A holistic concept and framework for infrastructure

Star and Ruhleder in 1996 introduced a new concept in studying infrastructure and argued that infrastructure is something that already existed, ran and operated. This Infrastructure is also described as a relational interaction among different subjects, meaning that infrastructure of one particular subject is another subject’s matter. Furthermore, Star and Ruhleder (1996) also argued that infrastructure can be visible when the tension between local and global is resolved meaning that when affected practices are resolved it functions invisibly and shapes infrastructure. This is because infrastructure is something that is already built and maintained. It is standardised in the sense that it solves the conflicting practices and is involved in technological and social practices that provide transparent processes and operations to the community of practice.

Furthermore, Star and Ruhleder (1996) emphasised that there is no beginning of infrastructure as infrastructure is something that is already installed and built as a base and is sunk invisibly with other subjects. For example, one subject could be infrastructure to another subject in terms of advantages and/or complexities. Furthermore, Star and Ruhleder (1996) emphasised that there is no fixed or universal definition for infrastructure as infrastructure is something invisible and only becomes visible once it breaks or fails to function properly.

Hence, the concept of infrastructure developed by Star and Ruhleder (1996) reflects that infrastructure is the understanding of the relationships between systems, networks, work practice, and organisations where all standards, processes, procedures and stakeholders are involved and become

84

infrastructure to each other. Karasti et al (2010: 380) described the concept of infrastructure by Star and Ruhleder (1996) as:

“A multifaceted concept referring to interrelated technical, social and organisational arrangements involving hardware and software technologies, standards, procedures, practices and policies together with digital configurations in support of human communication and capabilities.”

This broad understanding implies that the meaning of infrastructure is based on an integral perspective. This is because it is the involvement of technological, social, organisational and managerial and any other related aspects such as political or economical that has a relational influence on infrastructure when investigating large scale technical systems. This understanding of infrastructure’s meaning found agreement among other scholars such as Bowker et al. (2010) who defined infrastructure as a set of shared technological aspects that are installed to facilitate vast services and procedures to society. In addition, Star (1999) emphasised that these shared aspects of infrastructure are relational which concern any subject that is already invisible and ready to hand which means that infrastructure of one organisation is the demand of others (Star, 1999). Furthermore, Cordella (2010) used Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) concept to emphasise that there is a gap which requires filling. Not only should infrastructure be described or measured as processes and performances in term of stability and manageability but it should be understood in terms of the dynamic interactions and relations of infrastructure’s related action, such as the dynamic relations between technology and society, in terms of impact on each other. In addition, Hanseth and Monteiro (1998) defined infrastructure as the interconnection of collected computer networks and associated services that already exists and has extended throughout time.

Also Hanseth and Monteiro (1998) emphasised that the technological tools which are mixed with social, organisational and managerial aspects are found necessary for bringing the integral prospect of understanding infrastructure and this can be through understanding the inter-operational and commitment impact of multi aspects which occur among a diversity of different interconnected systems, groups, and instruments. Furthermore, Henningsson and Henriksen (2009) inspired by the definition by Star and Ruhdler (1996) have defined infrastructure from the interorganisational domain as the range and nature of

85

internal relationships and interactions between and within organisations and between different parties of different systems that electronically work together to deliver services and exchange information. This interorganisational environment also combines both technological and organisational characteristics that consist of trade association, supply chain, software providers and standards organisations, etc.

Star and Ruhleder (1996) suggested eight dimensions to study infrastructure.

These are: (1) built on an installed base, (2) embeddedness, (3) transparency, (4) learned as part of membership, (5) links with conventions of practice, (6) reach or scope, (7) become visible upon breakdown and (8) embodiment of standards. Each of these dimensions investigates a specific aspect in infrastructure which eventually leads to a broad view and a holistic understanding of the infrastructure under investigation. This is because these eight dimensions cover most aspects that need to be considered when studying the infrastructure of any system. These eight dimensions will be discussed in the section below.

(1) Built on an installed base

According to Star and Ruhleder (1996), “Infrastructure does not grow de novo: it wrestles with the "inertia of the installed base" and inherits strengths and limitations from that base. Optical fibres run along old railroad lines; new systems are designed for backward compatibility; and failing to account for these constraints may be fatal or distorting to new development processes (Monteiro, et al. 1994)” (Star & Ruhleder, 1996: 113).

Installed base takes its shape from the nature and roots of the system. It describes chronologically the development of the system and traces its emergence and improvement throughout time. The installed base exists as a result of the sequence of changes occurring in the operations, tasks, work practices and activities before and after the development of the electronic system. Consequentially, installed base inherits the strengths and weaknesses from the existing system’s design, integrations and functions and identifies the existing barriers which hinder the system from being developed (Star and Ruhleder, 1996; Henningsson and Henriksen 2000).

86

Rolland (2000) has a common definition of installed base which defined as the existence of different systems that are installed to stabilise practice, product, structure, network or standards. However, Rolland (2000) explained more the installed base of a manual system’s design such as the paper-based practices which consist of documents, or information cause constrains to the existing design, implementation, or use of the system. This additional explanation of the concept of installed base in Rolland’s (2000) definition sheds light not only on the systems but on the design, implementation, use and practice of the installed base as the invisible issues which concern the design and practice, and become visible when implementing and using the system and which cause constrains to the current installed base.

(2) Embeddedness

Embeddedness dimension refers to technologies, structure, and social arrangements which are designed to shape infrastructure (Star & Ruhleder, 1996). The dimension involves the issues that shape the concept of embeddedness such as existening heterogeneous organisations, systems, social networks, stakeholders, tasks arrangements, policies, standards, or practice that are shaped from either technological, organisational, or social systems. Thus, the concept of embeddedness incorporates various entities, systems, networks, infrastructures, standards, processes, procedures, arrangements, collaborations, practices and users which shape the system’s infrastructure. Bietz et al. (2010) use a common definition of embeddedness in infrastructure, defined as infrastructure which is included within a network, web and arrangement of relationships to other systems. However, they focused on extending the definition of embeddedness to the influence of the arrangement of the relationships to other systems in the sense that good association arrangements between different systems enables infrastructure to provide efficient and useful systems and at the same time poor arrangements between different systems might cause constrains and challenges., Halinen and Tornroos (1998; 2005) defined the concept of embeddedness from a business perspective as the companies’ relations, connectedness, boundaries and dependence with different types of companies and networks. These companies are connected with each other and at the same time they are connected with

87

other various types of network structures, where the second connection influences network evolution in term of the technological, social and political aspects. In addition, Halinen and Tornoroos (1998) have emphasised that embeddedness is an explanation of the change in the relations between, and developments in, business networks.

(3) Transparency

Transparency dimension refers to infrastructure as transparent in the sense that it invisibly supports tasks meaning that the tasks are designed to be achieved without being reinvented or reassembled each time when implementing tasks. Annamalai et al. (2012) defined infrastructure as transparent and it is the means to connect all entities to share information, facts, figures, mechanisms and processes. Although, Annamalai et al. (2012) argued that infrastructure is unpredictable when changes occur from administrative level hence these changes become invisible to some users and should be visible to allow those who are affected by administration, tasks, or practice to understand how infrastructure is shaped to achieve simple and efficient information sharing and practice.

(4) Learned as part of membership

This dimension refers to the learning processes and procedures of a community of practice. It is the way that users familiarise themselves and develop a level of knowledge in the system. It is the interactions and collaborations of new and old comers’ over the tasks, work activities and artefacts which shaped the existing processes of learning, familiarity, beside gaining adequate knowledge, information, and skills that enable them to practice and operate in the large scale system. Also, being a part of membership of a community is the way to learn, taking infrastructure that contains practices and processes of tasks, operation and activities within organisation and in interorganisations or interconnected systems for granted.

This definition is equivalent with that of Talja (2007) who defined communities of practices as the embeddedness of knowledge and information which form the learning within fixed work practices, tasks, and interpersonal exchange among users.

88 (5) Links with conventions of practice

This dimension refers to the way infrastructure both shapes and is shaped by the conventions of practice. It is the production of conventions of practice through their activities on shaping the existing system(s), communication, networks, operations, rules, regulations, work practices and processes. These shaped issues by the conventions of practice in turn reflect the impact of infrastructure on shaping the current issues.

(6) Reach or scope

Star and Ruhleder defined reach or scope as ‘This may be either spatial or temporal infrastructure has reach beyond a single event or one site practice’

(Star & Ruhleder, 1996: 113).

This dimension refers to the accessibility and usability of infrastructure beyond a single site or event. It is the idea of whether the infrastructure fulfilled its role and whether it has a wider applicability, spatially and/or temporally.

The spatial relation refers to the reach of infrastructure from different locations: locally and globally. It is concerned with whether the use of the infrastructure can be reached locally with either a common or different manner of practice, use and ways of implementing, or globally. On the other hand, the temporal relation involves the impact of changes over time in the use and access of infrastructure before, within and after the development or expansion of infrastructure.

(7) Become visible upon breakdown

This dimension refers how the infrastructure works as a taken for grantedness mode which becomes invisible when it is functioning accordingly.

However, infrastructure becomes visible upon breakdown once it fails to function or serve as designated.

(8) Embodiment of standards

This dimension refers to the standards which have been set up to conduct processes, practices or procedures performed in the infrastructure. It is also the

89

standards which have been set up to interconnect other infrastructures or tools in a transparent and standardised fashion. Hence, transparency is a key attribute of how standards are measured. If standards are invisibly supporting tasks and providing interconnected infrastructure and/or tools to functions in a taken for granted fashion then standards are transparent.

Following the introduction of the dimensions established by Star and Ruhleder (1996) in the previous section, it is important to discuss the several strengths and limitations of these dimensions. Firstly, in contrast to the other infrastructure models which discussed the information systems domain and e-government context from a narrow perspective and focused on particular aspects, Star and Ruhleder (1996) took a holistic approach and viewed it from a broad perspective. This is because the framework was developed from a general outlook which allows investigating infrastructure for any large scale system (including varieties of components and dimensions each differing in its characteristics and nature). Therefore, the framework was integral and combined technical and social characteristics of infrastructure which extends to include any other involved aspects such as organisational, managerial, governmental, and business related to infrastructure within the eight dimensions. Secondly, the strength of these dimensions is that they are generalisable and can be applied to any infrastructure such as business, e-government, e-health, e-services, etc. and rather than being limited only to information systems infrastructure. Thirdly, these dimensions are comparable among different contexts. For example, it enables us to understand the commonalities and differences in findings among different systems in different contexts such as the findings of one study that investigates e-health system and another study that investigates e-government system and increases the understanding of the influence of infrastructure among disciplines and contexts.

Lastly, Star and Ruhleder’s eight dimensions of an infrastructure provides in depth knowledge about each dimension within this framework. This is because each dimension discusses a particular aspect of infrastructure and by combining all these dimensions under the umbrella of infrastructure this increases the knowledge and understanding of infrastructure from narrower and broader points of view.

90

It is worth pointing out that the infrastructure framework by Star and Ruhleder (1996) is not without limitations. One weakness of the dimensions is that Star and Ruhleder (1996) defined the dimensions from their perspective however, the meaning of each dimension can be interpreted differently. For example Star and Ruhleder (1996) interpreted the transparency dimension as infrastructure being invisible and not needing to be changed or assembled for each task.

However, transparency can also be interpreted as the level of communication between the different entities or users within the infrastructure that renders the infrastructure to be transparent or not (Annamalai et al., 2012).

It is interesting to note that only a few studies have used Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) infrastructure framework to investigate infrastructure in the information systems and e-government context. One study adopted Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) model in the information systems domain to investigate the relationships between the human and the technological by looking at mobile technologies and conducting work among nomadic workers who essentially depend on mobile technologies (Mark and Su, 2010). The aim of the study was to tackle the challenges of infrastructure invisibility and making infrastructure visible to nomadic workers. The findings revealed significant implications where a lack of knowledge of infrastructure for nomadic workers was found to affect transparency, reach or scope, and the foundation of the installed base. In addition, the dimension of visibility upon breakdown was also found to be visible to some nomadic workers whereas invisible to others. In addition, infrastructure breakdown was found to affect remote collaboration and make infrastructure invisible to those who work remotely. However, their study focused only on local knowledge and suggested exploring further the interwoven relationship between human and technological infrastructures which were found to affect the use of technology among stakeholders. Besides this, the study did not expand more on the challenges which affect social and organisational aspects based on Star and Ruhleder (1996)’s eight properties of infrastructure.

Borgman (2003) adopted Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) infrastructure framework as a foundation to provide a holistic view of the challenges which were undetected in the infrastructure of e-libraries. The dimensions unveiled four challenges found to affect e-libraries’ infrastructures, and they were: (1)

91

invisible infrastructure, (2) content and collection, (3) preservation and access and (4) institutional boundaries. The dimensions were used to provide a brief overview and understanding of the infrastructure of the e-libraries rather than delivering in-depth understanding on the characteristics of properties and how the e-libraries were installed and maintained, plugged into other infrastructures, and shaped the current practice.

In the e-government domain, one study was found to take a holistic approach to investigating the inter-organisational information systems which include public and private sectors (Henningsson and Henriksen, 2009). The study explored challenges of implementing e-custom in Denmark. The study adopted Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) eight dimensions to explore challenges which hinder the development of infrastructure in e-government from an organisational prospective. One major finding of their study was that the organisations favoured the old paper-based/manual system due to the fact that the legacy system was more standardised than the electronic system and its processes.

However, this study has mainly focused on how e-Custom works and used the dimensions of Star and Ruhleder (1996) to provide a brief overview of e-Custom infrastructure rather than an in-depth understanding of the infrastructure of e-Custom using the dimensions proposed by Star and Ruhleder (1996).

3.5 Summary

This chapter reviewed and discussed the existing literature of infrastructure in the information systems domain. The chapter began by reviewing the concept of infrastructure from general and particular (information systems) views. The definition of infrastructure in information systems had four approaches technological, social/human, socio-technical, organisational and managerial aspects. The literature revealed that there is no universal approach that define infrastructure from socio-technical and organisational/managerial approaches to infrastructure. The chapter also reviewed and discussed the existing infrastructure framework in Information system and found a lack in investigating infrastructure from broad understanding due to the existing frameworks are developed to narrowly tackle a particular perspective. The chapter also reviewed and discussed infrastructure and its frameworks in e-government. The

92

review revealed lack of a holistic concept and frameworks when investigating infrastructure in e-government.

In addition, the chapter introduced a holistic framework proposed by Star and Ruhleder (1996). The chapter reviewed and discussed Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) concept of infrastructure. It also discussed their proposed framework which consisted of eight dimensions that explore infrastructure from diverse angles. These dimensions consisted of: (1) built on installed base, (2) embeddedness, (3) Transparency, (4) learned as part of membership, (5) links with conventions of practice, (6) reach or scope, (7) become visible upon breakdown and (8) embodiment of standards. In addition, the chapter discussed the strengths and limitations of these dimensions.

Following is the methodology chapter which describes and discusses the

methodology used for this research study.

93

CHAPTER