Editorial

Abstract

Our first paper by Tom Butler is an additional contribution to our special issue of last time, Volume 13, Number 2, 2003. We have been impressed by the quality of submissions in our special issues, and we aim to have at least one of these per year. So if you have any suggestions for others, or indeed, if you might edit one in the future, please let us know. But be warned, there is the same rigorous refereeing process as for conventional papers! The question that Tom Butler addresses is whether the development of web-based information systems (IS) gives rise to the same social and organizational problems that arise with other applications development. Readers may not be surprised by the answer – the fundamental nature of IS development processes does not change because the applications happen to be web based. What is particularly interesting, however, is the author's use of institutional theory to illustrate ‘how the commitments of social actors influence and shape organizational endeavours’. The research approach used is case-based research in one organization and this provides an in-depth look at web development. There are numerous citations from the actors, which brings the organization to life. Of course, the potential criticism of such research is that it is more difficult to generalize than, say, a survey of many companies. However, the tradition of the Information Systems Journal (ISJ) is to support in-depth research. John Mingers provides an excellent overview of multimethod research in IS. It might surprise readers to learn that although multimethod research is espoused by many leading researchers in the field, evidence of such research is not common, and even when it does occur, it refers mainly to a mix of traditional approaches. We think that these findings are disappointing, but important. This paper might be usefully read in conjunction with our earlier paper of Joe Nandhakumar and Matthew Jones (1997). The ISJ has been in the forefront of those journals encouraging submissions of papers that offer originality in research approach as well as content and general contribution, and we take this opportunity to state again our welcome for multimethod research, along with other papers that take a less conventional research approach. The third paper of Vassilis Serafeimidis and Steve Smithson returns to a major IS research stream over many years: that of the evaluation of IS. However, unlike most of its predecessors which look at more formal and positivistic characteristics, it concentrates on the organizational roles of the key stakeholders within four evaluation contexts, which they refer to as control, sense-making, learning and exploratory. These are examined as an organization chosen as the case study (a UK insurance company) changes from an ad hoc evaluation practice to a more business-driven one. IS evaluation is seen as a complex, human-centred activity that cannot be divorced from its organizational context. Another important research theme concerns the adoption of IS by organizations. Erja Mustonen-Ollila and Kalle Lyytinen present a longitudinal study that looks at 200 IS process innovation adoption decisions in three organizations (originally part of the same company) over four decades. Although they find that some adoptions can be explained by the factors that Rogers (1995) identified in his classic text, the authors also suggest extensions to Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory. However, a major observation from the study is that: ‘a large number of IS process innovation adoptions followed no discernable pattern’. Such challenging conclusions will hopefully lead to other researchers following up this study.