a nice job identifying and defining the organizational information environment. However, they fall short in preparing the object of investigation within that context. More work needs to be done in the introduction to frame the research model within the organizational information environment.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Reading of this section resulted in four issues. First, relationships between information need, information traits, information use, and problem resolution must be better defined. As the model is about moving between each of these components, how they are associated is not clear. For example, how do information traits translate to information use? A clearer picture of the relationships between steps 1, 2, and 3 needs to be established.Document relevance literature (Barry, 1998) or web design material (Special issue of CACM, 1995) could prove valuable.

Second, more focused explanations of problems dimensions, information use, and information traits needs to be provided. The seven dichotomous problem dimensions, eight information use classes, and 13 information traits are vague. The reduction of the problem dimension categories and information traits is unclear. Strengthen the reduction of the categories and traits through justification and not just a “this is what was seen” approach.

Third, how these categories, classes, and traits play a role in the research model (Figure 1) is unclear. Their presence seems out of place as they provide little value in the development of the model, which is the motivation of this section.

Forth, it is difficult to understand the relationship between information use and Internet based information system use. As the author(s) likely views these two uses as different, their definitions must be more explicit.Information use is a very different activity than Internet based information system use, and this needs to be differentiated clearly.Early work on media richness theory also struggles with the notion of normative characteristics of the technology versus the information needs supported by the technology (Daft and Lengel, 1984; 1986).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The only concern is this section is related to earlier concerns.How are the four questions presented in this section related to the main research goal?An overarching question that drives the research should be provided.

METHODOLOGY

This section would benefit from the strengthening of several components. First, how does the author(s) account for the impact that the portal-home page relationship? This could play a significant impact on the findings. For example, what if an Internet search engine was the home page? How might this change the findings?Defend the issue.

Second, a better definition of an “episode” needs to be provided.The author(s) defines “significant” but they do not directly address an “episode.” Is any visit to any page an episode?

Third, time is a very difficult component to track on an Internet based system.How does the author(s) account for a browser being opened, a page visited, and the browser then minimized, leave that page “open.”If interview data can clarify this point, it should be used.

Fourth, an example of both the content analysis and the interview questions would be extremely useful.This would help the reader better understand the data that is generated and the method to obtain that data.

FINDINGS

A number of issues presented in the critique of this section are best addressed in either the conceptual framework or methodology sections.They will be discussed here as the author(s) presented them here.

First, is the question of how the Internet based information systems are similar and how are they the same? Can a user perform all problem situations at all information systems? Can a user post at a portal? Can a user download at the intranet?Also, what is the relationship between the information systems?As the Internet is based on the seamless nature of information, distinction between the information systems needs to be provided.For example, if a user is at the portal and they “browse” to the web and back again, how is that recorded in the content analysis?Ultimately, some problem situations lend themselves to movement between information systems (browse, explore, search) while other problem situations lend themselves to activity at a single locale (post, download, perform a transaction).A clearer explanation of this would strengthen the paper.

Second, the tables used to present the data are difficult to look at, and from them, it is difficult synthesize data. For example, a table where problem dimensions run across the top and information system runs down the side, with a mark indicating the problem dimension presence for a particular system could provide clarity.

Third, a more detailed summary of the relationships within the findings needs to be available. Provide an explanation of what the discovered relationships between problem situations and dimensions are.For example, when “exploring,” why TTT-FTFF?

Fourth, the convention used for naming problems is very confusing. What is a TTT-FTFF problem? Provide names for these problems; give examples that readers can relate with (as is done with Information Uses).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Table 4 is a very nice table that summarizes the findings.This is the type of table that should be used throughout the paper.The problem names still need to be resolved in this table.

COMMENTS

This paper has many valuable merits.First, the paper attacks a useful question in exploring how different Internet based information systems are used across a variety of problems. Exploring this issue can prove valuable as many organizations and institutions rely heavily on such information gathering tools.

Second, the paper utilizes both interview data and web tracking data to provide a more complete picture of what is being investigated. In providing a dual approach, the author(s) has gathered a rich set of data.It is through this rich data set that this paper can be strengthened along many of the aforementioned concerns.

Third, the paper proposes a model that can be applied to Internet based information systems in the understanding of information retrieval and use. Pulling from earlier work of Taylor, the author(s) frame a model within the intriguing context of the organizational information environment.

Fourth, the guidelines set forth regarding Internet information system design which are both useful and insightful.As the Internet continues to balloon, techniques that guide developers and implementers are always valuable.

Fifth, this paper has great potential to be a fit with this journal.Working around the focus of the special issue, “Social and Organizational Aspects of Internet-based Information Systems,” this paper directly addresses unique organizational aspects of Internet based information systems.

GENERAL

Last sentence in METHODOLOGY section is long.

First sentence in FINDINGS section – word choice.

REFERENCES

Barry, C.L. (1998). Document representations and clues to document relevance, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(14), p.1293-1303.

Daft. R.L., and Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design, Research in Organizational Behavior. 6. 191-233.

Daft, R.L., and Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science. 32(5). 554-571.

Special Issue of Communications of the ACM. (1995). Volume 38 Number 8.

1