This paper develops a process model of how and why complementarity and substitution form over time between contractual and relational governance in the context of information systems outsourcing. Our analysis identifies four distinct process patterns that explain this formation as the outcome of interaction processes between key elements of both contractual and relational governance. These patterns unveil the dynamic nature of complementarity and substitution. In particular, we show that the relationship between contractual and relational governance oscillates between complementarity and substitution. Those oscillations are triggered mainly by three types of contextual events (goal fuzziness, goal conflict, and goal misalignment). Surprisingly, substitution of informal control did not occur as an immediate reaction to external events but emerged as a consequence of preceding complementarity. Thus, our study challenges the prevailing view of an either/or dichotomy of complementarity and substitution by showing that they are causally connected over time.
This paper focuses on the process of implementing strategic information systems (SIS) by studying the radical changes it may bring to an organization's deep structure. It argues that a full understanding of the process of implementation of such systems should include not only technical aspects but also the social dynamics of an organization; specifically core values, distribution of power and mechanisms of control. A theoretical framework is formulated based on punctuated equilibrium and previous SIS literature, and is applied to an exploratory case study conducted in a Latin American public organization. The case study depicts how the initiative to implement SIS was the result of external and internal disturbances. The case analysis highlights relationships between an organization's deep structure and SIS implementation. The paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of the study. These include (1) the role of the formal organizational structure in influencing the outcome of SIS implementations, (2) the impact of exogenous contingencies such as elections and external funding that may create a sense of crisis and (3) the influence of newcomers who may be brought in to solve the crisis.
We attempt to use general systems theory (GST) to understand why the resources of Texaco's corporate information technology function consistently did not match its task during its 40-year lifetime. Our interpretation uses mechanistic, organic, and colonial systems metaphors, each with three components. The first is an analysis of a management action system made up of organizational indicators such as Texaco's revenues, profits, employee numbers, IT budgets, and IT personnel numbers. The second is a narrative of performance versus resource needs, which shows a gap between the resources and expanding responsibilities of Texaco's IT function. The third is a management perception system, which offers reasons why top management continually misinterpreted IT's performance as inferior. Our results show that the mechanistic, organic, and colonial interpretations converge. In addition, our GST-based interpretations show how top management might have remedied the situation.
This paper proposes a four-tiered framework for classifying and understanding the myriad of information systems development methodologies that have been proposed in the literature. The framework is divided into four levels: paradigms, approaches, methodologies, and techniques. This paper primarily focuses on the two intermediate levels: approaches and methodologies. The principal contribution of the framework is in providing a new kind of "deep structure" for better understanding the intellectual core of methodologies and approaches and their interrelationships. It achieves this goal by articulating a parsimonious set of foundational features that are shared by subsets of methodologies and approaches. To illustrate how the framework's deep structure provides a better understanding of methodologies' intellectual core, it is applied to eleven examples. The paper also introduces and illustrates a procedure for "accommodating" and "assimilating" new information systems development methodologies in addition to the eleven already discussed. This procedure provides the framework with the necessary flexibility for handling the continuing proliferation of new methodologies.
This paper analyses the fundamental philosophical assumptions of five "contrasting" information systems development (ISD) approaches: the interactionist approach, the speech act-based approach, the soft systems methodology approach, the trade unionist approach, and the professional work practice approach. These five approaches are selected for analysis because they illustrate alternative philosophical assumptions from the dominant "orthodoxy" identified in the research literature. The paper also proposes a distinction between "approach" and "methodology." The analysis of the five approaches is organized around four basic questions: What is the assumed nature of an information system (ontology)? What is human knowledge and how can it be obtained (epistemology)? What are the preferred research methods for continuing the improvement of each approach (research methodology)? and what are the implied values of information system research (ethics)? Each of these questions is explored from the internal perspective of the particular ISD approach. The paper addresses these questions through a conceptual structure which is based on a paradigmatic framework for analyzing ISD approaches.
It is our intention to challenge the commonly held assumption that information systems development (ISD) can be conceived of as a normative process reflecting conventional economic rationality. We ask: is systems development the rational process so eloquently described in the ‘classic’ works of DeMarco (1978), Gane and Sarson (1979), Weinberg (1980), Yourdon (1982), Jackson (1983), and Martin (1985)? Or does this orthodox view fail to explain the actual practice of systems development? It is our view that even the basic assumptions about the rationality of the actors and the social processes they engage in need to be critically appraised. We suggest that if the assumptions about economic rationality are closely analyzed, it can be seen that they do not reflect the reality of systems development. ISD tends to defy rational explanations. As an alternative to basing our understanding of systems development on economic rationality, we contend that symbolism holds more promise. Instead of focusing on data flow diagrams, structured walkthroughs, requirements specifications, and the like, we concentrate on the role of myth, metaphor, and magic. These concepts offer considerable scope in interpreting the social actions that are embodied within ISD. We feel they facilitate a much richer understanding of systems development.