Large, multi-unit organizations are continually challenged to balance demands for centralization of information technology that lead to cost and service efficiencies through standardization while providing flexibility at the local unit level in order to meet unique business, customer, and service needs. This has led many organizations to adopt hybrid federated information technology governance (ITG) structures to find this balance. This approach to ITG establishes demand for various means to coordinate effectively across the organization to achieve the desired benefits. Past research has focused on the efficacy of various coordination mechanisms (e.g., steering committees, task forces) to coordinate activities related to information technology. However, we lack insights as to how and why these various coordination approaches help organizations achieve desired coordinated outcomes. This research specifically identifies coordinating as a process. Adopting the philosophy of critical realism, we conducted a longitudinal, comparative case study of two coordinating efforts in a federated ITG structure. Through a multifaceted approach to scientific logic employing deductive, inductive, and retroductive elements, we explicate two causal mechanisms, consensus making and unit aligning, which help to explain the coordinating process and the coordination outcomes observed in these efforts. We additionally elaborate the operation of the mechanisms through the typology of macro-micro-macro influences. Further, we demonstrate the value of the causal mechanisms to understanding the coordinating process by highlighting the complementarity in insights relative to the theories of power and politics and of rational choice. The study contributes to our understanding of coordinating as a process and of governance in federated IT organizations. Importantly, our study illustrates the value of applying critical realism to develop causal explanations and generate insights about a phenomenon.
Taking a control theory view of software process innovation, we tested prevalent beliefs regarding software process maturity and Information Systems employee attitudes and perceptions by surveying 736 IS professionals in 10 organizations at varying levels of the CMM (capability maturity model). Although anecdotal reports and the scant empirical studies to date suggest job attitudes and perceptions are more positive for employees in organizations at higher levels of software process maturity, we found evidence of a more complex picture. While our data supported expectations that role conflict and perceived work overload were lower for IS professionals in organizations at a level of maturity where software process behavioral controls are implemented, other results were not fully in line with prevalent beliefs. Most notably, IS workers reported significantly lower professional efficacy and lower job satisfaction in organizations at CMM Level 3, where behavioral controls are the dominant form of formal control, than in organizations at Level 1, which is relatively free of formal controls. Some anticipated positive attitudes and perceptions surfaced in organizations at the highest rungs of software process maturity (CMM Levels 4/5), where the established behavioral controls are supplemented by substantial outcome controls, as IS professionals reported lower role ambiguity and higher job satisfaction than did their counterparts in organizations at CMM Level 3.
Critical realism is emerging as a viable philosophical paradigm for conducting social science research, and has been proposed as an alternative to the more prevalent paradigms of positivism and interpretivism. Few papers, however, have offered clear guidance for applying this philosophy to actual research methodologies. Under critical realism, a causal explanation for a given phenomenon is inferred by explicitly identifying the means by which structural entities and contextual conditions interact to generate a given set of events. Consistent with this view of causality, we propose a set of methodological principles for conducting and evaluating critical realism-based explanatory case study research within the information systems field. The principles are derived directly from the ontological and epistemological assumptions of critical realism. We demonstrate the utility of each of the principles through examples drawn from existing critical realist case studies. The article concludes by discussing the implications of critical realism based research for IS research and practice.