Tài liệu A systems based theory of oganizational information

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................. xiv CHAPTER I............................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background to and research gap of the study .......................................................... 1 1.2. Research problems and questions .............................................................................. 5 1.3. Rationale of the theory building research ............................................................... 10 1.3.1. Justification for the research............................................................................... 10 1.3.2. Importance of the research ................................................................................. 11 1.4. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 12 1.5. Contributions and Implications................................................................................ 14 1.5.1. Contributions........................................................................................................ 14 1.5.2. Implications .......................................................................................................... 16 1.6. Dissertation organization........................................................................................... 18 1.7. Chapter summary ....................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 21 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURES....................................................................................... 21 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 21 2.2. Information system..................................................................................................... 22 viii 2.2.1. The phenomena of information ......................................................................... 22 2.2.2. The relationships between information and knowledge ............................... 24 2.2.3. The primacy of information ............................................................................... 32 2.2.4. Information in the field of information systems ............................................. 36 2.2.5. The need for a new conceptualization of organizational information......... 38 2.3. Pragmatism and systems thinking ........................................................................... 40 2.3.1. Pragmatism ........................................................................................................... 40 2.3.2. A systems thinking approach to organizational information ....................... 50 2.4. Middle range theorizing ............................................................................................ 53 2.4.1. The organization of theory-building research ................................................. 53 2.4.2. Systems pragmatism as the research paradigm .............................................. 54 2.4.3. Contextualism as the theory of methodology.................................................. 58 2.5. Chapter summary ....................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................................... 60 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 60 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 60 3.2. Methodological principles ......................................................................................... 61 3.3. Justification of the methodology............................................................................... 62 3.3.1. For the qualitative approach .............................................................................. 62 3.3.2. For the case study and the grounded theory ................................................... 64 3.3.3. Why case study?................................................................................................... 65 3.3.4. Why grounded theory? ....................................................................................... 66 3.3.5. Which grounded theory? .................................................................................... 67 3.4. Methods........................................................................................................................ 69 ix 3.5. Reporting...................................................................................................................... 74 3.6. Evaluation of the research ......................................................................................... 75 3.6.1. Research validity.................................................................................................. 76 3.6.2. The assessment of the emergent theory and the research process ............... 78 3.6.3. Assessment of the evidence grounding the theory......................................... 79 3.7. Research design........................................................................................................... 79 3.8. Pilot case studies ......................................................................................................... 84 3.8.1. VT company.......................................................................................................... 92 3.8.2. RM company......................................................................................................... 95 3.9. Criteria for the case selection and the number of cases ........................................ 98 3.10. Case study protocol .................................................................................................. 99 3.11. Research settings ..................................................................................................... 106 3.12. Data sources............................................................................................................. 106 3.13. Chapter summary ................................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................................ 112 ANALYSIS OF DATA AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................... 112 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 112 4.2. Data collection ........................................................................................................... 113 4.3. Data analysis.............................................................................................................. 115 4.4. Empirical findings..................................................................................................... 135 4.4.1. Nature of organizational information and organizational information as system ............................................................................................................................ 136 4.4.2. Organizational information formulation process and organizational information formulation as habit production.......................................................... 166 x 4.5. Test of the emerging grounded substantive theory............................................. 170 4.5.1. Background......................................................................................................... 170 4.5.2. Testing propositions .......................................................................................... 171 4.5.2. Test case selection and theory testing ............................................................. 172 4.6. Chapter summary ..................................................................................................... 194 CHAPTER V ......................................................................................................................... 195 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS.................... 195 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 195 5.2. Discussions................................................................................................................. 196 5.2.1. Research finding 1: Organizational information-as-system ........................ 196 5.2.2. Research finding 2: Organizational information formulation as habit production..................................................................................................................... 203 5.2.3. Research finding 3: Distinction among three information categories........ 211 5.2.4. Revisiting and extending the systems model of pragmatic information... 212 5.2.4. Relation between information-as-system and information system............ 229 5.2.5. A systems theory of pragmatic information .................................................. 238 5.3. Research implications............................................................................................... 244 5.3.1. Theoretical implications.................................................................................... 244 5.3.1.1. A pragmatic paradigm of information ........................................................ 244 5.3.1.2. An information view of organization theories and phenomena ............. 252 5.3.1.3. A theoretical framework for management research quality .................... 268 5.3.1.4. An information theory of organization ....................................................... 277 5.3.1.5. An information based theory of the firm .................................................... 280 5.3.1.6. A new taxonomy of knowledge production modes and beyond ............ 284 xi 5.3.1.7. A new framework of problem solving process .......................................... 286 5.3.2. Managerial implications ................................................................................... 288 5.3.2.1. A basis of organizational decision making ................................................. 288 5.3.2.2. A design of organizations.............................................................................. 289 5.3.2.3 Project proposal: a virtual clinic for SME management consultancy....... 291 5.4. Chapter summary ..................................................................................................... 297 CHAPTER VI ........................................................................................................................ 299 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 299 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 299 6.2. Summary of research findings and implications ................................................. 299 6.2.1. Organizational information as system............................................................ 299 6.2.2. Organizational information formulation as habit production .................... 302 6.2.3. Distinction among three information categories........................................... 304 6.2.4. Research implications........................................................................................ 304 6.3. Contributions of the research.................................................................................. 308 6.4. Limitations of the research ...................................................................................... 312 6.5. Directions for future research ................................................................................. 313 6.6. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................. 314 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 318 APPENDIX A. RESEARCH FLOW AND TASKS........................................................... 352 APPENDIX B. ILLUSTRATIVE FITNESS BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS........................................................................................ 366 xii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 3.1. Theoretical categories emerged from pilot case studies ........................................ 92 Table 3.2. Properties and dimensions of the core categories.................................................. 93 Table 4.1. Organizations, cases, and embedded units of analysis .......................................... 116 Table 4.2. HY-ICT’s business of ERP implementation – an overview.................................. 119 Table 4.3. Code unitizing – an example at HY-ICT ............................................................... 120 Table 4.4. Concept categorizing – an example at HY-ICT .................................................... 121 Table 4.5. TP-DTF’s business of designing coastal ports – an overview............................... 122 Table 4.6. Code unitizing – an example at TP-DTF ............................................................... 123 Table 4.7. Concept categorizing – an example at TP-DTF .................................................... 123 Table 4.8. Dimensioning conceptual properties ..................................................................... 124 Table 4.9a. Labelling dimensions of conceptual property ‘structure’ – an illustration at TPDTF......................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 4.9b. Labelling dimensions of conceptual property ‘function’ – an illustration at TPDTF......................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 4.9c. Labelling dimensions of conceptual property ‘process’ – an illustration at TP-DTF ................................................................................................................................................ 127 Table 4.9d. Labelling dimensions of conceptual property ‘context’ – an illustration at TP-DTF ................................................................................................................................................ 128 Table 4.10. Conceptual properties and dimensions ................................................................ 131 Table 4.11. Three emerging fundamental patterns of organizational information ................. 133 Table 4.12. The emerged core category of organizational information.................................. 133 Table 4.13. The refined central category of organizational information ................................ 134 Table 4.14. Theoretical themes............................................................................................... 135 Table 4.15. Structure property – an illustrative example of its dimensions in case evidence 140 Table 4.16. Function property – an illustrative example of its dimensions in case evidence. 146 Table 4.17. Process property – an illustrative example of its dimensions in case evidence... 151 Table 4.18. Context property – an illustrative example of its dimensions in case evidence .. 155 xiii Table 4.19. A descriptive model of organizational information as system ............................ 160 Table 4.20. Three basic patterns of organizational information ............................................. 161 Table 4.21. The distinction among three basic patterns of organizational information ......... 164 Table 4.22. A descriptive model of organizational information as system - fine tuned version ................................................................................................................................................ 166 Table 5.1. A foundational distinction among three information categories ........................... 213 Table 5.2. Situational actions in Habermas’ three worlds ...................................................... 218 Table 5.3. A systems based theory of pragmatic information ................................................ 240 Table 5.4. Some meta-theoretical assumptions of information categories ............................. 247 Table 5.5. A pragmatic paradigm of information ................................................................... 253 Table 5.6a. An example of information view of organization theories .................................. 268 Table 5.6b. An example of information view of organizational phenomena ......................... 269 Table 5.7. A literature review of research utilization ............................................................. 274 Table 5.8. Substantial problems of organizational decision making ...................................... 290 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 2.1. Pragmatism semiotics triangle ............................................................................. 49 Figure 3.1. A tentative triadic relation in business case......................................................... 94 Figure 4.1. Structural aspect (SCE) of organizational information........................................ 139 Figure 4.2. Functional aspect (UED) of organizational information ..................................... 145 Figure 4.3. Processual aspect (RDP) of organizational information ...................................... 151 Figure 4.4. Contextual aspect (IAH) of organizational information ...................................... 154 Figure 4.5. Time aspect (PPF) of organizational information................................................ 157 Figure 4.6. Epistemic aspect (OSI) of organizational information ........................................ 159 Figure 4.7. An explanatory model of organizational information as system (DKI model).... 164 Figure 4.8. An explanatory model of organizational information as system - fine tuned version (DKI model – fine tuned version)........................................................................................... 167 Figure 4.9. A triadic model of organizational information formulation process (SDB model) ................................................................................................................................................ 170 Figure 4.10. A systems based model of organizational information (systems based DKI model) ..................................................................................................................................... 171 Figure 5.1. Formally structural aspect (SOC) of information-as-system ............................... 217 Figure 5.2. Formally functional aspect (DCC) of information-as-system ............................. 220 Figure 5.3. Formally processual aspect (DWC) of information-as-system............................ 222 Figure 5.4. Formally contextual aspect (PIS) of information-as-system ............................... 226 Figure 5.5. Formally time aspect (PPF) of information-as-system ........................................ 227 Figure 5.6. Formally epistemic aspect (EPS) of information-as-system................................ 229 Figure 5.7. Proposal of management research quality (RRR)................................................ 278 Figure 5.8. A new taxonomy of knowledge production modes and beyond.......................... 287 Figure 5.9. Business case in the virtual clinic case base ........................................................ 294 Figure 5.10. Process, function, and context of business case information-as-system............ 295 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background to and research gap of the study For organization and management studies in general and knowledge management (KM) as well as information systems (IS) literature in particular, organizational knowledge or knowledge in organizations is more increasing interest among academics and managers (von Krogh, 2009; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001; Orlikowski, 2002; Assudani, 2005; Jakubik, 2007). Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpel’s (2006, p.1200) confirmed that “the construct ‘knowledge’ was increasingly accepted and now occupies a central and legitimate role in much mainstream organizational and management theory”. However, though KM as a buzzword of the field of management in the past decade (Baskerville & Dulipovici, 2006), or knowledge as a mainstream vocabulary of management (von Krogh, 2009), Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001, p.973) still admitted that “organizational knowledge is much talked about but little understood”. More concisely, Jakubik (2007, p.17), in a very recent review of KM literature, also observed that “there are recent ontological and epistemological debates about knowledge and the creation of knowledge”. The first debate reflects the highly debatable nature of knowledge (Mingers, 2008, p.64), the fundamental matter of epistemology (Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel, 2006, p.1180), very elusive construct of knowledge (von Krogh, 2009, p.2), or a tricky concept (Gourlay, 2006, p.1425). Very often, researchers proposed many knowledge types (e.g. Courtney, 2001), or even many knowledge types along with many knowledge perspectives (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In addition, even the notions ‘knowledge’ and ‘organizational knowledge’ also interfer with each other. For example, Broadbent (1998), by indicating some processes to transform the former to the latter, more or less equaled the former with tacit knowledge and the latter with 2 explicit knowledge. Meanwhile, Spender (1998), drawing two classical distinct sorts of knowledge (i.e. explicit and tacit) and two levels of analysis (i.e. individual and social), maintained the umbrella ‘organizational knowledge’ and proposed a two-by-two matrix of organizational knowledge types. Specifically, in conceptualization of knowledge in KM and IS, regardless knowledge perspective adopted, the emphasis centered on understanding the difference among data, information, and knowledge, and respective implications as well (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p.110), or “there has been, and remains, considerable debate about the fundamental concepts of ‘knowledge’, ‘information’ and even of ‘data’” (Mingers, 2008, p.62). For example, while the traditional view (e.g. Ackoff, 1989) put the three concepts into a hierarchical ladder, Buckland (1991), in his epistemological schema of information, proposed a completely different relation: information as knowledge. The second debate presents a highly fragile process of knowledge creation (von Krogh, 1998; 2009). Such fragility of the knowledge creation process is from the way people relate to each other in organization (von Krogh, 1998), or on the interaction between individual knowledge and collective knowledge (von Krogh, 2009). In addition, Jakubik (2007, p.17) recently observed that there is a shift in focus toward the community view of knowledge and social embeddedness of knowledge, which maintains that knowledge does not reside in individual’s brain, but is created in communities. The new trend seems to look to accommodating two opposing ingredients or attributes: mostly tacit and experience-based (p.17) but also social interaction and process-based (p.14). In specific, for organizational knowledge creation process, Li and Kettinger (2006) affirmed the role of information, which could be the input or the evaluation criteria for the process. The former role was assumed by the information processing view, the latter role was held by the evolutionary view of knowledge creation process, and the mixed role was possibly suggested (e.g. Li & Kettinger, 2006). 3 At this point, the two debates on knowledge and knowledge creation clearly presented us with opportunities of research that attempts to make clear the knowledge landscape full of complex and controversial (e.g. Jakubik, 2007). Such studies are to be very significant because they, more formally, help to overcome the shortcomings of conceptualizations of knowledge and knowing in organizations, which are not only fragmented across disciplines but also incompatible and mutually contradictory (Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2004). In fact, Jakubik (2007, p.17) recently indicated that the literature is lacking in good explanations of, for example, how knowledge is created in communities, and thus, providing opportunities for new contributions to the relevant area. However, we are also confronted with two following challenges. First, any new conceptualization of organizational knowledge is requested to provide a distinction among the notions of knowledge, information, and data. Meanwhile, it was warned that (e.g. Stenmark, 2002) the relationships among the three concepts are more complicated than that of the conventional knowledge hierarchy (e.g. Ackoff, 1989), and that of the reversed hierarchy (e.g. Tuomi, 1999). In a similar vein, some researchers recognized the problem of defining these entities in terms of each other: unwise (Stenmark, 2002), or conceptual difficulties (Gourlay, 2006). More advancedly, the distinction is asked to be in epistemological and ontological levels (e.g. Jakubik, 2007). It should be noted that until the very recent time, Mingers (2008) admitted that the distinction is still a “considerable debate”, or in other words, this gap is still since 1940s (Gourlay, 2006). Second, any new conceptualization of organizational knowledge creation is required that, with the assumption of knowledge as a social construct, to present a more consistent, instead of highly fragile, process paying more attention on the emerging community view of knowledge and social embeddedness of knowledge (Jakubik, 2007). This is demanding because it has to cope with three interdependent problems. The first problem is to reconcile the perspective of 4 knowledge as tacit knowing (i.e. process and experience based, see e.g. Polanyi, 1966) and the perspective of knowledge as situated in organizational contexts (i.e. shared and constructed in organizations through a continuous process of dialog and interactions, see e.g. Brown and Duguid, 1991). The second problem is, with the widespread assumption of information as an important factor for knowledge creation, to specify the role of information in the process (Li & Kettinger, 2006). Indirectly, this definitely affects knowledge typologies, and then the engine of knowledge creation process (Gourlay, 2006). The final problem is to make sure the output (i.e. knowledge) produced from the process to be truth, warrantiability, or justifiability at some extent (e.g. Mingers, 2008). Previous studies on organizational knowledge seemed not to provide a complete understanding of the process of knowledge creation (Li & Kettinger, 2006). For instance, Nonaka’s model of organizational knowledge creation (e.g. Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003), which is one of the best known and most influential models in KM (Choo & Bontis, 2002), has been criticized as flawed (Gourlay, 2006) with two shortcomings in specifications of knowledge types (i.e. tacit knowledge) and in the engine of the knowledge conversion process (e.g. combination and internalization) as well. Meanwhile, Li and Kettinger’s (2006) evolutionary model of knowledge creation was more focusing on the specification of the role of information in the process of knowledge creation, but still missing some relation between knowledge and the dimension of truth. Mingers (2008) very recently observed that almost no literature deals with the relation of knowledge to truth or justifiability, even the work of the production and distribution of knowledge of Machlup (1980), one of the founders of KM. The debates, opportunities, and challenges just briefly mentioned above, simultaneously pose the needs, position the contributions, and constrain the scopes for a new understanding of what the nature of organizational knowledge is and how to create organizational knowledge. In addition, the need for such an understanding is 5 both long time (i.e. long standing debates or confusion) and emergent (i.e. emerging theoretical views, and organizational contexts of increasing networking). 1.2. Research problems and questions With the background just preliminarily identified, the first central point we make here is that, organizational knowledge should be framed or positioned, concerning the nature of knowledge, in the long-standing theoretical debates of nature of information and knowledge (Rowley, 2007; Mingers, 2008), and hence, concerning the creation of knowledge, in the role of information (Li & Kettinger, 2006; Mingers, 2008), and of community (Jakubik, 2007), and of justifiability (Mingers, 2008) in the knowledge creation process, on the assumption that knowledge is created in some sense (Gourlay, 2006). In other words, organizational knowledge should be addressed in a relation to information in organization, for organization and by organization. Indeed, both knowledge and information in turn have already been the focal object of study of KM and IS in particular, and of organization and management in general (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, pp.108-09; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001, pp.974-76; Mingers, 2008, pp.62-4). Moreover, the distinction or boundary between knowledge and information should be specified epistemologically and ontologically. However, this does not mean that knowledge or information is necessarily a discrete entity because knowledge, for example, is both process and resource (Assudani, 2005). This also implies that by such a fundamentally conceptual specification (i.e. epistemologically and ontologically) of both knowledge and information, the incompatible and contradictory knowledge taxonomies would be cleared up. Our point is essentially in line with von Krogh’s (2009, pp.1-2) very recent observation that the knowledge construct is widespread in academics for the last 20 years, but still remains a very elusive one. The latter may in turn cause theoretical and empirical problems relative to different aspects of content or object (e.g. knowledge and information), of cognitive 6 and behavioral process (e.g. knowing, information processing, and cognition), and of locus (e.g. individual or collective) (e.g. von Krogh, 2009). The second point, in reference to Tsoukas and Vladimirou’s (2001, p.975) double faces of organizational knowledge which includes both organization and knowledge phenomenon, to von Krogh, Roos & Slocum’s (1994, p.53) corporate epistemology which also comprises both organizational and knowledge aspects, and to von Krogh’s (2009) individual and collective perspective of knowledge in organizations, the nature and the process of the knowledge construct needs to be positioned in an organizational framework. This organizational aspect of organizational knowledge would best be displayed in Jakubik’s (2007) emerging view of community of knowledge, which recognizes knowledge as a social construct (p.17). Hence, organizational knowledge or so should also be dealt within the context of an organization as communities of communities (Cox, 2005), which could in turn contain many different types, not just communities of practice (p.538). Furthermore, with some advances of communications revolution that results in organized networks and networked economics (Kelly, 1995), and our contemporary world more increasingly interconnected (Senge, 1990), Stephens (2004) showed the emergence and growth of inter-organizational systems (Powell, Koput & Smith-Doerr, 1996) such as T-form organizations (Lucas, 1996), e-business systems (Pant & Ravichandran, 2001), virtual organizations (Davidow & Malone, 1993), and boundaryless organizations (Ashkenas et al, 1995). With these new organizational or inter-organizational forms, Stephens (2004) warned us that some sort of information which was based only on organizational requirements is no longer appropriate. To be clear, information in organizations is not limited in organizational work anymore, but is embedded in broad economic and social concerns instead. Hence, the new organizational context for organizational knowledge is now both changing from communities of practice (e.g. Brown & Duguid, 2001) to networks of practice (e.g. Takhteyev, 2009) and influenced 7 by the phenomena of social networking (Wellman, 2001). At this point, organizational knowledge would be referred to some sort of organizational information as mentioned in Stephens (2004) above, which could better conceptually capture the notions of such networks, or alternatively, of socio-cultural systems that are information-bond (Gharajedaghi, 2005). Meanwhile, in a profession view, the leading management guru Drucker (1999) reminded us that the biggest challenge of the new age is the very information, which an executive needs and which an executive owns. Drucker further predicted a new revolution on information, which started with business organization and centered on business information but also spread out to all societal institutions and single individuals. It was warned to us that, according to Drucker, every single knowledge worker or executive has to manage herself on her information, or she was the only one who could be able to transform data into her information and then use the information in her own business activities. The available suppliers or information systems could provide her with general data only, not specific data that she could make into her information. Moreover, the management guru also suggested that the information would be shaped relying on interaction between the knowledge worker and her colleagues, in two consecutive stages. The first stage specified which information is necessary for whom she works with, and the second stage pointed out which information is necessary for herself and could be drawn from where. Hence, the key point may still be in the very own way the knowledge worker works on her data to create information that inherently needs also to be specified contextually along her work flow. Another real world case on organizational life could also reveal the significance of organizational information formulation. It is in Weick’s (1993b) paper on the Mann Gulch disaster that resulted in the collapse of sense-making in a 16-people smokejumper crew. Although the crew was a highly select group, the disaster was too 8 terrible: 13 died. In such situations of high pressure or emergency, it was recognized that, a status of group disintegration, neither judgment of some individuals nor previous action patterns, was very critical. With our lens of information phenomenon, the key point of the disaster may rely on that organizational information could not be formulated properly because of the lack of, for example, some proper methods of group integration, or more formally, of belief fixation (e.g. Peirce, 1958). The latter turned out to be the very problem of community, not individual (Peirce, 1958). In short, from practitioners’ view (e.g. Drucker’s study and Weick’s story), for organizational life and beyond, the present-day problem, at both individual and institution concerns, may be framed into the definition of organizational information and how to formulate such information. These practically organizational problems, in the same manner as the above theoretical organizational problems, may be both longstanding and emergent. From above, and because of the mutually dependent knowledge – information relationship, the conceptualization of organizational knowledge through the examination of the nature of knowledge and the process of knowledge creation would lead to a conceptualization of organizational information, which might naturally have the similar subjects, the nature of information and the process of information formulation. And such a lead may be in need, given, in knowledge and information literatures, a conceptual confusion between knowledge and information. It should be noted that, however, the crucial point, may be in Popper’s (1972, p.310) comment: “One should never … gets involved in question of terminology … What we are really interested in, our real problems, … are problems of theories and their truth”. In other words, a new relevant theory of organizational information is really expected. Moreover, with the above-mentioned fact that the new organizational context is both changing from communities of practice to networks of practice and influenced by the phenomena of social networking, organizational information or 9 information in organizations would be also preferred to organizational knowledge or knowledge in organizations to better reflect such networks or socio-cultural systems of the bonds of information (Gharajedaghi, 2005), or increasingly interconnected world (Senge, 1990). Finally, given the fact that the required professional practice of management in such socio-cultural networks for this century (e.g. Drucker, 1999), and that information is substantially embedded in organizations (Walsh & Ungson, 1991, p.65), we argue that the notion of community-based ‘information’ phenomenon would be more fundamental, thus makes more sense than that of personal ‘knowledge’ (Polanyi, 1962) to knowledge workers and organizations. Thus, the phenomena of organizational information are more worthy investigating for both practitioners and researchers in the organizations that are dominant institutions of contemporary societies (Daft & Lewin, 1990). At this point, it is easy to come up with two research problems or questions. The first research problem is about the nature of the construct ‘knowledge’ in organizations. The respective research question is what the nature of information in organizations is? Quite equally, how organizational information is distinguished from knowledge and even data? The second research problem is on the knowledge creation process. This problem turns into the next question on what the aspects of the process of information formulation are, or how the process formulates information in terms of the states and transformations between them? In other words, that is, how do organizations create information? With the two primary questions, it is expected that a new theory of organizational information is in need. In content, the theory analytically should comprise two components. One, a theoretical model of organizational information is built to uncover the nature of information in organizations. Two, drawing on or in 10 parallel with the theoretical model, a process of organizational information formulation should be also developed. 1.3. Rationale of the theory building research 1.3.1. Justification for the research As briefed above, the field of organization and management in general and IS as well as KM in particular would suffer from the construct ‘knowledge’. Although there exist many definitions of knowledge and of its relative that is information, the nature of knowledge and information in organizations is still problematic, and equally, the distinction between organizational knowledge and information is still in question. To be short, Mingers’s (2008, p.65) summary of the weaknesses of all the approaches to the notions of knowledge and information was convincing: “they all suffer from inadequate and unclear conceptualizations of the nature of information and its possible relationships to knowledge”. Next, relying on the confusing notions of knowledge and information, as a result, existing models of organizational knowledge creation might be ill-founded. Nonaka’s organizational knowledge creation (e.g. Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Toyama, 2002; 2003; 2005), which has ever achieved the paradigmatic status since the mid1990’s (Gourlay, 2006), for example, has been criticized as “seriously incomplete and selectively blind” (Zhu, 2006, p.109), or as cracked in its conceptual framework of knowledge conversion process (Gourlay, 2006, p.1421). Additionally, Nonaka’s model could not explain how to generate new ideas and how to maintain collaborative work (Bereiter, 2002), which are inherently crucial to knowledge creation in general and under the community view of knowledge in specific. Another example is Gourlay’s (2006) behavioral model of knowledge creation. This model, drawing on Dewey’s (1916) theory of experience, recognizes the two widespread types of knowledge (i.e. know-how and know-that), and considers these both as the components/consequences 11 of Dewey’s two general modes of behavior (i.e. reflective and non-reflective). With its simplicity, Gourlay’s model seemingly could not, for instance, name the way how to create some thing new, or how to make group decision making (i.e. behavior) although Gourlay affirmed the role of some informed outsiders onto organizational behaviors. At this point, shortly, it should be followed Gourlay’s (2006) advice of, for the topic of knowledge creation, doing empirical studies of organizational knowledge process, instead of derivation of the theoretical model from extant studies. Then, due to the conceptual grassroots (i.e. ontological and epistemological ingredients) of such fundamental constructs and processes, an approach of theory building rather than theory testing is naturally needed. Finally, from practitioner views, some justification for our research of conceptualization of organizational information is also evident. Concerning the first topic (i.e. the nature of the phenomena of information), as mentioned previously, one of the biggest management challenges for the 21st century would be that knowledge worker would be caught in a trap of her specification of information for her work and how to produce that information (Drucker, 1999). For the second topic (i.e. how to formulate information in organization), the expensive lesson learnt from the Mann Gulch disaster (i.e. Weick, 1993b) was how to prevent the group disintegration in a critical situation by adequately formulating the appropriate group information, which would act as the Peirce’s belief fixation. 1.3.2. Importance of the research First and foremost, the investigation of the nature and the formulation process of the information construct would best be understood as a “scholarship” for conceptual cleansing (e.g. Jackson, 2000). Such a kind of theoretical research would contribute much into “the current appreciation of the nature of the discipline” (Jackson, 2000, p.12) that is IS including KM (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001). 12 Secondly, likewise, because information transcends “boundaries of traditional disciplines” (Paradice & Mora, 2008, p.ii), “all the major human disciplines are trying to come to terms with” information (Mingers, 2006, p.103), and equally, with IS as a reference discipline (Baskerville & Myers, 2002), along with that IS research and theories substantially benefit, the beneficial effects expectedly multiply over many different disciplines. Finally, as noted above, with the double faces of organizational knowledge (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001), or the matter of corporate epistemology (von Krogh, Roos & Slocum, 1994), an adequate conceptualization of organizational information could make a firmly theoretical foundation for some theories of organization. Practically, the examination could explain various phenomena of organization and management life (Nonaka, von Krogh & Voelpel, 2006, p.1179), for example, organizational problems and managerial responses (e.g. Becker, 2001), or furthermore, how to make use of knowledge more successfully in organizations (Mingers, 2008). 1.4. Methodology As just noted, the current research thesis was the conceptualization of information in the organizations that are the dominant institutions of contemporary societies (Daft & Lewin, 1990). Meanwhile, information is the basis of post industrial society (Naisbitt, 1982), key role in economic analysis (Stiglitz, 1985), crucial being for managerial success (Argyris, 1971), management challenge for the 21st century (Drucker, 1999) and stands for competence and social virtue (Feldman & March, 1981). It firstly should be noted that, organizational information, which is mere information in the IS field (Ellis, Allen & Wilson, 1999), is produced by organizations and societies (Newman, 2001), or as a purposeful social product (Swanson, 1978). From this, assuming that organizational information is purposefully enacted reality, at