Volume 14 Issue 3 Article 3 
11-6-2012 
Culture of informing: a case of consulting company 
Bob Travica 
Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home 
Recommended Citation 
Travica, B. (2012). Culture of informing: a case of consulting company. Economic and Business Review, 
14(3). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1230 
This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business 
Review. 
223      ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012  |  223–249
CULTURE OF INFORMINg:
A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY
BoB TravICa1
aBSTraCT: This study examines culture of informing (infoculture, for short) by investigat-
ing a case of a consulting company. The company’s infoculture is described in conjunction 
with its organizational culture by using a new interpretive method. The study advances 
theorizing on infoculture and research methodology. 
Key words: information culture, organizational culture; consulting company
jeL Classification: M14
1 InTroduCTIon
The relationship between information systems (IS) or information technologies (IT) and 
organization viewed as culture increasingly attracts attention of IS researchers (e.g., Kaarst-
Brown & Robey, 1999; Kappos & Rivard, 2008; Leidner & Kayworth, 2008; Orlikowski, 
1994, 1996; Straub et al., 2002; Travica, 1998). A cultural approach rooted more directly in 
the IS perspective is an emerging venue. This approach is named in different ways, such as 
“information culture” (Davenport and Prusak’s, 1997) and “IT user culture” (Walsh et al., 
2010), common to this approach is focusing the cultural approach onto certain cultural as-
pects that authors find more relevant for understanding issues surrounding management 
and use of IS. The goal of the study presented in this article is to advance theorizing and 
methodology within this emerging venue. Deployed is an “infoculture” approach (short of 
“culture of informing” or “informing culture”), which was introduced by Travica (2003, 
2005) with the intention of integrating IS theory and organization theory.1 
In infoculture research thus far, several methods have been tried out. One method in-
volves determining a kind of organizational culture and using it as a frame for interpre-
tation of infocultural dimensions (Travica, 2005a, 2008). Another is the W+H method 
that applies the who, what, when/why, and how questions to explore cultural beliefs and 
behaviors surrounding the user identity and purpose, management/use, and change of 
organizational data, knowledge and IT/IS (Travica, 2010). This method was used with no 
connection to specific aspects of organizational culture. The study presented in this arti-
cle is aiming at combining the method of organizational culture framing with the W+H 
method (slightly modified). The intention is to examine how an infoculture interpreted 
through the W+H lenses relates with organizational culture and helps in understanding 
1 University of Manitoba, Asper School of Business, Winnipeg, Canada, e-mail: btravica@ms.umanitoba.ca
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012224
an organization. A conceptual and methodological advancement in infoculture research 
has motivated the study. 
The following discussion will address the theoretical framework and methodology, in-
troduce the case organization, analyze aspects of its organizational culture and infocul-
ture, and draw conclusions. 
2 The ConCepTuaL and meThodoLogICaL BaCKground
2.1 Infoculture Concept
Central to this discussion is a concept of culture of informing (informing culture, infoc-
ulture). Drawing on the information systems and organization/management literatures 
discussed further below and the author’s previous work (Travica 2003, 2005), the follow-
ing expanded definition of infoculture will be used in the discussion: Infoculture refers 
to stable beliefs (deep-set assumptions, values, and norms), behaviors (work practices and 
self-maintenance rituals), and artifacts (intellectual and material), which are related to 
organizational informing agents and shared among organization members. 
The term “informing agents” refers to knowledge, data, meaning (information), informa-
tion technologies (IT; electronic and pre-electronic), and information systems (IS). The 
term is supposed to convey the idea that the referred entities inform organization at vari-
ous levels—cognitive, action, and institutional.1 (Other properties of informing agents 
are more discussed in the next section.) Another assumption behind the definition above 
is that infoculture is a part of organizational culture. Mutual influents between the two 
are implied. It is also assumed that IT and IS relate as part and whole, as posited in the 
discipline of IS analysis (e.g., in a supply chain system, an instance of IT is application 
software for determining optimal delivery). 
Relationships between knowledge, data, and meaning (information) are depicted in the 
informing model in Figure 1. The model suggest that knowledge in human mind is agency 
that interprets data (human-created symbols, such as letters, numbers, pictures, sounds) 
to create meaning. In contrast to frequent conceptualizations, this semiotic approach 
presumes that data have no meaning on their own, and that information results from 
an informing process in which knowledge and data interact. Therefore, information is 
internal to cognition as is knowledge, while data are usually external. For example, to be 
meaningful (become information), the term “balance sheet” requires knowledge of Latin 
alphabet, English language, and of balance sheet. Without these knowledge segments, 
“balance sheet” is merely a piece of data organized in a two word phrase. Same goes for 
the content of balance sheet: numerical figures remain data unless they are brought into 
relation with the applicable knowledge of finance. 
While differing from common conceptualizations of information2 and meaning as ex-
ternal entities vaguely differentiated from data (Travica, 2011), the informing process 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 225
depicted in Figure 1 explains cognitive informing in general as well as cultural inform-
ing in particular. For example, invoking standard professional knowledge of a financial 
figure in order to understand some financial data is an instance of general (or profes-
sional) informing. In contrast, invoking insiders’ knowledge of a financial figure (with 
particular nuances, “ifs” and the like), which is assumed by members of an organization, 
is cultural informing. The same data interpreted by different parts of knowledge result 
in different meanings (different information). The model can, therefore, explain (a) why 
incumbents of a culture arrive to shared meanings, and (b) the reasons for cross-cultural 
variation in the meaning/information. (Note that an association between meaning/in-
formation and knowledge can be drawn to explain knowledge change, but this extension 
is not relevant for the current discussion.) 
Figure 1. Process of Cognitive Informing 
(Note: the model uses a UML class diagram notation, where a star means “many instances”)
2.2 Soft and Hard Aspects of Infoculture 
The concept of infoculture includes both soft (immaterial, cognitive) and hard (mate-
rial) segments, and assigns them equal importance. The soft segment refers primarily to 
beliefs (as stated in the infoculture definition above). For example, a data management 
assumption could be that details of business operations should be recorded formally, 
accurately and promptly. This assumption translates into corresponding values that are 
communicated through training of new employees and reinforced via management su-
pervision. One such value could instruct that employees should deploy standard means 
of recording transactions. A corresponding norm may define the standard means (say, 
paper forms, or a computer-based database system, along with procedures applicable to 
either of these). Another part of the soft infoculture refers to intellectual artifacts, such 
as stories and language. 
The hard segment of infoculture refers to informing behaviors and material artifacts. 
Examples of informing behaviors are data management (collection, storing, organizing, 
updating, etc.), data interpretation resulting in meaning, communication practices, and 
knowledge activities (learning, sharing, codifying, thinking processes as in problem 
solving, etc.). The behavioral approach has support in study of organizational culture 
(Handy, 1993; Jaques, 1952), although the mainstream thinking gives primacy to the 
beliefs segment (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982, 1999; Hatch, 1997; Hofstede, 1980; Schein, 
1992). 
3 
 
therefore, explai  (a) why incumbents f a culture rrive to shared meanings, and (b) the reasons 
for cross-cul ural variation i  the meaning/informa ion. (Note that an association betwee  
meaning/information and knowl dge can be drawn to explain knowledge change, but this 
extension is not relevant for the current discussion.)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1.  Process of Cognitive Informing  
(Note: the model uses a UML class diagram notation, where a star means “many instances”) 
 
 
2.2 Soft and Hard Aspects of Infoculture  
 
The concept of infoculture includes both soft (immaterial, cognitive) and hard (material) 
segments, and assigns them equal importance. The soft segment refers primarily to beliefs (as 
stated in the infoculture definition above). For example, a data management assumption could be 
that details of business operations should be recorded formally, accurately and promptly. This 
assumption translates into corresponding values that are communicated through training of new 
employees and reinforced via management supervision. One such value could instruct that 
employees should deploy standard means of recording transactions. A corresponding norm may 
define the standard means (say, paper forms, or a computer-based database system, along with 
procedures applicable to either of these). Another part of the soft infoculture refers to intellectual 
artifacts, such as stories and language.  
 
The hard segment of infoculture refers to informing behaviors and material artifacts. Examples 
of informing behaviors are data management (collection, storing, organizing, updating, etc.), data 
interpretation resulting in meaning, communication practices, and knowledge activities (learning, 
sharing, codifying, thinking processes as in problem solving, etc.). The behavioral approach has 
support in study of organizational culture (Handy, 1993; Jaques, 1952), although the mainstream 
thinking gives primacy to the beliefs segment (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982, 1999; Hatch, 1997; 
Hofstede, 1980; Schein, 1992).  
 
Material dimensions refer primarily to capabilities, limitations and other aspects of IS or IT that 
interact with accustomed work practices. It is not the sheer material appearance of IS artifacts 
that is of interest here. Rather, the focus is on enacted material features that channel work 
behaviors. In a case of higher automation, this channeling is actually the work behavior (task, 
process) in its own right. Instances of other material dimensions beyond IS are all the artifacts 
affecting data or knowledge management, such as the organization of office desks, office layout, 
and characteristics of corporate libraries and training facilities. 
  
   

 

	 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012226
Material dimensions refer primarily to capabilities, limitations and other aspects of IS or 
IT that interact with accustomed work practices. It is not the sheer material appearance 
of IS artifacts that is of interest here. Rather, the focus is on enacted material features 
that channel work behaviors. In a case of higher automation, this channeling is actually 
the work behavior (task, process) in its own right. Instances of other material dimen-
sions beyond IS are all the artifacts affecting data or knowledge management, such as the 
organization of office desks, office layout, and characteristics of corporate libraries and 
training facilities.
 
To understand material dimensions of culture, one may look at study of macro-societal 
culture in the disciplines of anthropology and ethnology. For example, particular produc-
tion practices (behaviors) characterize different cultures. Tools for production (technol-
ogy) are also considered a differentiating criterion.3 By analogy, organizational cultures 
differ in both production practices and pertinent technologies. From the perspective of 
infoculture, therefore, material dimensions of IS (capabilities, limitations and other salient 
characteristics) can be viewed as a criterion for differentiating between organizations.4
The behavioral and technological primacy of the material infoculture is particularly sa-
lient in periods of change. When new IS and pertinent work practices are introduced, 
these may be incongruent with old beliefs. Still, with management continual reinforce-
ment, the new material infoculture can modify old beliefs. For example, a new balanced 
scorecard (BSC) IS may initially impinge on an accustomed way of assessing organiza-
tional performance. Functions of the BSC system can more or less gradually penetrate 
performance tracking and promote BSC principles into infocultural assumptions. And 
particular dimensions of a BSC system can make a difference between infocultures. For 
example, a BSC system can be designed as an executive dashboard or as an open access 
dashboard rested on an intranet (the case presented in this article) – with very different 
infocultural implications. 
2.3 Theoretical Grounding of Infoculture
The concept of infoculture has grounding in previous research. For example, Davenport 
and Prusak (1997) used the term “information culture” to refer to “a pattern of behav-
iors and attitudes that express an organization’s orientation toward information” (p. 84). 
They cited a preference for facts or rumors as an example of the cultural attitudes, and 
preferences for types of communication channel as an example of cultural behaviors. 
The authors distinguished between information culture pertaining to the group and or-
ganizational level and “information behavior”  at the individual level, such as “searching 
for and using information” (pp. 84, 87). The concept of infoculture deployed in this arti-
cle accepts Davenport and Prusak’s (1997) notion of behavioral content of “information 
culture,” while expanding the concept to incorporate IT/IS aspects.
Bressand and Distler (1995) used the term “infoculture” to refer to social network mem-
bers’ “shared objectives and mutual expectations, rules that govern changes of rules, 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 227
and background knowledge taken for granted and enacted daily.” Infoculture is ex-
pressed via narratives, war stories and social relations, and its role is to set constraints 
to knowledge and information, and thereby to set the basis for learning, sense making, 
and shared understanding of specific situations (cited in Ciborra and Patriotta, 1996, 
p. 122). The concept of infoculture endorses the elements of the authors “infoculture,” 
while expanding beyond the social network milieu to the level of organizational unit and 
organization. Inclusion of knowledge in cultural approaches has been endorsed by other 
researchers as well. Van Maanen and Barley (1985) defined culture by knowledge that 
is shared in a group and that informs activities of the members. Boisot (1987) classified 
organization designs into bureaucracy, clan, fiefdom, and market, based on knowledge 
codification and diffusion. As stated above, knowledge is accounted for in the concept 
of infoculture. 
Another stream of conceptualizations of IS-related culture concentrates more on IT (at 
least colloquially, as some authors neither differentiate explicitly between IT and IS nor 
declare if “data” is implied in the concept of IT or IS). In discussing “IS cultures,” Leidner 
(2010) proposed that information and communication technology (ICT) could inadvert-
ently or intentionally influence organizational culture. The infoculture approach shares 
this premise. Furthermore, Leidner and Kayworth (2006) proposed a model of relation-
ships between group values, values embedded in a specific IT, and IT-related values. The 
last concept is akin to IT culture, the first to organizational culture, and the second 
concept indicates the influence of organizational culture on IT (e.g., a mission of an IS 
and its limitations). The infoculture approach would characterize the last two items as 
infocultural in character. 
Some of the IT/IS-focused approaches have delivered taxonomies. For example, Walsh 
and colleagues (2010) proposed nine-item taxonomy of IT user cultural profiles based 
on users’ IT-related needs, motivation and self-determination. Kaarst-Brown and Robey 
(1999) proposed five-item taxonomy of IT culture based on organizational members’ 
perceptions of their relationship with IT. These taxonomies parallel in part the W+H in-
quiry, especially in answering the question, who are we in relation to informing agents?
Previous research on infoculture delivered the cases that inform about a variety of info-
culture aspects. Some of these are a custom of critically viewing new IS, a belief that the 
speed of IS development surpasses managers-user’s capabilities of coping with it, dual-
ism of paper and electronic technology, aversion toward computer, valuing computer 
as an enabler of organizational change, digital divide between the blue collar and office 
workers, and divisions in infoculture (e.g., clan insiders vs. outsiders, system developers 
vs. business users, and voluntary vs. mandatory users) (Travica, 2005a, 2008, 2010). 
2.4 Taxonomies of Organizational Culture
Another part of the literature relevant for the present study is about taxonomies of 
organizational culture. This literature centers on the issue of essential organizational 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012228
phenomenon that determines the character of organizational culture. Only the cultur-
al models focused on team project are discussed. This literature (a) guides in under-
standing of organizational culture of team-based organizations, and (b) can contrib-
ute to study of team-centered infoculture. In particular, Handy’s (1993) matrix type of 
organizational culture provides relevant ideas in the part pertaining to teams. Handy 
built on galbraith’s (1973) matrix organization, which portrayed teams as key carri-
ers of production centered around projects, which are marked by uncertainty reigns 
and a struggle for making sense in the midst of the flow of events. Project teams are 
a response to variability in production processes, which cannot be covered by prede-
fined rules. An implication of this conceptualization for infoculture is that methods of 
managing documentation and of using IT/IS are supposed to take the form of project 
objectives. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (1998) proposed a similar kind of 
organizational culture calling it guided missile. They defined some cognitive charac-
teristics directly applicable to infoculture, such as thinking that is problem-centered, 
professional, practical and cross disciplinary, and constructive and task-related criti-
cism. 
Knowledge is important in organizations deploying teams in innovative projects. Re-
flecting on Japanese manufacturing companies, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) discussed 
teams as part of their concept of hypertext organization. This organization depends on 
knowledge creation that happens through interaction between development teams, or-
ganizational knowledge base, and management. Prompted by management, teams gener-
ate new knowledge, which gets represented in the corporate knowledge base when team 
members return to their old work positions. Knowledge creation involves sharing of tacit 
knowledge through teamwork. Moreover, in a study of the American public accounting 
industry, Travica (1999) found that teams carried out the core production and enjoyed 
broad autonomy in planning, organizing daily work, and managing budget. Although 
practices of using IT for work-related communication were well established, knowledge 
exchanges among team members and between them and outsiders transpired in a face-
to-face mode rather than via communication systems. 
2.5 Advancing Methodology for Study of Infoculture
The case research on infoculture has used grounded theory and some other interpretivist 
approaches (Travica, 2005a, 2008, 2010). The W+H method, which is of interest in this 
study, deploys these questions: What is the purpose of informing agents? Who are we in 
relation to informing agents? When/Why should informing agents change? How are or 
should be informing agents managed or used? These questions draw on the organiza-
tional culture literature and chart a conceptual space of infoculture in a particular man-
ner. In addition, this sort of questioning has been proposed as methodologically valid in 
qualitative investigation of culture. Specifically, Patton (2002) suggested that investiga-
tion of culture is about understanding behavioral patterns and beliefs that constitute 
standards for deciding what is, what can be, how one feels about it, what to do about it, 
and how to go about doing it. 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 229
In the W+H-inquiry of infoculture, the who-question inquires about the identity organi-
zation members in relation to informing agents. This question draws on organizational 
culture beliefs regarding organizational identity. Schein (1992) conceived these in terms 
of the shared assumptions addressing the problems of external and internal adaptation. 
Extending this logic, the infocultural approach inquires about the identity of groups in 
an organization (occupational and others) in relation to informing agents. For example, 
investigation in a utilities company revealed that business users of IS resembled “a reluc-
tant passenger” that was driven to destinations and with a speed imposed by technolo-
gists (Travica, 2010). 
The what-question of infoculture inquires about the purpose of informing agents. The 
question is akin to the beliefs of organizational culture that have to do with purposes of 
an organization. These are usually manifested in core values, vision/mission statements, 
and stories (Morgan, 1986; Schein, 1992). However, the infocultural approach inquires 
about the purpose of informing agents rather than the purpose of an entire organization. 
For example, users in business departments of the utilities company believed that IS were 
an informational tool for getting answers to business questions promptly and with least 
effort (Travica, 2010). 
The how-question focuses on the manner in which informing agents accomplish their 
purpose in terms of management and use. This question aims at informing behaviors and 
IS artifacts seen as the instrument to the purposeful end. The how-question introduces 
an infocultural slant to the standard cultural interest in the character of relationships 
among organization members or the stable behaviors characterizing an organization. 
These have been conceived as competitive vs. cooperative, individualistic vs. collectivis-
tic, hierarchical vs. meritocratic, rewarding vs. punishing, over-powering vs. empower-
ing, etc. (cf. Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Handy, 1993; Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede & Hofstede, 
2005; Schein, 1992). The how-questions has both a descriptive (as-is) and normative (to-
be) dimension.
Lastly, The when- or why-question draws on cultural beliefs regarding change in inform-
ing agents (progress vs. status quo) and related understanding of time (e.g., past-present-
future focus, speed of time, and time unit) (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Schein, 1992; 
Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). The infocultural approach places the change 
of IS in the center of inquiry. For example, marketers in a telecommunications company 
believed that IS should have changed whenever it was beneficial for individual profes-
sionals (Travica, 2010). The corresponding behavior is that these professionals tended to 
abandon an IS even if this meant wasting the license investment. 
3. STudy meThodoLogy
goals of this study are: (1) to advance study of infoculture both methodologically and 
conceptually, and (2) to develop a case demonstrating the role of infoculture in a success-
ful company. The methodological advance involves using the W+H infoculture lenses in 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012230
combination with organizational culture inquiry. These goals frame the research prob-
lem in terms of identifying by the means of W+H method the infoculture of a successful 
company. These research questions follow from the goals and the research problem: 
(1) What is the organizational culture of the case company? 
(2) What is the infoculture of the case company interpreted via the W+H method? 
The study has used a case methodology (Yin, 2003) and a qualitative inquiry (Basker-
ville & Myers, 2004; Klein & Myers, 1999). Investigated was a consulting company code-
named Integral Consulting (IC). Located in Canada, IC employed 76 members at the 
time of investigation. The sample studied numbered 15 employees.
Data collection methods included interviewing the IC members and analyzing the com-
pany’s documentation. Interviewing ranged from semi-structured to structured format. 
The interviewees occupied various roles, and some of them were interviewed several 
times. Both the important interview data and initial inferences were validated for accu-
racy by the interviewees. Data collection spanned over three months in 2009. 
In analyzing research data, the Ethnograph software for qualitative data analysis was 
used. The goals of coding were to identify values, beliefs and artifacts that indicated 
organizational culture and infoculture. An organizational culture code would be as-
signed to a statement or document content that indicated a stable belief (assumption, 
value, or norm) or a stable behavior (an accustomed work practice or routine, or a sys-
tematically performed activity aiming at reinforcing a cultural belief). An infocultural 
code would be assigned to a statement or document content that indicated a cultural 
belief or behavior that could be associated with using or managing data, knowledge, 
meaning, and a particular IS. In the final analysis, an infocultural code had to be as-
sociated with an organizational culture code in order to be considered a relevant find-
ing. Lastly, infocultural codes were organized by using the W+H questions discussed 
above: 
(1) Who are we in relation to informing agents? 
(2) What is the purpose of informing agents? 
(3) How are/should be informing agents managed/used? 
(4) When/Why should informing agents change? 
4. organIzaTIon STudIed
IC was established in 1989 in a western province of Canada. It has specialized in the 
areas of IS and management consulting. Most of the employees have the background in 
computer science and others in management. Bridging these two consulting markets is 
still rare among small companies in Canada as well as in the rest of North America. IC 
has earned pubic recognition for both its consulting services and quality of employee 
relations. 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 231
IC has been an employee-owned company, where the company stocks have been in pos-
session of the employees who chose to purchase it. Outsiders have been barred from 
owning the shares. 
The organizational structure of IC is flat. There is just one level of management popu-
lated by an executive team that oversees operations and another team overseeing sales. 
In internal communications, no hierarchy-related titles are used. 
Production at IC is carried out by project teams that also reject traditional hierarchy 
placing the project manager on top. In recruiting new members, IC carefully scans the 
candidates for a cultural fit. The company has been allocating significant resources to 
sustain its extraordinary organizational design. As a number of interviews characterized 
it, IC has been a place where the members “can feel as if they are paid for having fun” 
although they do perform a demanding professional work. In recent years, IC has expe-
rienced growth in the number of employees and the volume of operations. 
5. organIzaTIonaL CuLTure and InformIng CuLTure aT IC
5.1 Peer Teams
Teams and teamwork constitute the basic organizational principle at IC. The project team 
is the basic production unit as well as the context in which an IC member feels comfort-
able and able to express professional skills. A project team engages two to five members, 
selected on the basis of competencies that match needs of a particular project. Compe-
tencies cover the technical, critical thinking, and interpersonal areas. A combination of 
competencies underpins the basis for team member roles, such as application developer, 
project manager, technical architect, application architect, business analyst, and consult-
ant. However, roles are flexible, and it is common to exchange ideas across roles. 
IC teams are not hierarchical. For example, technical architect and application architect 
may have the same say in decision making as project manager, who in other firms usually 
has executive power. The interviewed IC members have commonly pointed out that an 
entire team usually makes all important decisions. These values and practices character-
ize the IC project team as the team of peers. The operations team (sitting at the only level 
of management IC has) names a new project team through a decision process that takes 
into account project requirements as well as the employee’s career goals, expertise, and 
wishes. Prospective members are rated and differences in ratings are reconciled in open 
discussion. The affected members can question the assignment. 
Reflecting on their team experience, the interviewees have painted a picture of a col-
legial, supportive, and pleasant setting. The team members enjoy each other’s company 
and collaborating in a shared office. Interestingly, teamwork in a distributed mode is 
used just when it is absolutely necessary. It is considered less desirable because it sepa-
rates teammates and pushes them into the individual mode of work. In contrast, col-
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012232
located work implies face-to-face communication and personal contact—work aspects 
that IC members prefer for the speed they bring into discussing the specialist issues 
and resolving hurdles in system development. Computer mediated communication 
complements face-to-face communication; the former is indispensable for document-
ing decisions reached in the software development process. One interviewee explained 
it as follows:
We’ve got a unit there and so the developers and the technical architect are all in 
one space, which is high bandwidth communication. When something comes up, 
you hear what’s going on and you go: OK, I’ve got something to add to that... It is 
better to have face to face communication for sure, but we still use Communica-
tor, our instant messaging tool, and email because you need to keep track of deci-
sions made; you don’t want to lose that.
These communication vales and practices belong to the domain of infoculture. This 
categorization is consistent with the concept of infoculture and the previous literature 
(Davenport and Prusak, 1997). Specifically, the communication modes answer the how-
question of infoculture, explaining that teamwork is facilitated primarily through face 
to face communication. Analysis has revealed other infoculture categories correspond to 
the how-question of infoculture: storytelling, a print channel, and electronic publishing. 
Each is discussed below. 
IC members nurture narratives that praise and teach teamwork. For example, one 
thought leader often tells stories about the aircraft crew operating of a gigantic, military 
cargo aircraft. A former air force operative himself, this thought leader compares an IC 
project to a flight of the aircraft. He explains that the crew is able to accomplish compli-
cated missions in most precarious situations owing to self-discipline of every member, 
shared leadership, team-based problem solving, and frank performance evaluation. An 
IC project invites the same values if it is to be successfully executed. 
Narratives praising teamwork are also communicated via cartoons published regularly 
in the company’s newsletter. One story describes voluntary teaming of programmers 
who decided to work overtime in order to respond to a client’s urgent request. Narratives 
about teams are also communicated via an electronic publication disseminated weekly 
via the company’s intranet. One issue explains the cultural practice of assigning the lim-
ited office space to team members on the basis of task needs rather than hierarchy (cf. 
Handy, 1993). Sometimes the entire team has to work together and the space for all mem-
bers is allocated. At other times, it is not unusual that a programmer gets an office, while 
a project manager can use just open cubicles available in the IC building. The rationale 
for such an allocation rests on project needs: the programmer needs a separate space 
when the project requires frequent and confidential telephone communication with a 
client. 
Organizationally defined as team-player, the IC member is also characterized by techni-
cal expertise. Advanced technical skills make this professional technically savvy. From 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 233
the perspective of the who-question of infoculture, therefore, this professional is an au-
thoritative IT expert and team player. The deployment of IT in company’s IS is deter-
mined by his expertise in conjunction with the requirements of the company’s business 
needs and culture. 
The “hard” aspects of IC’s team infoculture involve practices rested on capabilities of 
specialized IS. Project work involves a project management system (PMS) for manag-
ing project documentation (requests, diagrams, status reports, financial documents, and 
tasks’ status). PMS is accessible via the company’s intranet thus allowing for sharing of 
documents. In addition, PMS is a vehicle for software configuration management, with-
out which team-driven development of software would end up in chaos. PMS was built 
by IC members and caters to the specifics of their system development process. It evolves 
with the professionals’ needs. 
Another team supportive behavior is a process of evaluating project work. It involves a 
simple IS that runs on the intranet (an electronic form, a form repository, and dataflow 
channels). The process is initiated by a project member’s filling the online form with an 
assessment of work performance of everybody on the team. The evaluation is qualitative, 
and includes the areas of a possible improvement. These reports are later used for several 
purposes, including the calculation of end-of-year bonuses. 
Overall, the IC organization matches the characteristics of the project focused and team-
based organization (galbraith, 1973; Handy, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Travica, 
1999). Being non-hierarchical and collegial, this peer team culture resembles a coopera-
tive and collectivistic cultural context, with a smaller power distance (Hofstede, 1980). 
The committed team player, the IC member is in infoculture parlance an authoritative IT 
expert playing in team fashion. In project work, this professional puts team assumptions 
ahead of individual motives. Where an outsider could see chaos due to ambiguously 
defined project roles, this team playing expert sees the opportunities for creative team 
achievement. IC’s infoculture further facilitates teamwork via the channels for commu-
nicating team-praising narratives as well as dedicated IS for project work and evalua-
tion. 
Table 1. Team-Focused Organizational and Informing Culture at IC
Key Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Related Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Infoculture Belief, Behavior, Artifact
Peer Teams Task-driven office 
assignment
Collectivism, 
Cooperation, Small 
Power Distance
Who:   Authoritative IT expert playing in team fashion
What: Facilitating teamwork
How:   Face-to-face communication, Team-praising 
narratives and their channels, Project management 
and evaluation processes and systems
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012234
5.2 Trustfulness and Trustworthiness
Trust shared among IC employees ensures that employees’ evaluations of performance 
are valid. Indeed, trust is part of the cultural core in this company. One of three found-
ers of IC explained that many companies use various institutions of control in order to 
protect themselves from deviant behavior. Usually, however, just a tiny minority makes 
troubles. IS it really necessary to build and maintain elaborate structures for controlling 
a tiny minority of deviants, wondered the founder? His answer has always been negative 
and it is built into foundations of IC. 
Instead of relying on hierarchy and rules, IC counts on peer pressure to keep deviant 
behaviors in check. The corollary is that trust is the basis of the social contract between 
the employee and the firm. In the time of unstable markets, shifting business allegiances 
and heightened self-awareness on both the employer and employee side, maintaining 
this trust bond resembles an atavism, which looks surprisingly novel. 
Being at the core of organizational culture, trust permeates relationships between the 
employees. It materializes through other cultural dimensions (see Table 2). One is the 
aversion toward politicking. Backstabbing and turf-building behaviors are not desirable 
at IC. Criticizing others behind their back and ruthless self-aggrandizing are undesir-
able. Rather, an IC member is expected to show respect for others in all relationships. 
Following these values, IC members tend to be courteous and collegial in communica-
tion. Since the content and language of communication used belong to the domain of 
infoculture, this is an indication of how infoculture supports organizational culture. At 
IC, this content is self-controlled so that potentially offensive utterances are filtered out. 
What happens when the filtering fails? 
An IC member who feels offended has a channel available for complaints. There is a 
process running on the company’s intranet, which an employee can initiate any time 
and from any location. A complainer starts the process by filling a simple online form. A 
team of peers with a changing membership receives a complaint, sends an acknowledge-
ment back to the complainer, and examines the problem. The team’s job is finished when 
the conflict is resolved. This automated complaint process shows how IC’s infoculture 
purports the culture of trust. 
The culture of trust includes the assumption that all employees are trustworthy. This 
assumption has resulted in practices of democratic informing. IC members enjoy unre-
stricted access to all the documentation and records related to the company’s operations 
and strategies. This behavioral aspect of infoculture is reinforced by appropriate IS, such 
as several internally-grown dashboards. (Both the unrestricted access and the systems 
will be discussed more in the section on open communication.)
In summary, trust assumptions and behaviors make a cultural pillar at IC. Related be-
haviors refer to avoiding politicking and demonstrating respect for others. IC’s infocul-
ture demonstrates its congruence by featuring a trustful and trustworthy member. He/
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 235
she is well-informed, competent communicator, intrinsically motivated to keep com-
munications courteous. This IC member enjoys unrestricted access to the company’s 
documentation.
Table 2. Trust-Focused Organizational and Informing Culture at IC
Key Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Related Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Infoculture Belief, Behavior, Artifact
Trust Aversion to politicking,
Respect for others in all 
relationships
Who:  Trustful and trustworthy member who is a good 
and well-informed communicator
What: Facilitating trustful relationships
How:  Self-filtering communications of offensive content, 
Automated complaint process, Democratic 
informing practices and complementary IS
5.3 Open Communication and Shared Leadership
Open communication, as already discussed, is a salient aspect IC’s culture. The commu-
nication domain is shared between organizational culture and infoculture. Infoculture 
applies in informing aspects of communication, as the latter caries data, mediates in 
meaning creation, and underpins knowledge creation and sharing. The role of informing 
agents in the company studied is to enable high-bandwidth and efficient communica-
tion. Several system solutions listed in Table 3 are used toward these ends. For instance, 
all reports on project and sales operations are accessible to all employees via the intranet. 
A balanced scorecard used for tracking monthly performance is also accessible via the 
intranet. There are several dashboards, and they inform on finances, client relationships, 
offerings, sales, project delivery, human resources, building management, and so on. For 
example, the dashboard for client relationship management presents sales forecasts and 
weekly sales reports, and the human resources dashboard shows the assignment of em-
ployees to particular projects. 
Each dashboard relates goals based on the internal balanced scorecard methodology to 
the achievement of the goals. A dashboard user can determine the state of a project in 
terms of planned and accomplished billable hours and budget. Any employee can access 
any dashboard at any time. This emphasis on open communication is complemented by 
systems for tracking the current location and availability of employees and for searching 
relevant business documentation. 
The process drivers at IC are trusted and empowered to manage data created in the op-
erational processes. For example, an employee performing in a role of the sales process 
enters the relevant data directly into the sales system. One destination of the data is the 
sales dashboard. Similarly, the billing process starts with each employee’s recording of 
billable hours directly in a project management system. Data from this system feed into 
the project delivery dashboard. Then, the head of the human resource function uses these 
data for creating utilization reports, showing every employee along with their billing fig-
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012236
ures. These aspects also demonstrate the emphasis IC puts on process-based organizing. 
In addition, operational processes at IC are largely automated and their systems are used 
directly by the end-users without administrative intermediaries. 
Using IS in the self-service mode certainly saves money that otherwise would inflate ad-
ministrative costs. However, self-service has a deeper significance. On the one level, this 
is a manifestation of infoculture featuring the competent communication actor enjoying 
open access to company data. On the other level, the self-service practice reinforces the 
culture of open communication and trust. These two aspects present a paradigmatic ex-
ample of the relationship between infoculture and organizational culture. 
Trust is an aspect of organizational culture that can be understood narrowly in terms 
of relying on written statements of others (Rotter, 1967) or, more broadly, as relying 
generally on colleagues (e.g., on their verbal promises, decisions, and work results). 
Trust implies communication as it necessitates a trustworthy communication content 
as antecedent. Since the actor of IC infoculture is a trustworthy professional, it fol-
lows that infoculture influences the trust aspect of organizational culture. On its part, 
organizational culture can exert influence back on the infoculture. The former may 
legitimize some communication channels as trustworthy and attribute less credit to 
others. For example, verbal communication may be less trustworthy than the written 
(the norm of putting some content “in writing” and in a non-changeable format). In 
the IC case, electronic records, fixed or editable, are generally considered trustworthy. 
To conclude, the juncture of communication and trust aspects reveals the complemen-
tary and mutuality influencing relationship between infoculture and organizational 
culture. 
Table 3. IC’s Organizational and Information Culture 
Key Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Related Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Infoculture Belief, Behavior, Artifact
Open 
Communication
Who:  Competent communicator with unabated data access 
privileges 
What: Enabling high-bandwidth and efficient 
communication
How:  Scorecard, Dashboards, self-service IS for operations, 
tracking and search systems
Shared Leadership Self-actualization Who:  Self-motivated thought leader
What: Enabling thought leadership 
How:  Innovation management process & system, 
Presentations,  Blogs, White papers.
Congruent with open communication is another cultural aspect that will be called 
“leadership sharing.” This aspect naturally fits with the team culture and the flat or-
ganizational structure. The people working at IC maintain that everyone can exercise 
creativity and leadership in various realms of the organization. One needs not to ask for 
permission. As an interviewee put it:
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 237
I think that everyone at IC has the freedom to exercise as much creativity, to take 
as much ownership, and to guide different parts of the organization as they wish. 
We can bite off as much as we wish. I don’t ask anyone for permission.
The culture of shared leadership opens up the space for with self-actualization, another 
important cultural characteristic ay IC (see Table 3). Organization members like to think 
that the company is their “oyster.” As one could open an oyster and discover a whole 
world under the shell, IC has been perceived as a place inviting the employees to be crea-
tive and express their professional aspirations. The place is open for self-driven shaping 
of the career path and development. The human relations expert explained that the IC 
organization culture was able to overcome limitations of traditional organizations that 
undervalued people’s abilities. She cited her own experience as the case in point:
I was looking for a place where I could submit my ideas and feel like they were be-
ing heard, where I could work autonomously and feel that the company was about 
more than earning a profit.
At IC, shared leadership and self-actualization are exercised significantly in the knowl-
edge domain. Since knowledge activities belong to the concept of infoculture used in 
this study, this juncture is where infoculture reveals itself. An IC member who keeps 
learning and improving his/her expertise and wants to share the new knowledge and 
expert opinions has plenty of opportunities to do so. The member may want to become 
what at IC is called “thought leader.” Thought leaders usually cover particular informa-
tion technologies, standards and frameworks. Some are more interested in management 
solutions, such as process and lean organizing (more discussion below). 
Taking the perspective of infoculture, “thought leader” appropriately labels an analytic 
category that answers the who-question of infoculture. The thought leader marks a cru-
cial path of realizing the culture of shared leadership and self-actualization. Intrinsically 
motivated, this subject enjoys support of other aspects of infoculture, such as various 
processes and systems. For example, thought leaders can deliver talks at regular and 
ad-hoc knowledge exchange events taking place in the company. Also, they deliver talks 
to external audiences. Some thought leaders run internal or external blogs, or publish 
electronically white papers (see Table 3).
For those who wish to lead innovation in internal workings of the company, there are 
an innovation management process and supporting system. The process starts when an 
innovator describes his/her idea in the innovation system. Then, an innovation team 
examines the proposal, and informs the innovator when the decision will be made. If 
the idea is accepted, the innovator is expected to drive the implementation process. The 
company supplies funding as needed. In the case of rejection, the evaluation team writes 
a justification for such a decision and advises on the re-submission period. Subsequently, 
the innovator may decide to revise the proposal and resubmit it, or to give up the idea. In 
any event, the process must have a clear end point (consistent with the process approach 
to organizing at IC – more discussion in the section on lean methodology). 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012238
In summary, the cultural trait of open communication is enhanced by particular aspects 
of infoculture. This infoculture enables high-bandwidth, efficient communication and is 
carried out by a competent communicator with unabated access to company data. The 
infoculture accomplishes its purpose by the means of various IS—a scorecard, dash-
boards, self-service systems for operations, and systems for employee tracking and docu-
mentation search. The culture of shared leadership and self-actualization is carried by a 
self-motivated thought leader on the infoculture side. Informing agents enable thought 
leadership via dedicated processes and systems. 
 
5.4 Client and Knowledge Focus
Another pillar of IC’s culture is the focus on clients. In a consulting engagement, an IC 
team is expected to deliver the best quality for their clients. This implies creating superb 
software and effective management advice. The company aims at a repeat customer and 
longer term engagements in which both sides can win. While many companies favor 
customer service as a guiding cultural assumption, a peculiar moment in the IC case is 
that this credo is associated with employee satisfaction. It is assumed that the best value 
for client results from the work done by a satisfied software developer. This is how one 
thought leader at IC explained it:
Programming problems can be solved in the code of variable length. If our de-
velopers can solve a programming problem in three lines of code rather than 30, 
that’s in everybody’s best interest. It is so because every line of code costs money 
to create and to maintain.
The IC members concur that a satisfied, repeat customer does not favor cost mini-
mization at any rate. Rather, this customer is capable of understanding that IC also 
needs to make a profit or it may be out of business by the time its services are needed 
again. 
From the perspective of infoculture, it is a reliable IS and management consultant that 
delivers the best quality to the client. The reliable expert is capable of finding effective 
solutions to organizational and systems problems even when venturing into novel ter-
ritories. In the history of IC, several problem areas have been covered, such as banking, 
manufacturing, service, registration process, and hiring process.
The client focus implies that the company needs to keep close to the customer. This as-
sumption is practiced consistently in each project. The practice crucially depends on an 
electronic interface IC establishes between itself and a client—a part of corresponding 
infoculture. This interface comes in form of test servers and Websites that IC maintains 
throughout an engagement project. The customer can get online access to project docu-
mentation and the parts of the systems under development. The director of IT, who also 
plays few other roles at IC, explained it this way:
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 239
I think the biggest thing is to educate them as to exactly what is going to happen 
and then keep them informed. Clients really hate it when they get unexpected 
news particularly when the news is usually that it’s going to cost them more mon-
ey which is often the case in IT consulting.
By allowing the client to track the progress of work on the system infrastructure, IC 
maintains trusting relations with the client. This is another cultural value the company 
nurtures (see Table 4). Therefore, clients’ trust depends in part on the electronic interface. 
This relationship is another example of how infoculture feeds organizational culture. 
Still another infocultural practice supporting the closeness to client is the standard prac-
tice of engaging clients in problem solving. (This is also a part of lean methodology dis-
cussed below.) The members of IC hold in high esteem analytical capabilities of custom-
ers and regularly invite their participation in projects. This practice is usually welcomed 
by clients. Sometimes, a client would even allocate a multi-occupational team of experts 
to work alongside IC consultants. Since problem solving depends on the deployment 
of informing agents (knowledge, data, IS), it belongs in the infoculture rubric. In other 
words, the keeping close to client (a cultural assumption) is realized via the practice of 
involving client in problem solving (infocultural behavior). 
Table 4. Client and Knowledge Focus
Key Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Related Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Infoculture Belief, Behavior, Artifact
Client Focus
 
Best quality,
Keeping close to client,
Clients’ trust
Who:   Reliable IS and management consultant 
What: Maintain high-bandwidth client interface
How:   Informing customers via dedicated IS on project 
progress, Involving client in problem solving
Knowledge Focus Continuous 
improvement 
Who:   Knowledge worker
What: Facilitating knowledge activities
How:   Self-education, knowledge presentation via blogs 
and wikis, Paired Programming, Preserving project 
via content mapping IS When: When opportune
Congruent with the client focus is a focus on knowledge, which is nurtured at IC (Table 4). 
The category of knowledge focus captures a good deal of beliefs and practices that in the 
cultural vocabulary of IC are called “continuous improvement.” A good professional is con-
sidered to be the one who keeps improving professional knowledge. A dedication to learning 
is assumed, since most of the learning must transpire outside billable work hours. One of 
the questions the study asked was about themes and topics the respondents felt passionate 
about. All the respondents provided examples of knowledge acquisition in the technical 
areas, while some also advanced their knowledge of organization and management. In the 
parlance of infoculture, the IC member is knowledge worker. This layer complements the 
picture of reliable consultant, while emphasizing the depth of consulting expertise. 
The knowledge focus makes IC a knowledge culture. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) ar-
gue that in companies where knowledge has a prominent role the new team-generated 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012240
knowledge gets integrated into the corporate knowledge base once team members return 
to their old work positions. In the case of IC, team members do not return to old posi-
tions but rather join new teams. The knowledge integration is likely to happen through 
cooperating in a new project. 
One contributory practice is paired or extreme programming. It is used when a project 
demands new knowledge that many of the team members do not have. One interviewee 
described it as follows:
In this project we’re using lots of new technologies that we as a company have 
never used before. We have some people who are experienced in these, and now 
we have to educate the whole team as fast as possible. So we’ve found the pair pro-
gramming to be the fastest way to get that knowledge passed across. In the first 
pass, the experienced guys come and sit down next to you, and they show you the 
ropes on how to do something in this new technology.
As already discussed above, knowledge is also shared via regular and ad-hoc presen-
tations, blogs, and wikis. Informal, face-to-face exchanges of knowledge should not 
be underestimated, as the culture of trust and open communication is amenable to 
it. These practices represent the ways in which this knowledge culture gets support of 
infoculture. However, it appears that more support may be needed. The blog and wiki 
channels have met obstacles, such as time constraints and writing style requirements. 
In addition, a more permanent and broader sharing of new knowledge would involve 
documenting it in knowledge work systems. At the time of the study, IC did not deploy 
such systems.
A home-grown content mapping system may assist the knowledge worker in learning 
from the company’s past projects. The user can run a search based on keywords and 
identify projects that yielded relevant experience. For example, if one wishes to learn 
about challenges pertinent to partner engagement, the search would result in finding 
relevant lessons learned in previous projects. Every employee can access this system via 
the company’s intranet.
In summary, the organizational culture of IC boasts a strong focus on clients. The com-
plementary infoculture features a reliable consultant in the areas of IS and management. 
To provide the best value for the customer, IC professionals strive to maintain a close, 
trustful relationship with clients and engage them in problem solving. The infoculture 
contribution is indispensable since the IC-client interface is based on custom systems 
that keep the client involved and informed throughout a project. The client focus relies 
on IC’s commitment to knowledge acquisition and sharing. A fully cultured IC profes-
sional is expected to continuously improve professional knowledge and be a knowledge 
worker intrinsically motivated to learn and to educate colleagues. Sharing knowledge is 
facilitated by a paired programming work and several systems. System support in this 
area needs to expand. 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 241
5.5 Lean Approach
The last finding is about a lean approach applied to production, product and other or-
ganizational domains. Both the cultural and infocultural stances help in understanding 
IC’s lean production. For example, the efficient programming IC favors refers to culture, 
while streamlining the size of project documentation refers to infoculture. At IC, the 
lean approach did not develop overnight. Rather, it evolved through efforts of many or-
ganization members, combined with learning from Toyota’s experiences. Challenges and 
opportunities arising in particular projects played a catalyst role. 
A distinctive character of IC’s lean approach is that it applies to both production and 
product. IC favors lean production processes, while making lean systems and manage-
ment solutions for its clients. The standard lean principles of maximizing efficiency and 
reducing waste are the main guidance in IC lean approach (Imai, 1986; Womack, 2003). 
Applied to the product, lean thinking of IC professionals can detect waste in many do-
mains, including a slow execution of software functions, inefficient IS operations, and 
cumbersome business processes. 
Although production of custom software is part of IC’s business, the company does 
not engage a customer with a premeditated intention to sell its software. The IS part 
of a solution must first be conceived in terms of the lean principles of organizing 
and management. In problem solving, IC consultants first try to identify a gap be-
tween goals and reality. The consultants look broadly, not just at the IS domain. Their 
interest, therefore, reaches out to organizational governance, reward methods, re-
munerations, and management incentives. After identifying the gap, the consultants 
concentrate on determining a root cause to the gap. Informing-related aspects are 
the frequent root causes, such as the data structures, entry, transfers, conversion and 
retrieval. 
Upon identifying a root cause, attention switches to specifying an IS solution. At that 
point, the lean guidance is turned back into the IC Company: IS development has to 
follow the assumptions of waste elimination and cost reduction. For example, the size 
of project documentation is kept at an optimal level. There are several mandatory docu-
ments, while others are left to the discretion of a project team. The internal lean meth-
odology also involves a metrics for software quality. One thought leader argued that the 
compliance with functional requirements should be an implied standard. The true meas-
ure of a system’s quality should be its performance, reliability, and other requirements 
that are non-functional in character. Admitting that this principle may still appear a 
deviation from conventional wisdom, the respondent has argued that the principle is 
consistent with lean. 
Another interesting software design and development principle refers to postponing fi-
nal technical details until the last responsible moment in order to provide the user with 
flexibility. For example, instead of deploying default parameters and forcing software to 
execute always in the same way, IC design allows for entering certain parameters at run 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012242
time. In system design, IC architects use the same principle for selecting technologies to 
be built into a particular IS. 
IC’s lean production approach engages the customer in problem solving. This is where 
lean production processes meet the client focus discussed above. A seasoned consultant 
at IC suggested that organizations could be unaware of the problem solving capabilities 
of their employees. Why employees usually refrain from problem solving is not because 
they are cannot do it but rather because they are not invited to do it. One can notice 
that this assumption suits the cultural aspect of maintaining trusting relations between 
clients and the company. In one of important projects, IC applied lean manufacturing 
methods to improve the efficiency of key organizational processes and quality manage-
ment. A multi-occupational team on the customer side worked alongside consultants to 
identify problems, root causes, solutions, and measures of success and the expected value 
from the project. The problem solving stretched into the organizational governance. The 
invented solutions were complex, involving process change, IS innovation, and employ-
ees’ empowerment. 
Table 5. Lean Approach
Key Org. Culture 
Belief/Behavior
Infoculture Belief, Behavior, Artifact
Lean Approach to
organizing and product 
Who:   Rational analyst 
How:   Lean thinking, electronic processes
When: When opportune
The discussion above leads to infocultural characterizing of the IC professional as ra-
tional analyst (Table 5). The lean thinking in problem solving leading to lean products 
responds to the what-question of infoculture. Furthermore, a part of lean approach is 
process thinking. The previous discussion already indicated that IC is organized via dif-
ferent processes. The lean problem solving described in this section follows process logic. 
In previous sections, it was shown how process thinking applies in the areas of project 
work, sales, innovation, and grievance. These business processes are made stable via cul-
tural indoctrination into lean thinking rather than formal rules and regulations, which 
is another way of saying that IC’s culture surfaces through these processes. 
IC strives to apply a process perspective in its lean solutions for the clients. So for exam-
ple, a business process must have a clear end. getting this point across to the client could 
be challenging. As director of IT explained it, although the development of a solution 
should not be the end-point of consultant’s engagement, organizations may overlook the 
ensuing steps. In his words: 
You get the resistance and people won’t use it [the solution] the way you wanted 
them. We offer the change management part. We have business consultants who 
have done that before and understand those problems. Clients don’t often see that 
as it’s going to be a problem, and so quite often they’re not willing to pay for that 
service. So that’s a bit of a hard sell for us sometimes.
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 243
As for internal processes at IC, a distinguishing stamp is that they are largely automated. 
Dedicated IS are used to enable IC to function as a process-based enterprise. To illus-
trate, consider again the sales planning segment of the sales process that was tackled sev-
eral times in the previous discussion. It starts with identifying a sales opportunity. An IC 
member fills an online template, specifying a customer prospect and other details. Meet-
ings, decisions and other subsequent steps in the process are then recorded electronically 
by multiple users in a self-service fashion. Once completed, a sales plan is posted online. 
The sales planning system contains all sales opportunities and provides relevant details 
(e.g., sales forecast, win/loss ratio, and closing cycle). Therefore, the strategic deployment 
of the sales planning system for process organizing can be viewed as the contribution of 
infoculture to the process culture at IC. 
In summary, IC’s lean approach to production, products and organizing in general is 
carried out by a rational analyst and enabled by lean problem solving and thinking and 
by dedicated IS that give electronic character to organizational processes. 
5.6 Challenges to Organizational Culture and Infoculture 
IC has recently doubled the number of employees and expanded operations internation-
ally. This rapid growth has challenged the company’s capability to retain its unique or-
ganizational design while continuing down the growth path. How to retain the flat struc-
ture and the collegial, cooperative team culture, trust, open communication and shared 
leadership when employees increasingly work in a distributed mode? Lean production, 
as practiced at IC, also favors direct interaction as the most efficient way of operating. 
With the geographical dispersion of operations and employees, IC’s infoculture also 
faces challenges. To remain trustful and trustworthy communicator, thought leader, 
and knowledge disseminator, the IC member needs to be able to work in the distributed 
mode, without conveniences of direct interaction and face-to-face communication. The 
company’s IS also need an adjustment for the distributed work context. This is particu-
larly true for the systems for documenting knowledge. In comparison with Nonaka and 
Takeuchi’s (1995) triad needed for effective knowledge management (knowledge devel-
opment teams, organizational knowledge base, and management), the last two aspects 
appear less than optimally developed to meet the challenges of growth. It appears that 
relevant strategizing at IC has been supplanted by rather opportunistic relying on the 
individual and team initiative. In most instances, IS developed out of a need at hand, op-
portunistically rather than as a result of strategizing. Put another way, the answer to the 
infocultural question of when (or why) to change IT/IS is, “when it is opportune.” 
Opportunistic conduct may indeed be an assumption buried deeply in IC’s organiza-
tional culture. In its history, the company has faced dilemmas respecting business vi-
sion. The company started as a vendor of an off-the-shelf software product, and then it 
moved toward custom software and management consulting. Bundling these two areas 
of consulting has been a challenge in itself since the customers are used to dealing with 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012244
two types of consultants residing in the two respective markets. On the average, most 
of IC’s annual revenues have accrued from the software market. Still, the company has 
been trying to increase the revenue from management consulting whenever opportune. 
Another opportunistic aspect is that IC has not buried the product business strategy for 
ever. The company has recently acquired a small software vendor that brought in an in-
novative software product. This move has revived the vision dilemma. 
A lack of strategizing in response to growth challenges could have other sources as well. 
In relation to IS resources, an IC member stands as the IT expert and knowledge worker. 
This agent boasts self-confidence with respect to solving problems as they emerge. The 
esprit de corps emanating from the team culture enforces the self-confidence. Enter the 
standpoint of rational thinker that the carries out the lean methodology. This thinker 
rejects unnecessary planning that is devoid of tangible objectives and benefits. Problems 
should look for solutions, rather than solutions for problems. Therefore, the rational, lean 
thinker might not be all ready for dealing proactively with challenges associated with the 
company’s growth. The corollary of this argument is that the infocultural profile of the 
IC professional may need an adjustment if IC is to continue growing. 
In summary, juxtaposing organizational culture and infoculture to growth require-
ments IC faces reveals a hiatus between these two. A need for cultural change lurks from 
the hiatus. 
6. ConCLuSIon
This section summarizes the findings for each research question, and identifies the 
study’s limitations and directions for future research. The discussion in preceding sec-
tions answered the research questions that guided the study of IC. The first research 
question inquired about organizational culture in the organization studied. Aspects of 
the IC culture have been discussed and summarized in the tables above. In overall char-
acterization, the IC culture matches the team project characteristics identified in the 
literature. Since IC creates custom system and management solutions, variation in the 
problem area is such that only flexible teamwork can match it (Handy, 1993; galbraith, 
1973). IC teams enjoy broad autonomy (Travica, 1999) and main exchanges of individual 
knowledge transpire in the course of project work (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). IC’s 
team culture is also collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980) and cooperative. In addition to the 
team focus, the study discovered particular cultural aspects of trust, open communica-
tion, shared leadership, client focus, knowledge focus, and lean approach to organizing 
and products. 
The second research question aimed at identifying the IC infoculture via the W+H meth-
od. In answering the who-question of infoculture (Who are we in relation to IT/IS?), the 
IC professional has emerged as authoritative IT expert acting in team fashion, trustful 
and trustworthy member, well-informed and competent communicator with unabated 
data access privileges, intrinsically motivated thought leader, reliable consultant, knowl-
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 245
edge worker, and rational analyst. These findings match select traits (but not all) within 
some categories of IT users developed by Walsh and colleagues (2010). The IC profes-
sional resembles disciplined IT user in being competent, well trained, and extrinsically 
motivated to improve their self-efficacy with aid of IT. This professional also resembles 
studious IT user in being intrinsically motivated to go deeper and deeper in the pursuit 
of understanding IT. 
The study furthermore identified several purposes of the beliefs and behaviors respective 
data, knowledge, and IT/IS (the what-question of infoculture).Thus, this infoculture does 
facilitate teamwork and trustful relationships, enable high-bandwidth and efficient com-
munication and thought leadership, and maintain a high-bandwidth interface with cli-
ents. How are these purposes accomplished, asked the how-question of infoculture. An 
impressive list of distinguishing practices, often enabled by capabilities of home-grown 
IS has been discovered: print and electronic channels for disseminating team-praising 
narratives, peer-based project management and evaluation, self-filtering applied to com-
munication content, automated complaint process, democratic informing practices and 
complementary IS, a scorecard, dashboards, self-service IS for operations, tracking and 
search systems, innovation management process and system, presentations, blogs and 
wikis for knowledge sharing, keeping client informed on project progress, involving 
client in problem solving, self-education and knowledge presentation, paired program-
ming, content mapping IS for preserving project knowledge, lean problem solving think-
ing, and many electronic processes. 
It is to be noted that the case company is unique in a capability of building IS to fit its 
processes rather than having to use off-the-shelf IS products. In other words, system 
solutions express with more veracity the company’s culture, or its infoculture is more 
unique than it is in many companies without home-grown IS. This uniqueness is inter-
esting for advancing theorizing on infoculture, but it limits generalizability of the find-
ings. It is furthermore interesting to note a lack of findings in the normative rubric, the 
to-be management and uses of informing agents. Facing growth challenges, IC needs to 
strategize and modify its culture staked on the collocated project teams. Identifying this 
gap demonstrates merits of the W+H method. 
When or why should informing agents change? The answer to this last question of info-
culture is: when it is opportune. This finding emerged in two crucial areas—knowledge 
management and lean approach. IC depends on accumulating new knowledge in the do-
mains of technology and management. The company relies on individual learning, thus 
resembling a culture that combines teamwork with individual initiative (Trompenaars 
& Hampden-Turner, 1998). But the sharing activities have been tuned to the collocated 
context and IS for sharing knowledge asynchronously yet needed to mature. Strategic 
planning in this area is underdeveloped. Similarly, the lean approach developed oppor-
tunistically, due to market conditions and individual initiatives of a handful of thought 
leaders. Such a historical trajectory resembles an emergent strategy (Mintzberg, 2007). 
However, in the case of a small company sensitive to market turbulences, a more effective 
management would involve more strategic planning, or aiming at a “planned strategy” 
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012246
(ibid.). A hiatus between IC’s organizational culture/infoculture and growth require-
ments gives rise to this conclusion.
Comparing findings on the two research questions, it follows that the study discovered 
a close support of IC’s infoculture to the company’s organizational culture. This con-
gruence matches the definitional assumption that infoculture is part of organizational 
culture. One should note, however, that the case organization is specific with regard to its 
strong organizational culture and a homogenous professional profile of employees. These 
characteristics make IC a particular kind of organization, thereby indicating a limitation 
of the study’s generalizability. In larger organizations with differentiated departments 
and various professional profiles, lesser congruence may be likely (Travica, 2010; Walsh 
et al., 2010). It can be concluded that infoculture unveils one part of organizational cul-
ture that is increasingly important given the proliferation of IS, data and the increasing 
importance of knowledge in organizations. 
This study has captured infoculture of a small Canadian consulting company in a fixed 
historical moment. Limited by these sampling and timing properties, the findings still 
advance theorizing on infoculture. Interesting aspects of it have been identified and the 
W+H method was additionally validated. The study also expanded the conceptualiza-
tion of infoculture in its definition and in conceiving informing agents. Future research 
should expand sampling to organizations in other industries and of various sizes and 
complexity. The W+H method should further be used in the data collection stage of re-
search and not only for data analysis. 
7. noTeS
1) In general, the term “informing” is preferable to “information” because it is broader, 
implying “information” (in its various conceptualizations), a process approach, and oth-
er distinguishing characteristics discussed at several places in this article (see also Note 
2 below). 
2) The contemporarily omnipresent term “information” has a peculiar history. Its con-
ceptualizations span from a label for a particular content (e.g., the content sought by 
military espionage or police investigation, or an official announcement by some author-
ity), through the name for a measure of negative entropy in the channel transmitting 
telephone signals (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), to the reference for any content recorded 
or communicated. Today’s pervasive use of “information” in everyday life and in social 
science does not correlate with our understanding of it (Knox, 2009; Machlup, 1983; Ket-
tinger & Li, 2010; Travica, 2011). Some academics in the fields embracing “information” 
as the fundamental concept assume that clear defining of information is not necessary. 
The assumption is as intriguing as building a house without foundations. 
3) In fact, the originally Latin word “culture” refers to cultivation of plants, as in “agricul-
ture.” For example, farming practices are part of material culture. Another and related 
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 247
part is technology. Farming (or any other production practice) is performed by different 
tools in different cultures (today as in the past). Besides product technologies, cultures 
are differentiated on technologies of housing, transportation, preparing and consuming 
food, wardrobe, etc. Indeed, things signifying a culture boil down to technologies and 
certain arts (which also depend on their technologies). 
4) Cultures differ significantly on what the incumbents do and not only on what they be-
lieve. Put another way, no culture, including infoculture, is reducible to beliefs; and there 
is no justification for attributing greater importance to the soft than the hard cultural 
segment. First, behaviors and associated technologies may be carried out irrespective of 
beliefs (say, due to social pressure). Second, people may be unaware of beliefs or these can 
be long forgotten, while old practices and technologies perpetuate (via imitation, tradi-
tion). Third, people’s actual behavior and technologies carrying their work and life are as 
important as their beliefs in understanding a living culture, reality as is. 
referenCeS 
Baskerville, R. & Myers, M. (Eds.). (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS 
research relevant to practice (Foreword). MIS Quarterly, 28 (3), 329-335.
Boisot, M. (1987). Information and organizations: The manager as anthropologist. London: Fontana/Collins.
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering information and knowledge environment. 
New York: Oxford University Press.
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures: Revitalizing the workplace after downsizing, mer-
gers, and reengineering. Reading, MA: Perseus Books
galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations. London: Harmondsworth.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, g. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, 
CA: Sage.
Hofstede, g. & Hofstede, g. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: Mcgraw-
Hill.
Kaarst-Brown, M. & Robey, D. (1999). More on myth, magic and metaphor: Cultural insights into the man-
agement of information technology in organizations. Information Technology and People, 12 (2), 192-217.
Kappos, A. & Rivard, S. (2008). A three-perspective model of culture, information systems, and their devel-
opment and use. MIS Quarterly, 32 (3), 601–634.
Klein, H. & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive fields studies in 
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67-94.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW  |  VOL. 14  |  No.  3  |  2012248
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japanese competitive success. New York: Random House.
Jaques, E. (1952). The changing culture of a factory. New York: The Dryden Press. 
Kettinger, W. J. & Li, Y. (2010). The infological equation extended. European Journal of Information Systems, 
19, 409–421.
Knox, K. (2009). Information and informing science. In gill, T. & Cohen, E. (Eds.), Foundations of Informing 
Science: 1999-2008 (pp. 135-158). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press. 
Leidner, D. (2010). globalization, culture, and information: Towards global knowledge transparency. Journal 
of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 69–77.
Leidner, D. & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of 
information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357-399.
Leidner, D. & Kayworth, T. (2008). Global information systems: The implications of culture for IS management. 
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Machlup, F. (1983). Sematinc quirks in study of information. In Machlup, F. & Mansfiled, U. (Eds.), The Study 
of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 641-671). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, g. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Orlikowski, W. (1996). Evolving with Notes: Organizational change around groupware technology. In Ci-
borra, C. (Ed.), Groupware and teamwork: Invisible hand or technical hindrance? (pp. 23-59). Chichester: John 
Wiley.
Orlikowski, W. & gash, D. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organi-
zations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12 (2), 174-207.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publica-
tions, Inc.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–
665.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication . Urbana, IL:  University of 
Illinois Press.
Straub, D. et al. (2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. Journal of Global Information man-
agement, 13–23.
Travica, B. (1998). Information aspects of new organizational designs: Exploring the non-traditional organ-
ization. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 49 (13).
Travica, B. (1999). New organizational designs: Information aspects. Stamford, CT: Ablex. 
Travica, B. (2003). Information view of organizations: Contextualizing technology—technologizing context. 
Proceedings of AMCIS 2003, August 4-6, 2003, Tampa, FL.
Travica, B. (2005). Information view of organization. Journal of International Technology and Information 
Management, 14 (3), 2005, 1-20.
B. TRAVICA  |  CULTURE OF INFORMINg: A CASE OF CONSULTINg COMPANY 249
Travica, B. (2005a). Information politics and information culture: Case Study. Informing Science Journal, 8, 
211-245. 
Travica, B. (2008). Influence of information culture on adoption of a self-service system. Journal of Infor-
mation, Information Technology, and Organizations, 3, 1-15. Retrieved from: http://jiito.org/articles/JI-
ITOv3p001-015Travica470.pdf.
Travica, B. (2010). Sharpening the focus on information systems and organizational culture: a comparative 
case study. ASAC 2010 Proceedings, Regina, SK, Canada, June 2010.
Travica, B. (2011). Back to basics of informing: The INIS principle. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge, 
Information, and Management,6, 177-196.
Trompenaars, F.& Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity 
in global business. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In Frost, P. et al. (Eds.), 
Organizational culture (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 
Walsh, I., Kefi, H. & Baskerville, R. (2010). Managing culture creep: Toward a strategic model of user IT cul-
ture. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 257–280.
Womack, J.P. (2003). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York: Simon & 
Schuster.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAgE.