Using Everyday Life Information Seeking to Explain Organizational Behaviour

Maija-Leena Huotari,Professor,

The Department of Finnish, Information Studies and Logopedics,

The University of Oulu,Finland

Content

About changes: in the operating and information

environment in strategic thinking

Networks and partnerships Basic elements of a theory of SIM Implications for research

Changes in Operating and Information Environment

Globalization and internationalization Development of ICT and mobile techology New publishing channels Changing structure of publishing industry Networked mode of activity Increased needs for interaction at various levels New funding structure of public services in

Finland Multi- and interdisciplinary research New learning theories and teaching methods Etc.

Changes in Strategic Thinking (1)

´Strategies are patterns from the past and plans for the future’ (H. Mintzberg)

The aim of strategic information management (SIM) is to link management of information and knowledge with the organization’s ability to gain a competitive advantage and to sustain it, i.e. to gain a sustainable competitive advantage

Changes in Strategic Thinking (2)

=> Strategies linked to information, knowledge, knowing ja information technology should be aligned with each other and with the Corporate Strategy

Changes in Strategic Thinking (3)

Uncertainty of the operating environment=> Hinders the possiblity to carry out the strategy process in the traditional manner by explicitly formulating a long term strategy

=> We have to be flexible to react, even to proact, to changes in the environment, we have to learn about our own activities and about the changes in the environment

Changes in Strategic Thinking (4)

=> Internal resources and capability are the source for the competitive advantage

<=> The resource based view of the firm

=> The strategy must be formulated down-up or middle-down-up rather than top-down

Changes in Strategic Thinking (5)

From the idea of adding value (the concept of value chain) and minimization of costs to the maximazation of customer value through joint value creation of an organization and its stakeholders (the idea of value constellation)

(See Porter, 1980: The Competitive Strategy; Porter, 1985: The Competitive Advantage; Huotari, 2001: Information Management and Competitive Advantage. Case II: A Finnish Pharmaceutical Company. Finnish Information Studies (FIS) 19.; Normann & Ramírez 1994, Wikström et al. 1994; Huotari & Chatman 2001, Huotari & Iivonen 2004; Huotari & Wilson 2005)

Networks (1)

Based on the principle of reciprocity in behaviour and the exchange of resources, ideas, information, knowledge, and e.g. social support

Internal networking aims at crossing the internal borders to enable fast and open interaction between people for efficient and effective communication

Value networks (1)

Value is created in collaboration and in joint value creating knowledge processes

Value creation multidimensional, social, collaborative process interactive and dynamic => reciprocal relations

crucial commitment of various actors necessary enhanced by social capital

Value networks (2)

Knowledge = Activities = Resources

In knowledge processes knowledge inputs from the environment are transfered to knowledge manifestations in ’customer offersings’ as it is difficult to make a difference between products and services

Value networks (3) Relations of suppliers and customers are

reciprocal; the actors help each other to help each other and even beyond

=> Organizational boundaries are blurred

=> Knowledge of individual actors and stakeholders is integrated

Partnerships (1)

Emphasized in economics since the 1980s

Types of partnerships, for example, Tactical: Aims at integrating processes

<=> Requires trust based on dialog and collaboration

Operational: Focuses on own core activities and aims at reducing costs <=> Requires cognitive trust

Partnership (2)

Strategic: Aims at achieving a competitive edge which would be impossible without each other <=> Requires trust based on common values and collaboration => Double contingency

[Source: Ståhle, P. & Laento, K. (2000) Strateginen kumppanuus – avain uudistumiskykyyn ja ylivoimaan. Helsinki: WSOY.]

Strategic Partnerships (1)

Can be defined as “the joint action and activities towards mutual goals”. (Huotari & Iivonen, 2001)

E.g. academic libraries should understand themselves as internal strategic partners within the university, i.e. with the main internal stakeholders such as Information Management Unit, top administration, academic and administrative staff, different client groups (researchers, teachers, students, etc.)

Partnerships attributes

Complementary expertise Common interests and shared aims Common understanding of each

other, common language Commitment to work together Trust (cognitive, normative, affective)

Trust - the ”glue” of partnerships

Cognitive trust Needed for identifying the best partners Necessary for carrying out joint tasks in

joint processes Affective trust

Needed for smooth collaboration Necessary for keeping motivation and

commitment to joint action high for long term

Normative trust Needed in strategic partnerships

Complementary expertise

What can we provide that they don’t have? What can they provide that we don’t have? What can we achieve by

combining/integrating our expertise with partners’ expertise?

How far do we go in combining our expertise: to operational and tactical partnerships or to a strategic partnership?

Common interests and shared aims (1)

Opportunities for partnerships indicated e.g. in policies and/or strategies of the: government(s) / ministries university/universities libraries faculty/faculties department/departments discipline/disciplines

The best match with or optimal balance between all of these

Common Understanding of Each Other

Short cognitive distance

Sense making, sharing of meanings

Long cognitive distance requires a lot of meaning negotiations => Takes time, requires patience and cognitive flexibility

Commitment

Based on Joint long term planning

Joint allocation of resourses

Shared expectations for outcomes

Synergy and a winwin situation

Towards a theory of SIM (1)

Theories aim at Gaining knowledge to predict how certain

phenomenon will develop; they refer to management of phenomena

Explaining facts and systemic regularities in actions; they refer to truth seeking, undertanding of the world around us

Models, in turn, focus on limited problems from theories; may precide the development of formal theory

Towards a theory of SIM (2 )

A hierarchy of theory (Case 2002, p. 134):

Paradigm/Perspective/TraditionGrand/ Formal theory

Middle-Range / Grounded theoryObservation

Towards a theory of SIM (3)

A middle-range theory is more than a model that makes an attempt to describe information seeking activity, the causes and consequences of that activity, or the relations among stages in information seeking behaviour

Main elements (1)

SOCIAL NETWORKTHEORY

SMALL WORLD THEORY

STRUCTURAL ATTRIBUTES

CONTENT

DENSITY

SOCIAL TYPES

Information needs

WORLDVIEW

SOCIAL NORMS

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

Main elements (2)

STAKEHOLDERS

CO-PRODUCTION

KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES &

OUTCOMES

SOCIAL NETWORKTHEORY SMALL

WORLD THEORY

STRUCTURAL ATTRIBUTES

CONTENT

DENSITY

SOCIAL TYPES

Information needs

WORLDVIEW

SOCIAL NORMS

VALUE NETWORK

STRATEGICMANAGEMENT

INFORMATION BEHAVIOUR

DENSITY

Value Creation and Information Behaviour

(1)

Elfreda Chatman’s Small World Theory and social network theory along with the idea of value constellation increase possibilities to understand the effect of information behaviour on joint value creation

(See: Huotari & Chatman 2001: Using everyday life information seeking to explain organizational behaviour. Library and Information Science Research, 23: 351-366)

Value Creation and Information Behaviour

(2)

When combined they provide elements for developing a new theory of strategic information management

Small World Theory

Provides the concepts of: Information Behaviour, incl. trust Social Types: Insider/Outsider Social Norms Worldview

(See: Chatman 1991, 1996, 1999; see also Merton 1968)

Social Network Theory

Provides concepts to explain stakeholder relations

Structural Attributes: e.g. Homogenity (i.e. social values and norms) Dispersion Content Density

(See e.g.: Scott 1991, Wasserman & Faust 1994, Granovetter 1973, Burt 1992)

Implications for Research (1)

The impact of information behaviour on the strategic capability of a knowledge-based organization should be further defined

by testing empirically the explanatory

power of the structural attributes, i.e. the concepts of homogenity, dispersion and density, of social network theory

Implications for Research (2)

The concept of social types is demanding <=> Small World theory should be expanded with the concepts of boundary spanning and gate-keeper

The equivalence of the concepts of knowledge, resources and activities of the framework of value constellation should be tested within the context of strategic partnerships of knowledge-based organizations

Contribution (1) The theory increases possibilities to:

Assign more humane views regarding the nature of work

Increase understanding of people’s information behaviour in organizational activities

Uncover hidden structures and modes of behaviour e.g. in organizational change and strategy building processes

Contribution (2)

Increased understanding of the impact of information behaviour on value creation in the knowledge-based economy

Literature (1)

Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Case, D.O. (2002) Looking for information. A survey of information seeking, needs, and behaviour. Academic Press.

Chatman, E. (1991) Life in a small world: Application of the gratification theory to information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 438-449.

Literature (2)

Chatman, E. (1996) The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 193-206.

Chatman, E. (1999) A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 207-217.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

Huotari, M.-L. & Chatman, E. (2001) Using everyday life information seeking to explain organizational behaviour. Library and Information Science Research, 23, 351-366.

Literature (3)Huotari, M.-L. & Iivonen, M. (2004) (Eds.) Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Organizations. Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publising.

Merton, R.K. (1968) Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

Normann, R. & Ramírez, R. (1994) Designing interactive strategy. From value chain to value constellation. Chicherster, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Literature (4)Scott, J. (1991) Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994) Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Wikström, S., Normann, R., Anell, B., Ekvall, G., Forslin, J. & Skävad, P.-H. (1994) Knowledge and value. A new perspective on corporate transformation. London: Routledge.