Binary trading relations and the limits of EDI standards: the Procrustean bed of standards
- PDF / 263,651 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 598 x 796 pts Page_size
- 43 Downloads / 162 Views
2000 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/00 $15.00 www.stockton-press.co.uk/ejis
Binary trading relations and the limits of EDI standards: the Procrustean bed of standards J Damsgaard1 and D Truex2,3 1
Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark; 2CIS Department, J Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, 33 Broad Street, Atlanta GA, USA; 3Information Systems Institute, The University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK This paper provides a critical examination of electronic data interchange (EDI) standards and their application in different types of trading relationships. It argues that EDI standards are not directly comparable to more stable sets of technical standards in that they are dynamically tested and negotiated in use with each trading exchange. It takes the position that EDI standards are an emergent language form and must mean different things at the institutional and local levels. Using the lens of emergent linguistic analysis it shows how the institutional and local levels must always be distinct and yet can coexist. EDI standards can never represent the creation of an ‘Esperanto of institutional communication’. Instead we believe that standards must be developed such that they support and accommodate general basic grammatical forms that can be customised to individual needs. The analysis is supported by a set of exemplary cases. European Journal of Information Systems (2000) 9, 173–188.
Introduction In Greek mythology the bandit Procrustes would invite people to spend a night in his iron bed. If the unsuspecting victim was shorter than the bed, his body was stretched, hammered or racked to fit. Alternatively, if the victim was longer than the bed, his legs were cut off to fit the bed’s length1. In either event the victim died. Over time the term ‘Procrustean bed’ has become synonymous with arbitrarily—and perhaps ruthlessly—forcing someone or something to fit an unnatural scheme or pattern. The international standards governing interorganizational computer-to-computer electronic data interchange (EDI) are like the Procrustean bed. If accepted at face value they force organizations to truncate richness in their interorganizational communications while obliging a stretch to the manner by which they participate in interorganizational communications with members of a given industry. Standards like any ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ represent approximations, rather similar to that of a population mean. We rarely find real situations that exactly fit a theoretical norm, eg a perfect circle or a straight line. Like the Procrustean bed, a given standard, at any moment, may require the extension or truncation of the unfortunate ‘guest’ of the standard. So, we are convinced that the notion of a standard, whilst typically celebrated as an advance over a ‘non-standard’ (Farrell & Saloner, 1985; Katz & Shapiro, 1986; Farrell & Saloner, 1988; Quintas, 1994; Katz et al, 1995), represents a problem in interorganizational communication.
We illustr
Data Loading...
