Everyday power struggles: living in an IOIS project

The broad aim of this interpretive study was to investigate the lived experiences of inter-organisational information system (IOIS) project members who worked in a 3-year-long IOIS project. The study presents an original longitudinal study of project member experiences. In this paper, we have described and analysed one core category, project power, which was derived from a grounded theory (GT) study. This study extends existing theories about power in organisational contexts, in particular the everyday use of power in projects. The paper shows how GT can be used to gain significant insights into a case study, and also generate new concepts. This paper gives detailed insights into the power issues as they played out in a complex IOIS project. This IOIS project spanned four user organisations, two suppliers, one national organisation, a research organisation and a government Ministry. One key finding is that, given the complexity of the project management structures in an IOIS project such as this, project members often resorted to formal authority as a means of getting things done, in the absence of informal links between organisations. The project history also had major ramifications on the use of power in this project.

[1]  Francis T. Hartman,et al.  Project Management in the Information Systems and Information Technologies Industries , 2002 .

[2]  Venkat R. Krishnan,et al.  Impact of top management power on corporate divestiture , 2004 .

[3]  M. D. Myers,et al.  A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project , 1994 .

[4]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Symbolism and Information Systems Development: Myth, Metaphor and Magic , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  M. Weber.  From Max Weber: Essays in sociology , 1946 .

[6]  Kathy McGrath,et al.  Power, Rationality, and the Art of Living Through Socio-Technical Change , 2007, MIS Q..

[7]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  Turning a Community into a Market: A Practice Perspective on Information Technology Use in Boundary Spanning , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  Turning a Community into a Market: A Practice Perspective on IT Use in Boundary-Spanning , 2005 .

[9]  B. Glaser.  Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing , 1992 .

[10]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[11]  A. Giddens.  The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

[12]  C. Urquhart.  The evolving nature of grounded theory method: the case of the information systems discipline , 2007 .

[13]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[14]  Henri Barki,et al.  Interpersonal Conflict and Its Management in Information System Development , 2001, MIS Q..

[15]  Ilan Oshri,et al.  Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Cynthia Hardy,et al.  The Power Behind Empowerment: Implications for Research and Practice , 1998 .

[17]  Derek H.T. Walker,et al.  Rethinking Project Management – An Organisational Perspective , 2009 .

[18]  James Gordon,et al.  Project Management and Project Network Techniques , 1995 .

[19]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Grounded Theory Method: The Researcher as Blank Slate and Other Myths , 2006, ICIS.

[20]  W. R. King,et al.  Information systems offshoring: research status and issues , 2008 .

[21]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team , 2000, MIS Q..

[22]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[23]  Patricia H. Thornton,et al.  Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958– 19901 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  Helena Karsten,et al.  Verbal and visual representations in task redesign: how different viewpoints enter into information systems design discussions , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[25]  H. Smyth,et al.  An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues , 2007 .

[26]  S. Fineman,et al.  The Emotions of Control: A Qualitative Exploration of Environmental Regulation , 1999 .

[27]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[28]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[29]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Power and Information Technology Research: A Metatriangulation Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[30]  Leiser Silva,et al.  Epistemological and theoretical challenges for studying power and politics in information systems , 2007, Inf. Syst. J..

[31]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Learning failure in information systems development , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[32]  Mike Newman,et al.  Control, trust, power, and the dynamics of information system outsourcing relationships: A process study of contractual software development , 2008, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  The impact of the nature of globally distributed work arrangement on work–life conflict and valence: the Indian GSD professionals’ perspective , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[34]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Going Concerns: The Governance of Interorganizational Coordination Hubs , 2012, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[35]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  Team Boundary Issues Across Multiple Global Firms , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[37]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Expertise Integration and Creativity in Information Systems Development , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[38]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[39]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[40]  Roland Traunmüller.  Information Systems: The e-Business Challenge, IFIP 17th World Computer Congress - TC8 Stream on Information Systems: The e-Business Challenge, August 25-30, 2002, Montréal, Québec, Canada , 2002, Information Systems: The e-Business Challenge.

[41]  Antoinette McCallin,et al.  Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study , 2003, Contemporary nurse.

[42]  Anca Metiu,et al.  Owning the Code: Status Closure in Distributed Groups , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[43]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  Sociological theory and modern society , 1968 .

[44]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Cognitive Elements in the Implementation of New Technology: Can Less Information Provide More Benefits? , 1996, MIS Q..

[45]  S. Clegg,et al.  Power and Organizations , 2006 .

[46]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1986 POWER OVER USERS : ITS EXERCISE BY SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS , 2017 .

[47]  B. Glaser.  Doing grounded theory : issues and discussions , 1998 .

[48]  Jules Townshend,et al.  Power, A Radical View , 2007 .

[49]  Natalia Levina,et al.  Collaborating on Multi-Party Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[50]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration , 2008, MIS Q..

[51]  Adam D. Galinsky,et al.  8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status , 2008 .

[52]  Kul Bhushan C. Saxena,et al.  Managing inter-organisational workflows in eGovernment services , 2004, ICEC '04.

[53]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[54]  Kuldeep Kumar,et al.  Sustainable Collaboration: Managing Conflict and Cooperation in Interorganizational Systems , 1996, MIS Q..

[55]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[56]  Lauri Salmivalli,et al.  Governing the implementation of a complex inter-organizational information system network : the case of Finnish prescription , 2014 .

[57]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Power, politics, and MIS implementation , 1987, CACM.

[58]  Wesley J. Johnston,et al.  Cooperative adoption of complex systems: a comprehensive model within and across networks , 2005 .

[59]  Elizabeth J. Davidson,et al.  Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requirements Determination , 2002, MIS Q..