Do Business Intelligence Systems Enforce Organizational Coordination Mechanisms?



Please Coordination is intended as managing dependencies between activities such as, in particular, decision-making support, decisional decentralization and reduced centralization of information power, internal communication and collaboration and sharing and divulgation of knowledge. By improving all these activities, enterprises are able to create efficient and effective coordination mechanisms and consequently reduce costs and organizational complexity. The research question of this study aims at verifying if Business Intelligence Systems (BISs) are actually able to strengthen the existing coordination mechanisms, i.e., make them more efficient and less costly. The research method is an empirical research of 30 cases of enterprises with a large number of users of a BIS. Early findings reveal that BISs are mainly considered as technological tools, with little relevance being attributed to their potential in terms of facilitators of coordination mechanisms between actors.


Internal Communication Knowledge Sharing Coordination Mechanism Business Intelligence Competitive Intelligence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barnard, C.I. (1964) The Functions of Executive. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson, J. (1967) Organization in Action. Mc Graw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galbraith, J.R. (1977) Organization Design. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies. McMillan, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciborra, C., Avgerou, C., and Land, F. (2004) The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malone T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994) The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys 26(1):87–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markus, M.L. and Robey, D. (1988) Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science, Vol 34, No 5, pp 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zubov, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rockart, J.F. and Short, J.E. (1989) IT and the networked organizations: Toward more effective management of interdependence Iin Management in the 1990s Research Program Final Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orlikowski, W.J. (1992) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3):398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simonin, B.L. (1997) The Importance of Collaborative Know-How: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5):1150–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2002) Knowledge Manipulation Activities: Results of a Delphi Study. Information and Management, 39(6):477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hartono, E. and Holsapple, C. (2004) Theoretical foundations for collaborative commerce research and practice. Information Systems and E-business Management, Springer-Verlag, Vol 2, pp 1–30.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsui, E, (2003) Tracking the role and evolution of commercial knowledge management. software In Holsapple CW (ed) Handbook on Knowledge Management: Volume 2 Berlin: Springer, 2003 pp 5–27.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leidner, D.E. and Kayworth, T. (2006) A review of culture in information system research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30 (2):357–399.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kemper, H. and Baars, H. (2006) Business Intelligence und Competitive Intelligence – IT – basierte Managementunterst tzung und markt-/wettbewerbsorientierte Anwendungen In: Kemper, H., Heilmann, H. and Baars, H. (2006) Business and Competitive Intelligence, Dpunkt, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Negas, S. and Gray, P. (2003) Business Intelligence. Proceedings of the Ninth American Conference on Information Systems. Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eckerson, W.W. (2006) Performance Dashboards. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davenport, T. D. (2006) Competing on Analytics. Harward Business Review.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arnott, D. and Pervan G. (2005) A Critical Analysis of Decision Support Systems Research. Journal of Information Technology, 20(2): 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomsen, E. (2003) BI’s Promised Land. Intelligent Enterprise, Vol 6 4:21–25.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moss, L.T. and Atre, S. (2003) Business Intelligence Roadmap: The Complete Project Lifecycle for Decision-Support Applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università di VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations