Standard Making: a Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems Misq Special Issue Workshop Effectively Managing Information Systems Architecture Standards: an Intra-organization Perspective Standard Making: a Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems Misq Special Issue Workshop

Most standards research focus on standardization of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) standards across an industry. Prior research has not focused on standards management issues within organizations. It is important for research on ICT standards to consider the issue of how organizations should effectively manage their internal standards. Internal ICT standards are manifested as information systems (IS) architecture standards and frameworks. We differentiate between infrastructure architecture standards and integration architecture standards. We argue that it is important to differentiate between these two types of architecture standards, because of the differences in the focus, scope, and benefits of infrastructure and integration architecture. We make use of the information processing theory to make hypotheses about how the structure and organization of the architecture team and inter-unit coordination and control mechanisms are expected to differ for effective management of integration and infrastructure architecture. For infrastructure architecture standards, the goals and benefits are obvious to the IT department, but not necessarily so for the individual business units. While using the standards will provide long-term benefits to the organization as a whole, each business unit may not observe a direct benefit from using the standards in the short term. We hypothesize that to effectively manage infrastructure architecture standards, projects should be IT driven, architecture teams should be managed centrally, and the necessary inter-unit coordination and control processes should be in place to govern the interactions of architects and IT operations personnel. On the other hand, integration architecture standards provide business-focused benefits, but are more costly, more complex to manage and require more business involvement. We hypothesize that to effectively manage integration architecture standards, projects should be driven by the business goals of one or more lines of business, architecture teams should have a matrix structure, and the necessary coordination mechanisms Standard Making: A Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems MISQ Special Issue Workshop 172 should be in place to govern the interactions of architects, IT development personnel and line management. In both cases, organizations should ensure that their architects have the necessary experience working on projects that their architecture standards have an impact on. To test our hypotheses, we are conducting a multi-method study that includes both the qualitative case-study method and the quantitative survey method.

[1]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Arrangements for Information Technology Governance: A Theory of Multiple Contingencies , 1999, MIS Q..

[2]  Carol V. Brown,et al.  Reconceptualizing the Context-Design Issue for the Information Systems Function , 1998 .

[3]  Michael J. Earl,et al.  Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning , 1993, MIS Q..

[4]  P. Weill,et al.  Management by Maxim: How Business and IT Managers Can Create IT Infrastructures , 1997 .

[5]  Abbas Tashakkori,et al.  Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1998 .

[6]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Organizational Technology and Organizational Structure. , 1971 .

[7]  Albert H. Segars,et al.  Strategic Information Systems Planning Success: An Investigation of the Construct and Its Measurement , 1998, MIS Q..

[8]  Laurie J. Kirsch,et al.  Strategic Data Planning: Lessons From the Field , 2011, MIS Q..

[9]  John A. Zachman,et al.  A Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1987, IBM Syst. J..

[10]  Carol V. Brown,et al.  Alignment of the IS Functions With the Enterprise: Toward a Model of Antecedents , 1994, MIS Q..

[11]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[12]  R. Walton,et al.  The Management of Interdepartmental Conflict: A Model and Review. , 1969 .

[13]  Norman L. Chervany,et al.  The Relationship Between Organizational Characteristics and the Structure of the Information Services Function , 1980, MIS Q..

[14]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages , 2003, MIS Q. Executive.

[15]  John F. Sowa,et al.  Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture , 1992, IBM Syst. J..

[16]  Nancy Bogucki Duncan,et al.  Capturing Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure: A Study of Resource Characteristics and their Measure , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[17]  James C. Wetherbe,et al.  Information architectures: Methods and practice , 1986, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Building an IS architecture: Collective wisdom from the field , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[19]  Phillip Ein-Dor,et al.  Organizational Context and MIS Structure: Some Empirical Evidence , 1982, MIS Q..

[20]  Pien Wang,et al.  Information systems management issues in the Republic of China for the 1990s , 1994, Inf. Manag..

[21]  Varun Grover,et al.  Designing company-wide information systems: Risk factors and coping strategies , 1996 .

[22]  K Pelly Periasamy,et al.  Information architecture practice: research-based recommendations for the practitioner , 1997, J. Inf. Technol..

[23]  Alan W. Brown,et al.  Using Service-Oriented Architecture and Component-Based Development to Build Web Service Applications , 2003 .

[24]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[25]  Fred Niederman,et al.  Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s , 1991, MIS Q..

[26]  Graeme G. Shanks,et al.  The challenges of strategic data planning in practice: an interpretive case study , 1997, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[27]  M. Sirbu,et al.  Standards setting for computer communication: The case of X.25 , 2014, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[28]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[29]  W. R. Scott,et al.  Technology and the structure of subunits: distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. , 1977, Administrative science quarterly.

[30]  Minder Chen,et al.  Factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of XML and Web services standards for E-business systems , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[32]  Kar Yan Tam,et al.  Factors Affecting the Adoption of Open Systems: An Exploratory Study , 1997, MIS Q..

[33]  B. Kahin,et al.  Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure , 1995 .

[34]  Doug Hamilton.  Linking strategic information systems concepts to practice: systems integration at the portfolio level , 1999, J. Inf. Technol..

[35]  Peter Weill,et al.  The Implications of Information Technology Infrastructure for Business Process Redesign , 1999, MIS Q..

[36]  Milton Harris,et al.  Organization Design , 2000, Manag. Sci..

[37]  Blake Ives,et al.  User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research , 1984 .

[38]  Harvey F. Kolodny.  Evolution to a Matrix Organization , 1979 .

[39]  Terry Anthony Byrd,et al.  Measuring the Flexibility of Information Technology Infrastructure: Exploratory Analysis of a Construct , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[40]  L. Burns,et al.  Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. , 1993, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[41]  Robert C. Ford,et al.  Cross-Functional Structures: A Review and Integration of Matrix Organization and Project Management , 1992 .