emerged from previous research on the business–ITrelationship. Contrary to the predominant view of ‘strategic alignment’ (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993)and inspired by Claudio’s relentless critique on the latterconcept (as pre´cised in Ciborra, 1997a), our perspectivestarted from a double observation: (1) any contribution of IT to the ‘busy-ness’ of an organization is indirect, viz.through the information generated and/or the commu-nication supported; and (2) the infrastructure is thelinking pin par excellence between Henderson andVenkatraman’s external (strategy) and internal (opera-tions) domains. Both missing and, as a consequence,hardly understood constituents were considered vital to aclear and all-inclusive comprehension of the business–ITrelationship (Abcouwer
., 1997; Maes, 1998).More decisively, our growing insights departed fromthe very essence of ‘strategic business–IT alignment’:alignment was not only found unproductive and evenimpossible, but equally detrimental to any innovativeenterprise. The strategic alignment
, pretendingpurposiveness and therefore directiveness, was replacedby an extended
, nothing more (or less) than amap for positioning business–IT issues of topical interest(as was recapitulated in Maes (2003b and 2005a)). It tookseveral discussions
– and even more dinners –
to (partly?)persuade doubting Claudio of the non-mechanisticnature of our approach; after all, he was unconvinced,if not sceptical, about the value of formal models in IS(Ciborra, 1998).
Our recurrent and well-appreciated remarkthat ‘all models are less than reality, except photo models whoare more than reality’ did a great job in this respect
.In hindsight, PrimaVera started as an attempt to mingleCiborra’s deconstruction of managers’ and consultants’too obvious assumptions such as strategic business–ITalignment, stringent management command and con-trol, the supremacy of planned action, etc. with thefundamental day-to-day prerequisites of practitioners:reconstructing the world Claudio Ciborra was persis-tently and vigorously questioning.
Infrastructural and architectural thinking:dis-engineering information systems
Even before PrimaVera’s conception, the notion of ‘information infrastructure’ was key in our researchefforts. The previously stringently technical connotationof this concept was, from the very beginning, expandedon in order to encompass organizational and informa-tional issues (Truijens
., 1990). This vision was furtherbroadened through interaction with Claudio (Ciborra,1997b) and successfully introduced as one of the keyconcepts in our flagship curriculum, the ExecutiveMasters in Information Management programme. Lateron, the inherently unexpected outcomes and side effectsof infrastructure development as exposed in FromControl to Drift (Ciborra & Associates, 2000) broughteven more bewilderment to the participants of thisprogramme, despite the fact that Actor Network Theorywas discovered as a prolific tool for the dynamicinterpretation of information infrastructures (Beyer &Maes, 2005).A related, yet distinct concept appeared to be similarlycentral to PrimaVera: (corporate) information architec-ture, a theme not dealt with by Claudio (the onlyexception, to our knowledge, being some minor remarksin chapter 7 of Ciborra (2002)). In our continuingattempt to reconcile organizational stubbornness, asplainly unravelled and nourished by Claudio, withorganizational effectiveness, information architecture isinvestigated as the outstanding concept to give guidanceto organizational change (Winterink & Truijens, 2003).At the same time, and influenced by Claudio’s decon-struction of various related concepts, we unveil informa-tion architectures in use as technology-dominatedstructures implicating additional complexity (instead of reducing complexity), instruments of organizationalpower (as they establish regimes of truth) and disembo-died virtuality (as information systems are in reality neverbuilt under architecture); information architectures ap-pear to be politically significant, yet communicativelyimpeding. We reconstruct the concept as the space to befilled between structure and communication on the onehand and between meaning and action on the other; tothis end, we liberally go back to the postmodernphilosophy of (building) architecture (Maes & Bryant,2005).
This reminds us of Claudio’s comments on the hotel Botticelli we once booked for him in Maastricht, being aremake of an Italian palazzo: ‘Gentlemen, your hotel is very postmodern, but not authentic’. After which he was refused access to the hotel
From information and communication tomeaning and identity
Claudio’s organic view on the business–IT relationshipled to envisioning this relationship in hitherto unfamiliarterms such as bricolage, tinkering, cultivation, moods,hospitality, etc. (as summed up in Ciborra, 2004). Apeculiar aspect of his vision was that he never elaboratedon the nature of ‘information’ as such; the subtitle of ‘The Labyrinths of Information’ is for good reason‘Challenging the Wisdom of Systems’ (Ciborra, 2002).Conversely, a basic premise of PrimaVera is that thebusiness–IT relationship can only be understood throughthe explicit formulation and investigation of the (tech-nology independent) information and communicationfactor. This focus enabled us, for example, to differentiatethe genuine CIO, first and foremost being a businessinformation manager, from the traditional CIO, too oftenbeing a CTO in disguise (Maes, 2005a).On the other hand, our continued investigation of information and communication led us back to Claudio’svisionary interpretations of what is germane in thebusiness–IT relationship. This journey brought us firstto the exploration of the subjectivistic, interpretativeview on information and communication related tophenomena such as sense making, interpretation differ-
What do C. Ciborra and S. Botticelli have in common?
Rik Maes and Ard Huizing
European Journal of Information Systems