Introduction
Western organizations have led the globalization of business operations, especially in the deployment of multi-domestic strategy. The decentralized organizational control and customized operations support the fast penetration of huge global markets. Western management theory considers information the lifeblood of organization. The sharing of information lubricates the interlocking divisions within the organization, promoting the effective achievement of organizational goals with external business partners. However, in many regions of the world, information represents power, and managers often try to accumulate as much of it as they can while denying access to others (Oz, 2002). For others, the disclosure of information is considered a threat to the span of management control (Rocheleau, 1999). In some cases, administrators could be more interested in the scale of the information system and its associated budget, than the capability and functionality of the system (Kalpic & Boyd, 2000). These are examples of conflicting cultural values in a cross-cultural environment. The introduction of Western management approaches conflicts with regional administrative styles, diminishing the effectiveness of information systems (Raman & Watson, 1997; Shea & Lewis, 1996). Sensitivity to cultural differences has been recognized as an important factor in the successful global deployment of information systems. Minor information management issues potentially resolvable through improved communication in the west often manifest as major challenges in a cross-cultural environment.
background
The literature provided thorough coverage on designs, development, and implementation of computer-based information systems (CBIS). Numerous studies examined various systems-solutions for organization needs (McLeod, 1998; O'Brien, 2002). However, 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). Increasingly, management realized that massive deployment of information systems on a global basis, even with prudent management of the systems, has not been producing the desirable outcomes of value generation. Recent studies revealed the significant influence of cultures toward the success of transferring information technology beyond the Western world. National culture, organization culture, and MIS culture induced influence over the successful development and management of information resources (Hofstede, 1980; Raman & 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 environments 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 environments. Other studies reported the numerous obstacles of developing CBIS under various cultural settings, even with highly motivated leaders to support the deployment of information systems (Al-Abdul-Gader, 1999; Raman & Watson, 1997).
The information system function must enhance user effectiveness and efficiency in utilizing the information to improve value delivery for the organization. New challenges emerged as non-technical issues clouded the measurement of information system performance. A typical information system would be designed to provide information to users with common needs. Good data reports should 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). However, individual users tended to value information systems for providing custom reports to meet individual needs in specific circumstances (Heeks, 1999). Inconsistent expectations in a cross-cultural environment crippled the effective management of information resources. Cultures carried different interpretations for timeliness, completeness, and relevancy of information.
Makeshift management decision generated new dynamics in several ways. In the spirit of promoting free information exchange, the department that owned the information system became obligated to provide information to others (Oz, 2002). However, the new responsibility seldom came with additional resources. The information owners became reluctant to supply information; doing so would take away resource from other regular tasks (Davenport, 1997). Some managers shifted the data reporting responsibilities to other divisions, creating a bureaucratic nightmare for the users. Some ignored data requests, and others manipulated the data flows with respect to organizational politics (Oz, 2002; Rocheleau, 1999). Those working 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 (Duncan, 1999; Osterman, 1991). The problems would be more severe under a relationship-based culture where favors could not be declined.
Cultural backgrounds shaped the preferential information system model. In some cultures, managers would be intuitive, and feelings based, and have vague expectation for the performance of the information system. There would be more emphasis on group harmony and saving face than actual problem solving (Bjerke, 1999). Others would be more interested in meeting obligations, ignoring the source and validity of the reports. The controlling manager seeked a complex and broad information system providing qualitative data (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Lane & DiStefano, 1992; Shea & Lewis, 1996). All these personality extremes co-exist in a cross-cultural setting, making it more challenging to design systems than a single culture environment. The perceived value of information resources became less predictable in cross-cultural environments.
cross-cultural IRM challenges
The rapid expansion of Western influence on a global basis created an environment under the crosscurrents of Western corporate culture and regional cultures. In recent years, Western organizations have invested heavily in information technology (IT), turning it into an important tool, especially for the rapid expansion of business operations to global locations. Many organizations were surprised by the turbulence associated with the global deployment of information technology.
Management encountered new challenges as national workers joined the global team in serving customers from diversified cultural backgrounds. The national workers tended to hold on to their traditions, diluting the penetration ofWest-ern influence in the workplaces. The predominating regional workforce challenged Western corporate culture through their deep-rooted traditions and work habits. For example, a massive absenteeism could be expected on festival days, even without approved leaves or holidays. Timely arrival at a meeting could be accepted as up to several hours after the scheduled time. Mandated reports could be excused without penalty, and the uttermost concern to preserve group harmony over efficiency. Sometimes, this meant ignoring facts to restore stability and group harmony. Periodic acquisition of technology would be celebrated even without the appropriate infrastructure support, preventing the proper usage of the technology. Cross-cultural IRM issues emerged as significant challenges in cross-cultural environments.
challenge 1: Information Resources perception challenges
Even as ITis transforming the world, a majority ofthe world's population still has limited understanding of information as a resource. The concepts of information resources escape the mind of even seasoned managers in the Western world. Potential cultural myopia requires great efforts to communicate the principles of information resources management.
Perception Challenge 1: Cultural Acceptance of IRM Practices
In a cultural environment that lacks appreciation for information resources, management must champion data planning and skillfully align the information support needs throughout the organization.
In cultures where gesture is more important than details, systematic failure to collect information would be accepted and forgiven. Information systems applications are often limited to payroll and accounting (Kalpic & Boyd, 2000). In some cases, the lack of adequate information is the key to assure continuing financial support, and the scale of the information system acquisition could be more important than the functionality. Organizations are unprepared to collect and store data to support meaningful decision support applications. A common pitfall is the underutilization of expensive information systems.
Perception Challenge 2: Information Resources Considered as Capital Expenditure
Funding is a necessary but insufficient condition for informa -tion resource development. The lack of proper organizational infrastructure dooms information system projects.
Deficiency in organizational data is often related to the lack of capital spending in IT resources. This perception underestimates the requirements for system analysis, data architecture development, data security and distribution, maintenance, technical support, and user training. Lack of organizational readiness stalls the deployment of information systems. Inflated expectation and uncoordinated usage of data services nullifies the value of the information systems. Erratic funding pattern destroys development projects, making it extremely difficult to retain technical personnel. Poor maintenance damages equipment and threatens data integrity. Cultural managers eager to modernize without fully understanding the implications of information resources management eventually abandon their support for information resources.
Perception Challenge 3: Information Resources Development by Delegation
Information resources development without central coordination creates confusion and depresses the perceived value of information resources.
Management seeking an easy fix to the organizational data problem mandates data compilation by the functional divisions. Besides undermining information resources as a critical organizational asset, divisional managers tend to avoid the unfamiliar tasks by deferring to workers with little technical background. Unmotivated managers neglect data quality and resist data distribution. Administrator turnovers cause discontinuity in data resources development.
Perception Challenge 4: Information as a Freely Available Resource
The true value of information emerges from its effective distribution to end users. Information distribution is an expensive service.
Information resources can be compared to utility services such as water, the value of which relies on reliable and effective distribution with assured quality and sufficient supply. Often neglected is the accountability of the value contribution of information system, beyond periodic technical improvements. There is a need for benchmark studies to identify cost performance, as well as the critical roles of information resources within the organization.
challenge 2: IT Transfer challenges
The design objectives of information systems must expand from efficiency orientation to adaptive accommodation of cultural habits. It becomes desirable to allow and track dynamic modification ofdata processing procedures according to shifting organizational and cultural influences.
While a primary design objective of information systems is to facilitate efficient transaction processing, often the affected human system is slow to accept the implicit MIS culture embedded in the system design. Western cultures emphasize timeliness and accuracy, which are less important to other cultures (Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999; Straub, Loch, & Hill, 2001). For example, it often takes months to update databases from paper documents. Some users rely on the information system for information, while others insist on paper documents only. Hence circulation of multiple versions of reports is common depending on the sources of the reports. Parallel operations to accommodate parallel cultures generate organizational conflicts. Influential users and administrative interventions threaten the integrity of information systems. The full potential of information systems is suppressed in preference for cultural norms, and only system features that do not threaten cultural practices would be allowed to remain. Some local cultures put more emphasis on protecting family members than performance appraisal. The value of information is not as much for improving decision making, but to endorse group position, to preserve relationship, and to avoid embarrassment.
challenge 3: Data Resources Management challenges
Western culture encourages innovation, creativity, and the sharing of ideas and information. The same may not hold true under many cultures that adopt a historical perspective and value social stability to changes. Information resources could be jealously guarded in these cultures, and data distribution restricted.
Practical Challenge 1
There is a needfor the clear definitions of data ownership and responsibilities for data acquisition, data quality control, and data distribution. This is especially challenging in cultural environments where the political attributes of information interfere with the communicative value of information.
In many Eastern cultures, credible information is deferred to leaders and elders with power and status. Political relationships dictate the availability of information and the accessibility to organizational data. This is in contrary to the basic assumptions of CBIS that promote the free exchange of information (Osterman, 1991; Oz, 2002; Rocheleau, 1999). The bureaucratic procedures for the approval of data usage defeat the designed roles of the information system. Fully developed database supports very limited applications. The lack of explicit system objectives coupled with the practice of delegating data management responsibility to the lowest level unskilled workers creates data integrity problems. For example, withholding information to gain and maintain power is acceptable among many Asian cultures. Openness would be considered a sign of weakness. It would be critical to formally establish the credibility, relevancy, and accessibility of data resources.
Practical Challenge 2
Management must meticulously plan data acquisition, data preparation, data distribution, and data usage, and fully understand the required organizational incentive and associated costs for maintaining information flow within the organization. This is especially important in cultural environments where data-driven decision-making is a new practice.
An uncoordinated approach to information resources management creates fragmented entities to process information for narrow applications. The fad of data-driven decision-making created a mad race for data reports using every available political connection. The result would be a great assortment of data reports with massive details. Inconsistency occurred among data reports depending on the data processing methods and storage formats. For example, a report from an off-line, static database in a remote office could be given equal credibility as a report generated from a current database from the data center. In a cross-cultural environment, influential individuals would compete to justify the merit of their reports from their cultural perspectives. The heated debates along with discrepancies among the reports frustrate the end users and lead to distrust toward the information systems for the inability to produce usable information reports. Regretfully, the information systems are seldom seriously designed for decision support.
Practical Challenge 3
Management must take leadership in establishing precise, formal data definitions, and communicate them to allpotential data users, and those assigned roles in data distribution. This is especially important where mastery of languages, cultural predisposition, level of information literacy, and social attitude could strongly influence the group dynamic of data usage.
Technology evolution increasingly places information systems under the direct control of end users. However, end users often lack the technical expertise, and few are committed to the development of information resources. Events and samples are confused with statistics. Relaxed practices in standards and data definitions create issues in data validity and data quality. Potential information is lost when processed data replaces the raw data, while ignoring the time sensitivity of dynamic data. Time series data are deleted to preserve storage space. The information system is often blamed for the unfortunate chaos. For instance, technology facilitates individual users to maintain multiple copies of a database. Top management, unwilling to escalate cultural tension, ignored the potential seriousness of the data integrity issue. Improper database management practices yield different outcomes for identical requests for information from the different versions of the database. The absence of a single standard triggers disputes on the interpretation of data definitions according to the language understanding of the end users, while the actual data definition used by the data center to maintain the database is being rejected!
challenge 4: Knowledge sharing challenges
Different cultures adopt different views toward knowledge, even among Western societies. Some cultures treat knowledge as an individual asset, a tradable resource. Intellectual property and usage rights become the main concern in knowledge sharing. Other cultures claim ownership of knowledge by the society and deny individual ownership of knowledge. A major concern would be censorship and control of information flow. Some cultures consider access to knowledge a privilege, given to individuals with the proper social ranks, while other cultures desire the widest distribution of knowledge to every member of the society. Information systems can be a threat to one society while high valued in another. Some cultures support openness, and others are conservative. Thus the emphasis could be on communication support in one society, while on preservation of traditions in another (Forstenlechner, 2005). Potential value clashes emerge in a cross-cultural setting when an individual raised in one social environment manages knowledge under a different social expectation. Knowledge sharing challenges are also expected with partnerships between organizations from different cultural background (Ford & Chan, 2003).
challenge 5: Information Resources Accountability challenges
As information resources emerge from a supportive role to become strategic assets, their management must also mature from the simple control measures for supplies. A greater challenge is to safeguard certain information resources as critical assets to be accessible only by trusted individuals.
Accountability Challenge 1
The increased complexity and frequency of usage of information reports is in reality a severe drain in budgetary resources, and management needs to develop a mechanism to rack data usage and adjust resources appropriately. This could be more challenging under cultural environments that lack sophistication in information processing.
Modern management practices seeked opportunities to replace physical resources with information. When management failed to adjust budgets to support the in formation services, those affected would try every means to discontinue information services. On the other hand, uncontrolled access encouraged abuse, wasting valuable resources. Ethics, disciplined usage, and an understanding of information value supported the information practices in Western society. The problems would be crippling in cultures with different appreciation for information under different ethical standards. A local culture of generosity would insist on the free distribution of fully colored documents. Another practice has been the circulation of printed copies of e-mail to avoid offending anyone. These practices quickly deplete the budget for supplies.
Accountability Challenge 2
Management must take an active role in controlling the flow of organizational data, both within the organization and to the external environment. Management should consider endorsement of an official organizational data set to ensure consistency rather than leaving official data reports to random actions. This is especially important in cultural settings where it is impractical to correct public statements of social leaders regardless of facts.
In cultures where subordinates would not question the positions of leaders, information systems must implicitly support the decisions and public statements of the leaders (Gannon, 2001). In one example, officials of a local organization proposed an expensive marketing campaign pointing to decline in demand in the primary market. However, published data actually attributed the demand decline to the collapse of an emerging market. It would be an embarrassment to point out the omission, and the wrath of the society could be on those who allowed the facts to be publicized.
Accountability Challenge 3
Management must carefully orchestrate the deployment of information resources, with expected outcomes and supports. Strategic deployment rather than equal access should improve the value contribution of information resources.
While is it culturally sensitive to provide equal access to information resources, it is much more challenging to expect performance improvement with the availability of information resources. Management needs to carefully link value contribution to the deployment of information resources.
future trends
The historical development of information systems has followed the model of a rational manager, with emphasis on openness, clear structure, innovative practices, and logical thinking. In regions where traditions and relationships resisted changes, information system designers must consider the needs of emotional decision-makers, with heavy emphasis on the concern to maintain social and cultural stability. Some cultures demand tight control of information flow, while other cultures are very casual about the absolute data quality. Some organizations integrate information systems as organizational backbone; others preferred to separate information in isolated pockets. Some prefer a simple information system, while others invest in a sophisticated intelligence system. Information systems for cross-cultural environments must deliver value to users with diversified backgrounds. Comparative study on information system features valued across cultural settings should improve the value delivery of the information system function.
conclusion
Despite rapid technological development, information resource management is still a relatively new concept. Data reports preparation is often a laborious activity, and accepted practices and administrative preferences still drive decision-making. Organizations that anticipate increasing exposure to multi-cultural environments should allow longer time for organizational adjustment to technical development. Information systems originally developed as productivity tools for data processing, and report generation must undergo radical design evaluation to meet the diversified user expectations and information skills. Information resource managers must also carefully consider data ownership and data distribution issues. Cultural preferences and information values should be carefully considered in the justification of information services. Information system objectives should be clearly distinguished from information system capabilities, especially with different cultural interpretation of information value. Top management should play an active role in defining organizational data flow, with implementation of appropriate incentives. Special attention should be given to precise data definition, especially with a workforce with a different training background under different cultural and language settings. Lastly, it is critical to emphasize strict standards for data quality, due to differences in expectations for the information system performance.
key terms
Cross-Cultural IRM: The special information resources management practices needed with the coexistence of more than one cultural influence in different segments of a society, or the simultaneous adoption of different cultural practices at work, social event, and family life.
Cultural Habit: Accepted behaviors within a group of people, sharing some common backgrounds, such as language, family heritage, education, living, and socializing environment.
Data Definition: An elaborate statement of the representation of each piece of data, its source, storage method, and intended usage.
Data Resources Management: The acquisition, organization, protection, maintenance, and selective distribution of organizational data.
Data-Planning: The projection of expected future need for data, with specifications on data sources, data collection and storage, data processing and presentation, data distribution, and data security.
Information Resources: Resources required to produce information, including hardware, software, technical support, users, facilities, data systems, and data.
Information Resources Accountability: The activities related to tracking information resources usages, evaluation of information resources value contribution, and the monitoring of access to critical information resources.
IT Transfer: The introduction of an information communication technology to a new region of the world.
Knowledge Sharing: The activities relating to the exchange of meaningful information, along with interpretations and potential applications of the information.