INTRODUCTION
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 in 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 (Shea & Lewis, 1996; Raman & Watson, 1997). 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 (CBISs). Numerous studies examined various systems solutions for organization needs (Applegate, 1995; 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 paying close attention to the 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 a multicultural environment. Other studies reported the numerous obstacles of developing CBISs under various cultural settings, even with highly motivated leaders to support the deployment of information systems (Raman & Watson, 1997; Al-Abdul-Gader,1999).
The information system function must enhance user effectiveness and efficiency in utilizing the information to improve value delivery for the organization (Parker, 1996). New challenges emerged as nontechnical issues and 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 decisions 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, because doing so would take away that 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 (Osterman, 1991; Duncan, 1999). 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 would have vague expectations for the performance of the information system. There would be more emphasis on group harmony and saving face than on 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 that provides qualitative data (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Lane & DiStefano, 1992; Shea & Lewis, 1996). All these personality extremes coexist in a cross-cultural setting, making it more challenging to design systems than in a single-culture environment. The perceived value of information resources became less predictable in a cross-cultural environment.
CHALLENGES IN CROSS-CULTURAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
The rapid expansion of Western influence on a global basis created an environment under the cross-currents of Western corporate culture and regional cultures. Nations in the Pacific Basin have established close relationships with the Western world. Heavy Western investments have transformed these nations into showcases for Western systems. However, underneath the formal display of the Western culture, local cultures retained strong influence on their societies. An influx of immigrants holding on to their traditions further diluted the penetration of Western influence in these regions. 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 would be accepted as 15 minutes to several hours after the scheduled time. Mandated reports could be excused without penalty, and the uttermost concern, over efficiency, was to preserve group harmony. 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 usage of the technology. Experience in the Pacific Basin provided a sampling of information resources management issues that became significant challenges in cross-cultural environments.
Challenge One: The design objectives of an information system must expand from efficiency orientation to adaptive accommodation of cultural habits. It becomes desirable to allow and to track dynamic modification of data-processing procedures according to shifting organizational and cultural influences.
While a primary design objective of an information system was to provide efficient transaction processing, often, the affected human system was slow to accept the implicit MIS culture embedded in the system design. Western culture emphasized timeliness and accuracy, which were less important to many cultures. For example, it often took months to update databases from paper documents. Some users relied on the information system for information, while others insisted on paper documents only. Hence, circulation of multiple versions of reports was common depending on the sources of the reports. Parallel operations to accommodate parallel cultures generated organizational conflict. Influential users and administrative interventions threatened the integrity of information systems. The full potential of the information system was suppressed to a preference for cultural norms, and only system features that would not threaten cultural practices would be allowed to remain. Some local cultures emphasized protecting family members more than performance appraisal. The value of information was not as much for improving decision making, but to endorse group position, to preserve relationship, and to avoid embarrassment.
Challenge Two: There is a need for 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 was deferred to leaders and elders with power and status. Political relationships dictated the availability of information and the accessibility to organizational data. This was contrary to the basic assumptions of CBISs that promoted the free exchange of information (Oz, 2002; Osterman, 1991; Rocheleau, 1999). The bureaucratic procedures for the approval of data usage defeated the designed roles of the information system. A fully developed database supported very limited applications. The lack of explicit system objectives coupled with the practice of delegating data management responsibility to the lowest-level unskilled workers created data integrity problems. For example, withholding information to gain and maintain power was 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 the data resource.
Challenge Three: 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 a cultural environment where data-driven decision making is a new practice.
An uncoordinated approach to information resource management created 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, frustrated the end users and led to distrust of the information systems for the inability to produce usable information reports. Regretfully, the information systems were seldom designed to generate reports for decision support.
Challenge Four: Management must take leadership in establishing precise, formal data definitions, and communicate them to all potential 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 placed information systems under the direct control of end users. However, end users often lack technical expertise, and few were committed to the development of information resources. Events and samples were confused with statistics. Relaxed practices in standards and data definitions created issues in data validity and data quality. Potential information was lost when processed data replaced raw data, while the time sensitivity of dynamic data was ignored. Time series data were deleted to preserve storage space. The information system would be blamed for the unfortunate chaos. In one incident, a user group maintained multiple versions of a database with the assistance of the data center. However, only selected workers in the user group and the data center were aware of the special arrangement. The different versions of the database were discovered only when two identical requests for information were returned with different outcomes. Top management, unwilling to escalate cultural tension, ignored the potential seriousness of the data integrity issue. In another incident, several users entered an unresolved dispute on their interpretations of a data definition according to their understanding of the language. The data definition used by the data center in maintaining the database was rejected.
Challenge Five: The increased complexity and frequency of usage of information reports is, in reality, a severe drain on budgetary resources. Management needs to develop a mechanism to track data usage and adjust resources appropriately. This could be more challenging under cultural environments that lack sophistication in information processing.
Modern management practices seek opportunities to replace physical resources with information. When management failed to adjust budgets to support the information 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 a culture 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 was to circulate printed copies of e-mail to avoid offending anyone. The practices quickly depleted the budget for supplies.
Challenge Six: 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 to ensure consistency rather than leave the official data report to random actions. This is especially important in a cultural setting 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, an information system must implicitly support the decisions and public statements of the leaders (Gannon, 2001). Officials of a local organization proposed an expensive marketing campaign, pointing to a 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.
Challenge Seven: Management needs to play an active role in data planning and closely align the information report designs for decision support. This is especially challenging in a cultural environment that lacks appreciation for operational planning and control.
In cultures where gesture would be more important than details, systematic failure to collect information would be accepted and forgiven. Information systems applications were limited to payroll and accounting (Kalpic & Boyd, 2000). In some cases, the lack of adequate information was the key to assuring continued financial support. Organizations were unprepared to collect and store data to support meaningful decision support applications. Information systems were seldom utilized to their full potential under such cultural settings.
CHALLENGES IN PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION RESOURCE
Potential cultural myopia required great efforts when communicating the principles of information resource management.
Challenge One: Information Resources Solely as an Investment Issue
A common response to deficiencies in organizational data was to seek capital investment for new technology. This perception underestimated the requirements for system and facility maintenance, technical support, user training, data architecture development, data security, and distribution. Lack of organizational readiness stalled the deployment of information systems. Inflated expectations and uncoordinated usage of data services nullified the value of the information system. Erratic funding patterns destroyed development projects, making it extremely difficult to retain technical personnel. Poor maintenance damaged equipment and threatened data integrity. Cultural managers eager to modernize without fully under-standing the implications of information resources management eventually abandoned their support for the Western ideas.
Challenge Two: Information Resources Development by Delegation
Management seeking an easy fix to the organizational data problem mandated data compilation activities by the functional divisions. Besides undermining information resources as a critical organizational asset, little technical assistance was provided. Unmotivated managers neglected data quality and resisted data distribution. The turnover of administrators caused discontinuity in data resources development.
Challenge Three: Limited Appreciation for Information Resources
Information resources could be compared to utility services, such as water, the value of which was suppressed until serious issues developed in quality and supply. Often neglected was the accountancy of the value contribution of the information system, beyond periodic technical improvements. Benchmark studies should identify cost performance as well as the critical roles of information resources within the organization.
FUTURE TRENDS
The historical development of information systems has followed the model of a rational manager (Kepner, 1965), with emphasis on openness, clear structure, innovative practices, and logical thinking. In regions where traditions and relationships resisted changes, information systems 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 the information flow, while other cultures are casual about the absolute data quality. Some organizations integrate information systems to become organizational backbones, and others prefer to separate information in isolated pockets. Some prefer simple information systems, while others invest in sophisticated intelligence systems. 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 multicultural environments should allow a 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. An information resource manager 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. The information system objective should be clearly distinguished from the information system capabilities, especially with different cultural interpretations 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 different training backgrounds under different cultural and language settings. Last, it is critical to emphasize strict standards for data quality, due to differences in expectations for information system performance.
KEY TERMS
Cross-Cultural Environment: 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 events, and family life.
Cultural Habit: Accepted behaviors within a group of people, sharing some common background, such as language, family heritage, education, and 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-Driven Decision Making: The practice of purposefully collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data according to accepted criteria, and using the outcomes to select and justify decisions.
Data Planning: The projection of expected future needs 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.
Official Organizational Data: A selected version of dynamic data released for both internal and external usage to maintain consistency in communication.
Transaction-Processing System: This is a computer system designed to support the recording and completion of value exchange activities.
