Editorial

Abstract

The first paper in this issue, by WenShin Chen and Rudy Hirschheim, looks at published IS research over the period 1991 (when a similar study by Wanda Orlikowski and Jack Baroudi was published) to 2001. It is a study that we hope will be of particular interest to readers of the Information Systems Journal. In total 1893 articles were analysed from eight major IS journals, including, we are glad to say the ISJ! The authors address three main questions: ‘What changes are manifested in journal publications over the period?’, ‘Is the field making progress with regard to pluralism in IS research?’ and ‘How will the publication practices of the field change in the future?’. The answers to these questions are very interesting and perhaps surprising, as the authors find that 81% of the articles are positivist and, further, they do not detect much change during the 10-year period. The ISJ has sought to provide an outlet for high quality qualitative research as well as the more traditional, positivist research, as this issue illustrates, but as editors of a journal that has been a pioneer of interpretive, qualitative research, we find this somewhat disappointing. (We are of course conscious that this paper itself adds to the imbalance!) In the next article of this issue we return to a more traditional ISJ paper. One which strikes a balance between the two research traditions and that makes both theoretical and practical contributions. In the paper, Richard Baskerville and Jan Pries-Heje attempt to make sense of the differences between developing for the Internet and more conventional applications development. They analyse case study sites in Denmark and the United States to highlight the features of Internet development, distinguished by short development speed, release-oriented parallel prototyping, adherence to a fixed architecture, negotiable quality and an ideal workforce. It could well be argued that these features do not necessarily distinguish between Internet development and other applications development, but merely highlight practices that are more prevalent in the pressured world of the Internet or that we are finally providing some answers to the ‘software crisis’. Another interesting observation concerns the emphasis placed in this world on software development aspects of applications development, particularly in the US cases, perhaps suggesting that corners are cut in this ‘amethodological development’ on the wider information systems aspects. The paper by Anat Hovav, Ravi Patnayakuni and David Schuff also looks at the Internet world, but in this case suggests that it is not an environment necessarily missing standards and featuring negotiable quality. Here we look at Internet standards adoption, in particular the IPv6 protocol. However, this protocol has not been widely adopted, despite advantages that the authors highlight, and they go on to suggest ways of encouraging standards adoption. The paper discusses modes of adoption and suggests a state of ‘partial adoption’, where old and new standards exist for extended periods of time. The paper adds new observations to the literature on technology adoption. The final paper, by Peter Buxmann, Anette von Ahsen, Luis Martin Diaz and Kristina Wolf, evaluates Supply Chain Management Software through an empirical study in the European automotive industry. Firms from 25 countries formed part of the study concerning car manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and logistic service providers. The objectives and outcomes, including problems, of using such software in this domain are discussed. In particular benefits relating to cutting costs, improving lead times and service levels were found to be achieved. However, other potential benefits such as improved cooperation, particularly at the interorganizational level, were not attained, possibly because this was viewed as a less important objective. These empirical findings of usage in practice are important as so much in the area is based upon anecdotal evidence or vendor claims.