This paper depicts the results of an empirical case study on how two Norwegian telecommunications operators developed a business sector information infrastructure for the provision of mobile content services. Focusing on the context of this technology's development, and the strategic issues behind its design, implementation and operation, control devolution as a design strategy is explored. This analysis draws on insights presented by Claudio Ciborra's in his study of the change from alignment to loose coupling in the Swiss multinational Hoffmann-La Roche. This paper illustrates how control is played out on different levels, and balanced against autonomy. The theoretical implications of this paper highlight how the differences and transformations between information systems and information infrastructures are conceptualised, with the development of the latter better understood in light of a balance between control and autonomy. Consequently, it is suggested that control devolution as a design approach should be based on a deep understanding of the existing control/autonomy balance as well as the distribution of resources, risks and the ability and willingness to innovate.
AanestadM., and HansethO. (2000). Implementing Open Network Technologies in Complex Work Practices: A case from telemedicinein Proceedings from IFIP 8.2. (Aalborg, Denmark, 2000); Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2.
BenigerJ.R. (1986). The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BowkerG.C., and StarS.L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4.
BranscombL.M., and KahinB. (1996). Standards Processes and Objectives for the National Information Infrastructure, in BranscombL., and KellerJ. (eds.) Converging Infrastructures: Intelligent Transportation Systems and the National Information Infrastructure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BroadbentM., WeillP., and St. ClairD. (1999). The Implications of Information Technology Infrastructure for Business Process Redesign, Management Information Systems Quarterly23: 159–182.
6.
CiborraC.U. (1994). The Grassroots of IT and Strategy, in CiborraC., and JellasiT. (eds.) Strategic Information Systems: A European Perspective, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
7.
CiborraC.U. (2000a). A Critical Review of the Literature on the Management of Corporate Information Infrastructures, in CiborraC. (ed.) From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–40.
8.
CiborraC.U. (2000b). From Alignment to Loose Coupling: From MedNet to, www.roche.com.inCiborraC. (ed.) From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–212.
9.
CiborraC.U., BraaU.K., CordeliaA., DahlbomB., FaillaA., HansethO., HepsøV., LjungbergJ., MonteiroE., and SimonK.A. (2000). From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 193–212.
10.
DamsgaardJ., and LyytinenK. (2001). The Role of Intermediating Institutions in the Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How industry associations intervened in Denmark, Finland and Hong Kong, The Information Society17: 195–210.
11.
FarajS., KwonD., and WattsS. (2004). Contested Artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shapeing for the web browser, Information Technology & People17: 186–209.
12.
ForsterP.W., and KingJ.L. (1995). Information Infrastructure Standards in Heterogeneous Sectors; Lessons from The Worldwide Air Cargo Community, in KahinB., and AbbateJ. (eds.) Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 148–177.
13.
GeorgiadouY., PuriS., and SahayS. (2005). Towards a Potential Researh Agenda to Guide the Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructures – a Case Study from India, International Journal of Geographic Information Science19: 1113–1130.
14.
HansethO. (2000). The Economics of Standards, in CiborraC. (ed.) From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–70.
15.
HansethO., and AanestadM. (2003). Bootstrapping networks, communities and infrastructures. On the evolution of ICT solutions in health care, Methods of Information in Medicine42(4): 385–391.
16.
HansethO., and LyytinenK. (2004). Theorizing about the Design of Information Infrastructures: Design kernel theories and principles, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information, Environments Systems and Organizations, vol 4, number 12 [www document] http://weatherhead.cwru.edu/sprouts/2004/040412.pdf.
HansethO., MonteiroE., and HatlingM. (1996). Developing Information Infrastructure: The tension between standardisation and flexibility, Science, Technology and Human Values11: 407–426.
19.
LawJ. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology, in LawJ., and HassardJ. (eds.) Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
20.
LyytinenK., and YooY. (2002). Research Commentary: The next wave of nomadic computing, Information Systems Research13: 377–388.
21.
McGartyT.P. (1992). Alternative Networking Architectures: Pricing, Policy, and Competition, in KahinB. (ed.) Building Information Infrastructure, New York: McGraw-Hill Primis.
22.
MonteiroE. (1998). Scaling Information Infrastructures: The case of next-generation IP in the internet, Information Society14: 229–245.
23.
MulganG. (1991). Communication and Control: Networks and the New Economies of Communication, Cambridge: Polity Press.
24.
NeumannL.J., and StarS.L. (1996). Making Infrastructure: The dream of a common language, in BlombergJ., KensigF., and Dykstra-EricksonE. (eds.) PDC'96, Cambridge, MA, Palo Alto, CA: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/ACM.
25.
NielsenP. (2006). A Conceptual Framework of Information Infrastructure Building, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo, Norway.
26.
NikasA. (2003). Network Information Infrastructures in the Construction Industry: Emergence and impact on work and management arrangements, ELTRUN Working Paper Series, Athens.
27.
RollandK.H., and MonteiroE. (2002). Balancing the Local and the Global in Infrastructural Information Systems, The Information Society18: 87–100.
28.
RossJ.W. (2003). Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in stages, MIS Quarterly Executive2: 31–43.
29.
ShapiroC, and VarianH.R. (1999). Information Rules: A strategic guide to the network economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
StarS.L., and RuhlederK. (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces, Information Systems Research7: 111–134.
31.
StraussA.L. (1993). Continual Permutations of Action, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
32.
TasseyG. (1995). The Roles of Standards as Technology Infrastructure, in HawkinsR., MansellR., and SkeaJ. (eds.) Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
33.
WalshamG. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester: Wiley.
34.
WeillP., and VitaleM. (2002). What IT Infrastructure Capabilities are Needed to Implement E-Business Models?MIS Quarterly Executive1: 17–34.
