{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027823240589198037, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0220949263502455, 'mean_word_length': 4.965853658536585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
IS: An Organization Perspective of Conception Paradigms

On one hand, IS are expected to improve performance, especially in terms of production factor productivity (SESSI, 2006, 2007), and on the other hand simplify the seemingly ever-increasing complexity within the firms. Research has often focused on how to implement IS, but very little on the designing step and on how to work out the architecture as a system per se. It is therefore important to think about the designing paradigms of IS, since their evolution often takes place through a logic based on increments, which entails path dependency (Nelson and Winter, 1982 ; Dosi, 1982 ; David, 1985) in innovation and the various layers of applications. Designing IS stands as a direction for research in order to comprehend their successive mutations (Desa and alii, 2007). The purpose of this article is to assess the situation regarding the 5 explanatory paradigms that appear in the designing of an IS, and to offer a clear statement of their impact on the firms: the technical and production paradigm, the strategic and decision-making paradigm, the social and technical paradigm, the network paradigm and the collaboration paradigm of Web 2.0 and user centric.