|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Baskerville and Myers (2002) recently suggested that the in formation systems (IS) field has "come of age" and that it can now serve as a reference discipline for other fields. In this article, the discourse about their vision is extended by considering the potential for the IS field to contribute to new product development (NPD) research. It is argued that the rapid in fusion of information technology (IT) along four dimensions of product development--process management, project management, information and knowledge management, and collaboration and communication--raises several important NPD research issues. These issues could be addressed by drawing from extant theories and models in the IS field. By employing NPD as the context, other issues that underlie the new role envisioned for the IS field are also identified.
Keywords: IS research issues, reference discipline, new product development, IT infusion, diffusion of research, knowledge network, IS research agenda
ISRL Categories: AI03, AI05, IB03, IB04, ID05
Introduction
Baskerville and Myers (2002) recently advanced the vision of the information systems (IS) field as a reference discipline, because it is increasingly better placed to contribute to research in related fields. Although the authors acknowledge the potential difficulties in realizing their vision, they also emphasize the utility of the vision as a rhetorical device, It could be used to provoke debate and discussion on (1) the need to adopt a wider perspective in the conduct and communication of IS research, and (2) the future growth and evolution of the IS discipline.
This article seeks to further extend the above discourse. Specifically, the objective is to demonstrate how the IS field can serve as a reference discipline for the field of new product development (NPD). Given the interdisciplinary nature of NPD research, as well as the recent rapid infusion of information technology (IT) in product development, the NPD field is an appropriate context in which to identify and discuss important issues that underlie the new role envisioned for IS.
This article begins by briefly considering the general motivations, qualifications, and implications of the emerging role of IS as a reference discipline. Next, the gradual evolution of the NPD field is traced and the increasing infusion of IT in NPD activities identified. The nature of this IT infusion is then examined and it is argued that the NPD field promises to be a rich application area for IS theories. The ensuing NPD research issues and potential IS contributions are identified. The paper concludes by highlighting key lessons from other NPD reference disciplines.
Information Systems as a Reference Discipline
To understand the motivations, qualifications, and implications of the IS field assuming the role of a reference discipline, Baskerville and Myers (2002) suggest the notion of a knowledge-creation network. Within this network, different fields engage in intellectual discourse that involves the exchange of ideas. Such a perspective implies that the IS field is both a producer of ideas (exported to other fields) and a consumer of ideas (imported from other fields).
Motivations
The knowledge-network perspective indicates the need to understand the forces that shape the market for IS research. Two demand-side forces are apparent.
First, a steady increase in the infusion of IT in all areas of business has occurred. Even though the mere infusion of IT does not necessarily define the relevance of IS theories, the broad transformations that accompany IT infusion (in terms of product and process as well as various institutional aspects) enhance the ability of existing IS theories to address the attendant managerial issues. For example, recent articles on the use of electronic brainstorming and online focus groups in market research (e.g., Burke et al. 2001; Montoya-Weiss et al. 1998), the impact of technology infusion in customer service encounters (e.g., Bitner et al. 2000; Meuter et al. 2000), and consumer behavior in digital environments (e.g., Dholakia and Bagozzi 2001) have all identified research issues that underline the emerging relevance of IS theories and models in the marketing field.
Second, research issues in the management field are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary (i.e., linkages between the fields are becoming more important than the individual fields themselves). Researchers in different areas have generally become more receptive to collaborative research and to borrowing theories and models from other fields. In a recent Academy of Management Presidential address, Michael Hitt predicted that multidisciplinary thinking and collaborative work would soon radically redefine management research (Hitt 1998). Further evidence of this trend is provided by the creation of new journals (e.g., Strategic Organization, Journal of Research in Marketing & Entrepreneurship), new journal departments (e.g., the new Design and Operations Management department in Management Science), and journal special issues (e.g., the Fall 2000 special issue of INFORMS Manufacturing & Service Operations Management on the intersection between marketing and operations management).
A supply-side issue is also relevant. Specifically, the IS field has developed several products (i.e., theories and models) that are unique and valuable. Nonetheless, its future growth as a field would be enhanced by other fields using its products. Such cross-pollination between IS and other fields would allow us to identify specific opportunities to create new theories and refine old ones. At the same time, IS could also redefine its relevance to management research and practice.
Qualifications
An extensive debate on the nature and legitimacy of the IS discipline, its dependence on other disciplines, and the value of its theoretical and methodological diversity has taken place (Banville and Landry 1989; Benbasat and Weber 1996; Galliers 1995; Landry and Banville 1992; Robey 1996). Noting that the IS field lacks a clearly articulated core focus and set of theories, critics doubt IS can be a reference discipline for other fields. Baskerville and Myers address this concern in detail. The meaning of the term reference discipline as applied in this article is briefly discussed here.
Information Systems is an interdisciplinary, applied discipline. As such, it has drawn from many other disciplines to address issues that reflect the centrality of IT in varied socio-economic contexts. The IS field has not only borrowed theories and models from other disciplines, but adapted them to better suit IT-embedded phenomena, thereby building a sizeable portfolio of adapted theories, models, and concepts. Examples of such IS-adapted theories include the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis 1989), the IS implementation interaction theory (Markus 1983), the adaptive structuration theory (DeSanctis and Poole 1994), the task-technology fit theory (Goodhue and Thompson 1995; Zigurs and Buckland 1998), and the cognitive-affective model of organizational communication (Te'eni 2001). The IS field has a role as a reference discipline because its adapted theories are closer to the IT phenomena than the original theories and thus provide more powerful, parsimonious explanations.
For example, the resource-based view (RBV) in the strategy field is built on ideas first enunciated in industrial economics (e.g., Chamberlin 1933; Penrose 1959) and evolutionary economics (e.g., Nelson and Winter 1982). These ideas and models collectively referred to as RBV theory (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984) have now found application in other management areas like marketing (Fahy and Smithee 1999) and product development (Verona 1999). As strategy is a reference discipline for marketing and NPD, so IS could be a reference discipline for NPD and other fields if it offers context-specific adapted theories, models, and concepts.
Implications
Baskerville and Myers outlined several implications of viewing IS as a reference discipline. These include the implications for the research agenda of individual researchers as well as the IS community, journals and editors (e.g., editorial decisions and plans), and institutions (e.g., incentive structures). These implications suggest a variety of questions. For example, to establish its position as a reference discipline, should the IS field seek out opportunities to make unique contributions to the other fields? How should individual researchers redefine the focus and scope of their work to serve a broader audience? What are the different ways in which we could enhance the accessibility of extant IS research findings? What are the lessons on serving as a reference discipline that IS can learn from other...
|
