Human Resource Management Essay
LIZZZ33
Nationalculturaldifferencesintheoryandpractice.pdf
Information Technology & People National cultural differences in theory and practice: Evaluating Hofstede’s national cultural framework Francis Harvey,
Article information: To cite this document: Francis Harvey, (1997) "National cultural differences in theory and practice: Evaluating Hofstede’s national cultural framework", Information Technology & People, Vol. 10 Issue: 2, pp.132-146, https://doi.org/10.1108/09593849710174986 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/09593849710174986
Downloaded on: 14 August 2018, At: 21:25 (PT) References: this document contains references to 45 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11359 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2008),"A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 339-349 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902477">https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902477</a> (2013),"Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models", International Marketing Review, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 469-482 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2013-0058">https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2013-0058</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:414810 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 3 2
National cultural diffe re nce s in the ory and practice
Evaluating Hofs te de ’s national cultural framework Francis Harvey
Swiss Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
National cultural influe nce on information s ys te m de s ign Like all human activities, culture influences information system design in a myriad ways. The complexity of cultural influences eludes easy understanding and remains obscure in the complexity of daily life (Clifford and Marcus, 1986; Emerson et al., 1995). From the numerous facets of culture, national culture has received particular attention. Researchers and practitioners refer to substantial empirical work that differentiates the important roles national culture plays in organizations. T he work of Hofstede (1980) stands out for the connection of design act ivit ies t o nat ional cult u re and org anizat ional for ms. His comprehensive study of over 100,000 questionnaires in 66 countries is the basis for a noteworthy theoretical explanation of the influence of national culture on information system design.
T he research presented here examines the question of whether Hofstede’s framework applies to the actual pr actice of infor mation system design. It compares the designs of geographic information systems (GIS) in a German and a US count y. T he et hnog r aphic research design set s out t o evaluat e Hofstede’s quantitatively developed characteristics.
The questions examined in this research are: • Do Hofstede’s national cultu r al char acterist ics explain differences
gathered from reviewing design documents? • Does the formal representation of design in documents replicate national
cultural characteristics? • Do they also help explain the actual practice of design?
Portions of this text are based on a book chapter titled “National cultural influences on GIS design”, which will app ear in the book: Geogr aphic Infor mation Resear ch: Tr ansatlantic Perspectives, Craglia, M. and Onsrud, H. (Eds), Taylor and Francis, London, 1997.
The author would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in carrying out this research: Martin Balikov, Karl Johanson, and Thomas Remme. The University of Washington Gr aduat e School’s West er n Eu rop ean Disser t at ion Gr ant provided financial suppor t for completing the case study in Germany.
Information Technology & People, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1997, pp. 132-146. © MCB University Press, 0959-3845
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 3 3
Beyond Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, this research considers other literature from the infor mation science field about national culture (Hofstede, 1980; Jordan, 1994; Willamson, 1975). These researchers all root their understanding of cult u re in t he sociological work of Max Weber. Cult u re is commonly understood in Weberian sociology as the shared set of beliefs that influence what we consider to be meaningful and valuable. Disciplines, professions, and institutions in moder n bureaucratic society nur ture and transmit cultural values and meanings (Albrow 1990; Weber 1946, 1947). It is important to note that research in this vein ascribes ideal typical qualities to each culture in a Weberian sense: they are the strived for forms, not individual characteristics. In other words, research can only find distinctions between social group behavior in terms of these dimensions.
With this brief introduction to the theoretical backg round and research issues complete, the next section moves on to present Hofstede’s framework and ot her relevant work. T he fr amework consist s of fou r nat ional cult u r al dimensions (uncer t aint y avoidance, p ower dis t ance, individualit y and masculinity) each with particular characteristics that influence infor mation s yst em design. T his research examines t he t wo p er t inent dimens ions (uncertainty avoidance, power distance).
Following the presentation of the theoretical background for this work in section two, the methodology employed is described in section three. Section four evaluates the GIS designs of the two counties, Kreis Osnabrück and King County, and section five examines the differences between design documents and design practice. T he final section summarizes the research findings and presents an explanation for the differences found between GIS design practice and Hofstede’s formal framework.
Dime ns ions of culture Out of a mass of empirical data Geerd Hofstede developed the above mentioned four dimensions of national cultural influence in information system design. Because of the wealth of data and deep theoretical interpretation, this work has received much attention in the information systems field as well as other fields (Berry, 1989; Jordan, 1994).
Hofstede specifically examined the role of national culture in work-related values and information system design (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede constr ucted his framework on a review of sociological and anthropological theories and work including Geertz (1973), Kluckhohn (1951, 1962), Parsons (1951), Parsons and Shils (1951) and Weber (1946). Hofstede’s four dimensions of national culture are:
• uncer tainty avoidance: the extent to which futu re p ossibilities are defended against or accepted;
• power distance: the degree of inequality of power between a person at a higher level and a person at a lower level;
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 3 4
• individualism: the relative importance of individual goals compared with group or collective goals;
• masculinity: the extent to which the goals of men dominate those of women.
Uncertainty avoidance is the focus of information systems and decision support systems (Jordan, 1994). It is considered together with power distance because of interaction effects (Hofstede, 1980). The other two dimensions, individualism and masculinity, having little importance and relevance to Ger man and US cultu res, lie outside this research’s focus. Ger manic and Anglo-American cultures are strongly differentiated in terms of uncertainty avoidance; the power distance dimension is quite similar.
Uncer t aint y avoidance and p ower dis t ance for m cr it ical int er act ions affecting organizations. According to Hofstede, in Germany and the USA, both characterized by low power distance, there are two possible ways to keep organizations together and reduce uncertainty. In Germanic cultures, with high uncertainty avoidance, “people have an inner need for living up to rules, … the leading principle which keeps the organizations together can be formal rules” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 319). With low uncertainty avoidance (Anglo-American cult u res), “…t he org anizat ion has t o be kept t oget her by more ad hoc negotiation, a situation that calls for a larger tolerance for uncertainty from everyone” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 319). Figure 1 shows important organizational char acteristics based on uncer tainty avoidance. Hofstede makes detailed comments about these differences. T he “Anglo” cultures “would tend more toward creating implicitly structured organizations” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 319). In contrast, German speaking cultures establish “workflow” bureaucracies that prescribe the work process in much g reater detail (Hofstede, 1980, p. 319). Hofstede argues that problem-solving strategies and implicit organization for ms follow: Ger mans est ablis h regulat ions , Anglo-Amer icans have negotiations. Ger mans conceive of the ideal organization as a “well-oiled machine,” whereas Anglo-Amer icans unders t and a well funct ioning organization as a “village market” (Hofstede, 1980).
Infor mat ion t r ansact ion cos t t heor y (Willams on, 1975) provides complementary insight into cultural influence on organizational structure and
Figure 1 . Differences in national cultural characteristics for Hofstede’s cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance
Ideal organizational form Implicit model of organization Problem-solving approach
Workflow bureaucracy Well-oiled machine
Regulations Germanic, Finland
Implicitly structured Market
Negotiations Anglo-American, Scandinavia
High uncertainty avoidance
Low uncertainty avoidance
Source: Based on Hofstede (1980, p. 319)
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 3 5
approaches t o problem solving. In t his t heor y, all b usines s act ivit y is a t r ansact ion bet ween individuals and g roups. Infor mat ion s er ves as t he controlling resource (Jordan, 1994). In this form the theory is overly reductionist and simplistic. Boisot (1987) extended this transaction cost theory to include cultural issues, distinguishing two characteristics of information that affects transactions:
• codification: the degree of formal representation; • diffusion: the degree of spread throughout the population (Jordan, 1994).
Inter nalizing the tr ansaction in the organization reduces the diffusion of infor mation (Jordan, 1994). Centralized infor mation requires a bureaucracy, whereas diffuse infor mation is distributed in a market. T hese differences correspond to Hofstede’s national cultural characteristics (Jordan, 1994). How information system design codifies or diffuses information will depend on the imp or t ance of uncer t aint y avoidance and ideal org anizat ion t yp e. T he codificat ion or diffusion of infor mat ion is complement ar y t o Hofst ede’s dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Low uncertainty avoidance corresponds to infor mation diffusion, whereas high uncertainty avoidance cor responds to codification.
Normally, highly integrated industries and commerce utilize the information t r ansact ion approach. GIS design approaches oft en begin wit h a similar str uctured systems approach (Gould, 1994). When considering heterogeneous public administrations, a different, highly diversified organizational structure is possible. In county gover nments the multi-disciplinary interests, missions, goals, and perspectives require special consideration of the values propagated by institutions and disciplines.
Me thodology This ethnographic research compares the GIS designs and implementations in King County, Washington, USA and Kreis (County) Osnabrück, Lower-Saxony, Germany. Although the two cases are quite similar, the research organization differed owing to different periods of study. T his resulted in a conceptual division in two research phases. In the first phase design documents were examined and compared (see Harvey (1995) for the first report of these results). During the second phase, the author participated as an observer in the actual des ign process t o validat e t he findings from t he first phas e and t o t est Hofstede’s framework. The ethnographic research design was chosen for the detailed insight it provides into the distinct cultural and institutional context of each GIS (Onsr ud et al., 1992). In t he case of King Count y a st r at eg y of contextual inquiry was followed, compared to naturalistic observation used during a shorter visit to Kreis Osnabrück (Wixon and Ramsey, 1996).
The case studies in these two counties were prepared following Hofstede’s framework with a focus on uncertainty avoidance and assessing differences bet ween design document s and act ual design pr act ice. Et hnog r aphic approaches to differences in scientific practice (Anderson, 1994; Hayek, 1952,
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 3 6
1979; Hir schhor n, 1984; Lat ou r and Woolg ar, 1979; Nelson, 1994) also influenced the choice of a participant observation approach to collect data. The actual issues r aised du ring document evaluation, op en-ended interviews, written correspondence, and telephone conversations focused on GIS design and the construction of organizational, institutional, and physical components.
The case study in King County occurred over a longer portion of time (six months) during which the author participated in the system conceptualization project. Because of the distance to Kreis Osnabrück, key questions were posed in written for mat over several months time before the site visit. During an intensive one week visit, open-ended interviews were held with six project p ar t icip ant s. T hese int er views were analyzed du r ing and immediat ely following the week-long intensive observation. The author’s training in German planning and administrative law plus experiences with GIS applications in Germany enabled the key research questions to be obtained rapidly. The longer period of contact in King County made up for an original lack of knowledge of US public administrative practice and theory.
T he preparation for the visit to Kreis Osnabr ück involved for mulating specific questions and issues about design practice, uncertainty avoidance, and the role of regulations and negotiations. Questions focussed on filling gaps in t he recent hist or y of t he count y GIS, underst anding t he role of different administrative agencies in the design process, and examining the practice of GIS design and implementation. During the visit, several agencies were visited and discussions took place with county staff.
Because of the far longer duration of observation in King County and a more direct involvement wit h t he project , t he cas e s t udy in King Count y was organized differently. T he details of the research design were for mulated parallel to the author’s work there, so this case study involved retrospective and inquiry phases. After six months project participation at King County, there were several meetings, telephone calls, and written correspondence with project st aff t o discuss sp ecific quest ions relat ed t o project hist or y, design, and implementation.
T he preliminar y evaluation of documents and an ongoing exchange of discussions and/or e-mail to discuss various questions, permitted a solid entry into the complexity of each county’s design approach before p ar ticip ant observat ion. T he design document s for each count y were examined and evaluated in ter ms of Hofstede’s framework. Flood protection planning was chosen for more detailed examination because of the similarity of this mandate in both counties.
De s igns on docume nts and de s igns in practice Design documents Both King County and Kreis Osnabrück started their respective GIS projects in 1989. King Count y’s GIS design beg an aft er sever al failed at t empt s, characterized by break-downs in negotiations. Kreis Osnabr ück’s design (see Figu re 2) involves a detailed examination of two dep ar tments’ mandates
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 3 7
(regional planning and environment al prot ect ion) t hat focus ses on t he identification of tasks the county GIS should support.
Kreis Osnabr ück’s design relies s t rongly on s t andards , p ar t icularly legislated standards. ATKIS – Automatisierte Topographisch-Kartographische Infor mationssystem (automated topographic and cartographic infor mation system) is the most important standard for Kreis Osnabrück. State law requires that all public administration geographic data be available in ATKIS format. It is an object-oriented data model for provision of vectorized topographic data at
Figure 2 . Example of task
analysis used in the design of KRIS (Der
Oberkreisdirektor, 1993b)
Anlaβ – Gemeinden – Private – Behörden
Rückfragen
Unterlagen Planauszüge
Prüfung der Unterlagen
ergänzende Unterlagen Unterlagen
Planauszug
F01 F02
Beteiligung anderer Stellen
graph. und Aplhainform.
Abgleich mit Fachplänen u. Fachaussagen Überlagerung
aufbereitete und strukturierte
Informationen
F06
Erarbeitung der GenehmigungBescheid
Erfassung der betroffenen
Flächen
Übernahme in das Kataster
aufbereitete und strukturierte
Informationen
aufbereitete und strukturierte
Informationen
F09
F10
F05 Feststellung der
räumlichen Zuornung und des
Vorhabenumfanges
F07
F04
F03
Externer Antragsteller
F08
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 3 8
three scales: 1:25,000, 1:200,000 and 1:1,000,000. This acronym is also used to refer t o dat a provided by agencies in t his for mat , p ar t icularly t he st at e surveying departments. Other standards and guidelines are also of importance: ALK – Automatisierte Liegenschaftskataster (automated property cadastre) is t he st andard for t he aut omat izat ion of t he Gr undbuch (prop er t y book). MERKIS, the Maßstaborientierte Einheitliche Raumbezugsbasis für Kommunale Informationssysteme (map scale orientated uniform spatial co-ordination basis for communal infor mation systems) lays the conceptual g roundwork for developing GIS in an ongoing project to simplify German public administration. GIS occupies a central role in this reform as the replacement of diverse maps and centralization of information. It describes GIS at the communal level as a “…geographic database for agency specific, spatial communal infor mation systems based on the national coordinate system, a unified data model for all t op og r aphic and agency sp ecific sp at ial dat a…” (Der Oberkreisdirekt or Landkreis Osnabr ück, 1990). (See Table I for a comp ar is on of des ign organization and data models.)
T he reliance on st andards fit s Hofst ede’s high uncer t aint y avoidance characteristic for Germanic national culture. The organization of design and implementation further underscores the workflow bureaucratic approach. Kreis Osnabrück’s GIS design documents lay out a plan that involves three phases. In the first phase, questions regarding administrative functions (following the resp ective legal mandates) and problems with the available car tog r aphic products were raised. The results were the basis for the detailed breakdown of administrative functions into tasks and objects. T hese tasks and objects are
Kreis Osnabrück King County
Organization Lead agency is the information system The information system department of department of the county government. Various county transit agency (recently merged into working groups are co-ordinated by a newly the county government) is the lead agency. created position. GIS database design is Two committees accompany the project. GIS carried out in the responsible agency together design is coordinated with other agencies, with a central coordinating group municipalities, and corporations following ATKIS (Landkreis Osnabrück, (Municipality of Seattle, 1993). Der Oberkreisdirektor, 1993b) Data model (base layers) Provided and defined largely by the national No explicit data modelling in the conceptual standards ATKIS, ALK, and MERKIS. design documents. In all there are 72 layers. Extensions are for county purposes and The most important are: already listed in the object catalog. Agencies Survey control can extend the data model when needed in a Public land survey system given scheme Street network
Property Political
Table I. Comparison of design organization and data models
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 3 9
finally implemented du ring the last st age of design, when all issues and conflicts are to be worked out.
Reflecting the role of negotiations, King County’s GIS design process is far more complicat ed. Alt hough it followed commonly accept ed GIS design procedure (needs assessment, conceptual design, pilot study), the autonomy of p ar t icip at ing agencies and count y p olit ics led t o a ver y convolut ed development. The final design (see Figure 3) involves a project that constructs
Figure 3 . Design for KC-GIS
(Municipality of Seattle, 1993)
Common operating system standards
Future core GIS applications
Common data standards and database design
Other jurisdictions
Department-specific applications and
data
Common user interface
King County coordinated GIS program
Metro core GIS
King County core GIS
City of Seattle parcel and street data
Puget Power parcel and street data
Other data
Shared data network
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 4 0
the core data layers and infrastr ucture, but then stops there, leaving many issues op en t o fu r t her negot iat ion. T he cent r al g roup in King Count y is basically a steering committee. There is no regulation or standardization for the county GIS. The GIS design activities fit Hofstede’s characterization of a village market.
As this suggests, the design of KC-GIS was, not surprisingly, complicated and convoluted. This brief overview of the development of the GIS design offers some insights into the myriad actors involved in design. After an inter nal proposal for a GIS fell apart due to internal strife, PlanGraphics was called in to carry out the design. Their project began with a needs assessment. The basic tenet of the PlanGraphics needs assessment report points to the requirement for coordination and a centralized organization. They are the presumed basis for effectively using GIS technology that provides information and services to fulfil county administrative and gover nmental functions. T he design paradigm follows the line that because depar tmental functions and infor mation are dependent and related to other departments, a centralization of the functions and infor mation in a county GIS would improve the effectiveness of King County’s administration.
T he Needs Assessment rep or t (1992d), adopt ing a st r at eg y of limit ed centralization, focussed mostly on elaborating county needs for a GIS in terms of common, shared, and agency sp ecific applicat ions. T he int ent was t o determine which elements of a single department’s applications were common with other departments.
The PlanGraphics GIS design proposal left a great many issues unresolved. These gaps required an exhaustive study of the conceptual design document and discussions with the various agencies to design a project that would fulfill objectives: in other words, establishing the playing field and negotiation. Starting with the PlanGraphics documents, a special group in the Information Systems Department of Metro prepared a scoping report (1993) with a more exhaustive overview of design, but left the implementation to inter-agency negotiation. Maintenance questions were left open for even later negotiation.
Many potential GIS applications identified in the PlanGraphics reports were later eliminated, because the budget for the project was reduced from US$20 million to US$6.8 million. The project’s focus was reduced to the creation of the infrastructure and essential layers for a county GIS. After successful creation, responsibility for the layers would retur n to the “stakeholders”. From the PlanGraphics proposal only the names of the essential layers remained. T he contents of the layers were left open to negotiation. The reduction in funding without a cor responding redefinition of mission and vague descriptions of mandates meant the design stage had to continue into the implementation phase, necessit at ing yet fu r t her negot iat ions. T his fit s Hofs t ede’s characterization of Anglo-American culture perfectly.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 4 1
Design practice Each count y’s design document s st op shor t of ident ifying s p ecific GIS operations or functions required to prepare data or carry out parts of a task. It is clear that in King County the preparation of design documents and the negotiation of implementation are inextricable. However, there was no exact indication before the participant observation in Kreis Osnabrück if the design documents were rigorously followed or received permanent residence in the county archives. The evidence from the design documents supported Hofstede’s findings that, given the high uncertainty avoidance in Germanic culture, Kreis Osnabr ück rigorously follows standards and regulations. However, the actual process of getting the design to work remains obscure.
Indeed, the case study indicates that the actual practice of GIS design in Kreis Osnabr ück differs considerably from Hofstede’s char acterization of Ger manic national culture and the suggested procedures described in the des ign document s. Basically, t he research findings s uggest t hat t he transformation of regulations to design and implementation occurs in Kreis Os nabr ück t hrough negot iat ion. T his was relat ed by means of s ever al examples. A good example is the case of database software. The object-oriented database software was abandoned by the company writing. Lacking it, the entire software design had to be reworked around an off-the-shelf product. This change was worked out through negotiations between participating agencies. Problems arose almost daily during implementation, requiring quick action and alterations.
Contr asted with Kreis Osnabr ück, with only an implicit fr amework of regulations and guidelines for GIS design and implementation, the design of King County’s GIS project relies heavily on negotiations between departments. Since design work concludes only by pointing out the many loose ends to be dealt with by the respective departments (PlanGraphics, 1992b), negotiation will always be the crucial step in project design. The puzzle pieces, illustrating how different par ts of the county GIS should “fall into place”, in Figure 3, suggest graphically the importance negotiations have even at the end of formal design.
Comparison of flood protection planning T he detailed examination of the use of GIS for flood protection planning, a mandate similar in both counties, illustrates the influence of national culture on infor mation system design. In both counties, flood protection planning is formulated in regulations (laws, legal codes, ordinances). Its goal is to reduce human and environmental risk by designating areas (i.e. flood plains) that cannot be built on, or only under certain circumstances. The design of GIS to support this planning reflects the national cultural dimensions. In both counties the practice of flood protection planning is a result of negotiations that makes do with existing constraints.
Flood protection planning in both counties is by overlaying transparent maps. The GIS implementation foreseen to support this mandate does not alter
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 4 2
this procedure in any way. GIS overlay will be used in the same way as the overlay of map transparencies is used now. T he results of the overlay, now displayed on a computer monitor, are reviewed by a planner in the same manner.
Flood protection planning is legally and administratively different in both countries. In Kreis Osnabr ück it is defined in laws and administrative guides that define the regulations that must be fulfilled. The design of the GIS on paper reflects these laws and guides. The practice follows the established experience in dealing with planning projects. In King County the ordinances leave most of the GIS design op en. In essence, the ordinances only define criteria. T he application, design, and implementation are left open to the responsible agency. T he GIS implementation basically requires the digitization of the respective plans, and automatization of the overlay operation. T he agency is consulted during the earliest negotiations to determine that the base county data layers include the flood protection zones.
T he differences in GIS design documents for flood protection planning fit Hofstede’s national cultu r al uncer tainty avoidance char acteristics. Kreis Osnabr ück develops the GIS operations around established regulations and King County employs GIS overlay in a manner consistent with the agency’s established practices following agreements negotiated with the other county agencies. The importance of negotiations in Kreis Osnabrück still applies to the pr act ice of designing t he flood prot ect ion planning. Clearly t here is a discrep ancy bet ween org anizat ional s elf-repres ent at ion (t hat Hofs t ede describes) and the actual practice of design in Kreis Osnabrück.
Diffe re nt docume nts and practice s Whereas the importance of negotiation suffuses the entire process of preparing design documents and bringing them into agreement with the diverse interests of multiple county agencies in King County, the GIS design in Kreis Osnabrück appears to follow strictly the three-stage design process laid out at the onset of the project. The design practice in King County is in fact characterized by the negotiations Hofstede identified and explained as low uncertainty avoidance. On the other hand, the participant observation in Kreis Osnabrück turns up an int erest ing cont r adict ion bet ween document s and pr act ice. Alt hough regulations dominate the representation of design in documents, all insights into the practice of design suggested the strong role played by negotiations. However, although negotiations are so important, they still occur in the context of fulfilling standards and regulations for the most part. Ad hoc design occurs, but is downplayed, even when it means a complete alteration of the information system architecture. T hese differences in the GIS design approaches at the conceptual level go back to Kreis Osnabr ück’s reliance on standards and regulations (ATKIS, ALK, MERKIS), whereas King County develops their GIS from the ground up.
Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions of information system design are clearly recognizable in each county’s GIS design documents. Kreis Osnabrück describes its GIS in terms of a clear and concise framework of laws, regulations,
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 4 3
and accept ed st andard op er at ing procedu res. Before any product or GIS function is implemented in this Ger man context, it is first for malized and codified.
At a very early and obscured phase this usually involves negotiations (for example the modified ATKIS used in Kreis Osnabrück), but these negotiations are complet ed before t he for malizat ion of t he design and accept ed as regulations by other institutions. This reliance on regulations slows down the development of the county GIS to the rate at which regulations can be put in place.
King County, on the other hand, continually negotiates the design and implementation of the county GIS. The loose ends in the design documents and the importance awarded “stakeholders” interests reflect the “village market” approach. Piece-by-piece, p or t ions of t he count y GIS are ag reed t o and implemented. This leaves design issues and, in particular, maintenance issues op en or, simply, unresolved until implementation, reflecting the national cultural characteristics that lean towards negotiation as a design strategy. Design documents are just another part of negotiations. Agreement is only established for a very limited portion of the whole GIS design. Additionally, the vagueness of the design documents also leaves many courses of action open, requiring negotiations before any fu r ther work is done. Because of these complexities, the agencies still operate largely from one another.
Missing the representation of design and the practice of design in Hofstede’s framework may result from the respective cultural emphasis on negotiations or regulations. In Kreis Osnabrück the GIS is implemented by fulfilling standards. In King County work on the design aims to fulfil negotiated requirements and retain institutional and disciplinary positions, and ensure a viable position for future rounds of negotiations. The work practice in the Kreis Osnabrück project was in fact strongly compar tmentalized according to the regulations they needed to implement. Due to this compar tmentalization, much work was required t o resolve discrep ancies bet ween different regulat ions and constructing working GIS software. Even in this compartmentalized world of German public administration, individuals rely on a web of contacts with co- workers and knowledgeable outsiders in the practice of design. T his non- formalized part of GIS design remains a tacit component of their work lives and is scarcely mentioned in discussions. Regulations are essential in a formalized hierarchy. Informal meetings and arrangements with coworkers and outsiders are only the backdrops for design activities. The dominant view is that if these practices do not culminate in regulations, they are not important to the project, nor worth reporting.
T he project manager in Kreis Osnabr ück was aware of these issues and conundrums. He indicated the difficulties of implementing broad standards and pragmatically solving the problems of implementation. In his words, “Kreis Osnabr ück strives for an 80 per cent solution” (Remme, 1995). Although the documents reflect the uncertainty avoidance of Germanic national culture, the design practice clearly shows the necessity of negotiation to get things to work, even just 80 per cent.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 4 4
Summary and conclus ion Regardless of national culture, the diversity of perspectives and purposes in any public administration means the design of an infor mation system will always require some type of negotiation. Regulations shift the focal points, and lend a strong str uctu re, but even regulations are ultimately implemented through some form of negotiation. Hofstede’s national cultural characteristics seem to be a good indicator of cultural values and representation, but not of practice.
In King County negotiations and renegotiations of the GIS are ongoing. Compared to Kreis Osnabrück, the county GIS is not as stable, but agencies are extremely flexible in their response to institutional, legislative, and political cont ingencies. In Ger many is s ues are negot iat ed and t hen codified as regulations or laws. The results are robust institutional solutions that offer an explicit framework, but bind the agencies involved to already established approaches t hat can lead t o idiosyncr at ic s olut ions. New applicat ions , consequences, and new actors’ roles must be addressed and for malized in existing institutional str uctures before action is taken. T his takes up many inst it ut ional resou rces and delays t he res p onse of inst it ut ions t o new opportunities.
In the strong hier archy of Ger man public administration, emphasis on regulat ions and fulfilling leg al mandat es dominat es t he p ar t icip ant s ’ represent at ion of des ign act ivit ies. T his at t est s t o t he high uncer t aint y avoidance in Germanic cultures that Hofstede identified. The centralization of information in Kreis Osnabrück contrasted with diffusion in King County also corresponds to the complementary measures of infor mation codification or diffusion. In a culture so engrossed with regulations, it is no wonder the outside observer, employing quantitative research techniques, only turns up the aspects emphasized by the national culture. Going beneath the veneer of regulations and st andards t o t he pr act ice of des ign reveals a complex pr act ice of negotiation and ad hoc problem solving. In spite of the emphasis on regulations and standards, the actual work constr ucting the GIS in Kreis Osnabr ück involves negotiations as much as regulations.
Qualit at ive research can lead t o valuable insight s t hat illuminat e t he influence national culture has on information design practice. Benefiting from technology requires broadening our cultural understanding at the theoretical and practical levels (Kaye and Little, 1996). The ethnographic case studies of King County and Kreis Osnabrück show that, in spite of similarities, national cult u r al fact or s help explain design pr act ice as well as t he for mal representation of design. The GIS techniques used (overlay of flood protection zones) may well be similar, but national cultural values lead to completely different designs of GIS technology.
T he finding that negotiations are cr ucial to design pr actice in both the count ies bear s fu r t her research t owards a reconsider at ion of Hofst ede’s framework. It suggests Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture are a good basis for understanding the influence of national culture on organizations’ self-
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
National cultural differences
1 4 5
representation, but miss the actual practice of social activities. Hofstede warned against the tendency to understand cultural out of the context of one’s own national culture, but clearly focusses too strongly on the theoretical dimensions of abstracting culture’s influence to organizations which veiled the nitty-gritty of design practice. T his may rise from Hofstede’s theoretical emphasis on systematic approaches in sociology (i.e. Parsons) that discount the individual. An ethnographic-based reconsideration of Hofstede’s framework is necessary. Essent ial in t his t ask is an emphasis on negot iat ions and t he web of relationships between cultures, institutions, and disciplines in practice.
Re fe re nce s and furthe r re ading Albrow, M. (1990), Max Weber’s Construction of Social T heor y, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY. Anderson, R.J. (1994), “Representations and requirements: the value of ethnography in system
design”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 9, pp. 151-82. Berry, B.J.L. (1989), “Comparative geography of the global economy: cultures, corporations and
the nation state”, Economic Geography, Vol. 65, pp. 1-18. Boisot, M. (1987), Infor mation and Organizations: T he Manager as Anthropologist, Fontana,
London. Clifford, J. and Marcus G.D. (Eds) (1986), Writing Culture. T he Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Der Oberkreisdirekt or Landkreis Osnabr ück (1990), Das Kommunale Raumbezogene
Informationssystem (KRIS) Eine Arbeitspapier zur Realisierung, Referat A, Osnabrück. Der Oberkreisdirekt or Landkreis Osnabr ück (1992a), Situationsber icht 12/2/92, Der
Oberkreisdirektor, Osnabrück. Der Oberkreisdirekt or Landkreis Osnabr ück (1992b), Das Kommunale Raumbezogene
Infor mationssystem Osnabr ück (K RIS) Gemeinsamer Abschlußber icht der Projekt- und Entwicklergruppe (Final Report) 20 May1992, Der Oberkreisdirektor, Osnabrück.
Der Oberkreisdirekt or Landkreis Osnabr ück (1993a), Fachkonzept (Ent wu r f), Der Oberkreisdirektor, Osnabrück.
Der Oberkreisdirektor Landkreis Osnabr ück (1993b), Lösungsvorschlag, Der Oberkreisdirektor, Osnabrück.
Der Oberkreisdirektor Landkreis Osnabr ück (1993c), Systemkonzept, Landkreis Osnabr ück, Osnabrück.
Emerson, R.M., Fretz R.I. and Shaw, L.L. (1995), Wr iting Ethnographic Fieldnotes, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Geertz, C. (1973), T he Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, NY. Gould, M. (1994), “GIS design: a hermeneutic view”, Photogrammetr ic Engineer ing and Remote
Sensing, Vol. 60 No. 9, pp. 1105-15. Harvey, F. (1995), “National and organizational cultures in geographic information system design:
a t ale of t wo count ies”, in Peuquet , D. (Ed.), Pr oceedings of the Twelf th Inter national Symposium on Computer-Assisted Cartography (AutoCarto 12), Charlotte, ACSM/ASPRS, Charlotte, NC, pp. 197-206.
Hayek, F. (1952, 1979), T he Counter-Revolution of Science, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, IN. Hirschhorn, L. (1984), Beyond Mechanization. Work and Technology in a Postindustrial Age, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences. Inter national Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Jordan, E. (1994), “National and organisational culture: their use in information systems design”,
Faculty of Business, Report, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
ITP 10,2
1 4 6
Kaye, R. and Little, S.E. (1996), “Global business and cross-cultural infor mation systems: technical and institutional dimensions of diffusion”, Infor mation Technology and People, Vol. 9 No. 3.
King County Metropolitan Services (1994), “King County Consolidated GIS Project Requirements Specification”, (Report KCReqs1a.mac) 10/18/94, King County, Seattle, WA.
King County Metropolitan Services (1995a), Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P CS/M03-95), January 1995, King County Metropolitan Services, Seattle.
King County Metropolitan Services (1995b), “Agreement for professional services for the King Count y GIS Project Dat a Conversion”, Cont ract No. CS/M03-95 bet ween King Count y Department of Metropolitan Services and Smartscan, Inc., WA.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951), “Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition and classification”, in Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (Eds), Toward a General T heor y of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kluckhohn, C. (1962), “Universal categories of culture”, in Tax, S. (Eds.), Anthropology Today, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Landkreis Osnabrück Regionalplanung (1989), Die Möglichkeit der Einführung eines graphischen I nfor mationssytems auf der Gr undlage von AT K I S beim Landkr eis Osnabr ück, Regionalplanung, Osnabrück.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979), Laborator y Life: T he Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Municipality of Seattle (1993), King County GIS Scoping Project, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Nelson, A. (1994), “How could scientific facts be socially constr ucted?”, Studies in Histor y and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 535-47.
Onsr ud, H.J., Pinto, J.K., and Azad, B. (1992), “Case study research methods for geog raphic information systems”, URISA Jour nal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
Parsons, T. (1951), T he Social System, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (1951), Toward a General T heor y of Action, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA. Plangraphics (1992a), King County GIS Benefit/Cost Report, PlanGraphics, Frankfort. Plangraphics (1992b), King County GIS Conceptual Design, PlanGraphics, Frankfort. Plang raphics (1992c), K ing County GIS Implementation and Funding Plan, PlanGraphics,
Frankfort. Plangraphics (1992d), “King County GIS Needs Assessment/Applications”, Working Paper,
PlanGraphics, Frankfort, KY. Remme, T. (1995), “The GIS of Kreis Osnabrück”, (Interview) August 17-19. Scherder, B. (1995), “Flood Protection Zones in Kreis Osnabrück” (Interview), August 18. Schulze, T. and Remme, T. (1995), “Kommunale Anwendungen beim Landkreis Osnabr ück”, in
Kopfstahl and Sellge, H. (Eds) (1995), Das Geoinformationssystem ATKIS und seine Nutzung in Wirtschaft und Verwaltung, Niedersächisches Landesvermessungsamt, Hannover, pp. 193-8.
Smartscan, I. (1995), Scope of Work for King County, Smartscan Inc., Seattle, WA. Weber, M. (1946), “Bureaucracy”, in Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (Eds), From Max Weber: Essays
in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp, 196-224. Weber, M. (1947), T he T heor y of Social and Economic Organization, (trans. Henderson, Parsons,
A.M. and Talcott), 1st American edition, The Free Press, New York, NY. Willamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, Free Press,
New York, NY. Williams, R. (1976), “Culture”, Keywords, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wixon, D. and Ramey, J. (1996), Field Methods for Software and Systems Design, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Chuleeporn Changchit, Ravi Lonkani, Jomjai Sampet. 2018. Determinants of Mobile Banking Adoption. Journal of Global Information Management 26:4, 158-184. [Crossref]
2. Uta Schloegel, Sebastian Stegmann, Rolf van Dick, Alexander Maedche. 2018. Age stereotypes in distributed software development: The impact of culture on age-related performance expectations. Information and Software Technology 97, 146-162. [Crossref]
3. Michael Elliot, Margaret Cullen, Andre P. Calitz. 2018. Happiness among South African private sector physiotherapists. South African Journal of Physiotherapy 74:1. . [Crossref]
4. Jochen Albrecht. GIS Project Management 446-477. [Crossref] 5. Sathasivam Mathiyalakan, Kevin K.W. Ho, George E. Heilman, Wai K. Law. 2017. An Investigation into the Impact of
Ethnicity and Culture on the Motivation for using Facebook for Academics and Socialization in Guam. International Journal of Systems and Service-Oriented Engineering 7:4, 1-21. [Crossref]
6. Rukshan Alexander, Nik Thompson, David Murray. 2017. Towards cultural translation of websites: a large-scale study of Australian, Chinese, and Saudi Arabian design preferences. Behaviour & Information Technology 36:4, 351-363. [Crossref]
7. Omar Khalil, Laila Marouf. 2017. A Cultural Interpretation of Nations’ Readiness for Knowledge Economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 8:1, 97-126. [Crossref]
8. Taran Patel. 2017. Multiparadigmatic Studies of Culture: Needs, Challenges, and Recommendations for Management Scholars. European Management Review 14:1, 83-100. [Crossref]
9. Asadullah Khan, Maqsood Sandhu. 2016. Benchmarking national culture and decent work practice indicators in project- based industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:3, 490-518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Klaes Eringa, Laura N. Caudron, Kathrin Rieck, Fei Xie, Tobias Gerhardt. 2015. How relevant are Hofstede's dimensions for inter-cultural studies? A replication of Hofstede's research among current international business students. Research in Hospitality Management 5:2, 187. [Crossref]
11. Siti Mardiana. An integrated framework for measuring information system success considering the impact of culture in Indonesia 226-232. [Crossref]
12. Vivian W.Y. Tam, S.X. Zeng. 2014. Employee job satisfaction in engineering firms. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 21:4, 353-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Stefan Tams. 2013. Moving cultural information systems research toward maturity. Information Technology & People 26:4, 383-400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Steve Wallace, Adrian Reid, Daniel Clinciu, Jin‐Su Kang. 2013. Culture and the importance of usability attributes. Information Technology & People 26:1, 77-93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Ya-Ching Lee, Pin-Yu Chu, Hsien-Lee Tseng. 2012. Cross-National and Cross-Industrial Comparison of ICT-Enabled Business Process Management and Performance. Journal of Global Information Management 20:2, 44-66. [Crossref]
16. Falguni Mukherjee, Rina Ghose. 2012. Exploring the Complexities of Community Engaged GIS. International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research 3:4, 87-102. [Crossref]
17. Daniel Pacheco Lacerda. 2011. Cultura organizacional: sinergias e alergias entre Hofstede e Trompenaars. Revista de Administração Pública 45:5, 1285-1301. [Crossref]
18. Michael Vieregge, Simon Quick. 2011. Cross‐cultural negotiations revisited. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 18:3, 313-326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Falguni Mukherjee, Rina Ghose. 2011. Tracing the Historic Trajectory of GIS Development and Its Effects on Contemporary Practices. Journal of Urban Technology 18:3, 141-158. [Crossref]
20. Gillian Oliver. National culture 33-64. [Crossref] 21. Omar E. M. Khalil, Ahmed Seleim. 2010. Culture and Knowledge Transfer Capacity. International Journal of Knowledge
Management 6:4, 60-86. [Crossref] 22. Piers Steel, Vasyl Taras. 2010. Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual
and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management 16:3, 211-233. [Crossref] 23. Vincent M. Ribière, Maliha Haddad, Philippe Vande Wiele. 2010. The impact of national culture traits on the usage of web
2.0 technologies. VINE 40:3/4, 334-361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 24. Omar E. M. Khalil, Ahmed Seleim. 2010. National Culture Practices and Societal Information Dissemination Capacity.
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 09:02, 127-144. [Crossref] 25. Hoi Yan Cheung, Alex Wing Ho Chan. 2010. Education and competitive economy: how do cultural dimensions fit in?. Higher
Education 59:5, 525-541. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
26. Fabienne Knudsen, Lisa Loloma Froholdt. 2009. The consequences of “culture’s consequences”: A critical approach to culture as collective programming applied to cross-cultural crews. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 8:2, 105-121. [Crossref]
27. Ali Osman Ozturk, James E. Swiss. 2008. Implementing management tools in Turkish public hospitals: the impact of culture, politics and role status. Public Administration and Development 28:2, 138-148. [Crossref]
28. Alex W.H. Chan, Hoi Yan Cheung. 2008. Common Cultural Relationships in Corporate Governance across Developed and Emerging Financial Markets. Applied Psychology 57:2, 225-245. [Crossref]
29. Philippa Ashton, Jian Ye Deng. 2008. An Investigation of the Transferability of Design Management Education from the UK to China. Design Management Journal 3:1, 8-16. [Crossref]
30. Hoi Yan Cheung, Alex W. H. Chan. 2007. How Culture Affects Female Inequality Across Countries: An Empirical Study. Journal of Studies in International Education 11:2, 157-179. [Crossref]
31. Darren Lee‐Ross. 2004. A preliminary cross‐cultural study of occupational community dimensions and hotel work. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 11:4, 77-90. [Abstract] [PDF]
32. Terje I. Vaaland, Sven A. Haugland, Sharon Purchase. 2004. Why Do Business Partners Divorce? The Role of Cultural Distance in Inter-Firm Conflict Behavior. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 11:4, 1-21. [Crossref]
33. Kallol Bagchi, Paul Hart, Mark F. Peterson. 2004. National Culture and Information Technology Product Adoption. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 7:4, 29-46. [Crossref]
34. Shimon L. Dolan, Miriam Díez-Piñol, MariLuz Fernández-Alles, Antonio Martín-Prius, Salustiano Martínez-Fierro. 2004. Exploratory Study of within-Country Differences in Work and Life Values. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 4:2, 157-180. [Crossref]
35. Gillian Oliver. 2003. Cultural Dimensions of Information Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 02:01, 53-61. [Crossref]
36. B.A. Reinig, R.J. Mejias. An investigation of the influence of national culture and group support systems on group processes and outcomes 10 pp.. [Crossref]
37. Mary Helen Fagan. 2001. Global Information Technology Transfer: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 4:3, 5-26. [Crossref]
38. Alon Peled. 2001. Network, coalition and institution ‐ The politics of technological innovation in the public sector. Information Technology & People 14:2, 184-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. M. Gordon Hunter, John E. Beck. 2000. Using Repertory Grids to Conduct Cross-Cultural Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 11:1, 93-101. [Crossref]
40. Roberto J. Mejias, Jonathan W. Palmer, Michael G. Harvey. 1999. Emerging Technologies, IT Infrastructure, and Economic Development in Mexico. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 2:1, 31-54. [Crossref]
41. Omar E. M. Khalil, Ahmed Seleim. Culture and Knowledge Transfer Capacity 305-332. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC T
O R
IA U
N IV
E R
SI T
Y (A
us tr
al ia
) A t 2
1: 25
1 4
A ug
us t 2
01 8
(P T
)
