Paradoxes in the Development of a Business Critical Information System

The object of this grounded theory study was an information system development (ISD) project. The project included two private sector organizations. The data were collected by 15 in-depth interviews. Glaserian grounded theory method was used as the technique for theory building. The main contribution of this study is a substantive theory of ‘Paradoxical views of strategic ISD and change management’, presented in the form of propositions. Theory includes the analysis of managerial and organizational contradictions when aiming at coping with changes and decreasing uncertainties during the ISD project. The theory explains also how the trust-based collaboration formed during the years enabled an excessive optimism among the decision makers. The pre-existing ISD structure did not fully support the actions required for the strategic Information System (IS) change which polarized the decision making and management. We argue that the findings of this study have some valuable implications to researchers who aim to understand the emerging issues and tensions in the development of a business critical IS product.

[1]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[2]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[3]  S. Koeszegi.  Trust‐building strategies in inter‐organizational negotiations , 2004 .

[4]  Peter M. Senge,et al.  Laws of the Fifth Discipline , 1990 .

[5]  Lynn Crawford,et al.  Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management , 2006 .

[6]  L. Zucker.  Institutional Theories of Organization , 1987 .

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

[8]  William H. Glick,et al.  Response: Organizations Are Not Central Tendencies: Shadowboxing in the Dark, Round 2 , 1988 .

[9]  Quy Nguyen Huy,et al.  Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical Change , 1999 .

[10]  Amy L. Pablo,et al.  Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior , 1992 .

[11]  Chun-Ming Chang,et al.  Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty as an inhibitor of intra‐organisational knowledge sharing , 2014, Inf. Syst. J..

[12]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation , 1991 .

[13]  Victoria L. Mitchell.  Knowledge Integration and Infromation Technology Project Performance , 2006, MIS Q..

[14]  D. Denison,et al.  Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership , 1995 .

[15]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  Information systems planning in a turbulent environment , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Social-Business Tensions , 2013 .

[17]  R E Miles,et al.  Organizational strategy, structure, and process. , 1978, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[18]  Paula Jarzabkowski,et al.  Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve , 2013 .

[19]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  A market-based perspective on information systems development , 2001, CACM.

[20]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TENSIONS: EXPLORING CONTRASTING STYLES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT , 2002 .

[21]  D. Whetten.  Effective Administrators: Good Management on the College Campus , 1984 .

[22]  Andrew C. Inkpen,et al.  Understanding Institutional-based Trust Building Processes in Inter-organizational Relationships , 2011 .

[23]  P. Ring,et al.  Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships , 1994 .

[24]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  M. Pratt,et al.  Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities , 2000 .

[26]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  The Dynamics of Alignment: Insights from a Punctuated Equilibrium Model , 2001 .

[27]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Information systems and organizational change , 1990, CACM.

[28]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[29]  J. D. Margolis,et al.  Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business , 2003 .

[30]  H. Markus,et al.  Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. , 1991 .

[31]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[32]  C. Gersick.  REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[33]  J. Bartunek.  Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order , 1984 .

[34]  Jean-Louis Denis,et al.  Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames , 2007 .

[35]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[36]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  Top Management Support, Collective Mindfulness, and Information Systems Performance , 2013, Journal of International Technology and Information Management.

[37]  Chris Chapman,et al.  Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management , 2003 .

[38]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design. , 1978 .

[39]  Lotte S. Luscher,et al.  Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox , 2008 .

[40]  Nigel Melville,et al.  Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability , 2010, MIS Q..

[41]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Information systems management and strategy formulation: the ‘stages of growth’ model revisited , 1991, Inf. Syst. J..

[42]  N. Ashkanasy,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate , 2000 .

[43]  Elaine Romanelli,et al.  Convergence and Upheaval: Managing the Unsteady Pace of Organizational Evolution , 1986 .

[44]  J. Badaracco.  The discipline of building character. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[45]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[46]  Paula Jarzabkowski,et al.  Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests , 2010 .

[47]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Explaining Development and Change in Organizations , 1995 .

[48]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations , 1993, IBM Syst. J..

[49]  B. Glaser.  Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory , 2002 .

[50]  M. Brewer.  The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time , 1991 .

[51]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test , 1994 .

[52]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[53]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX : A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF ORGANIZING , 2011 .

[54]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[55]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Technical Action Research as a Validation Method in Information Systems Design Science , 2012, DESRIST.

[56]  R. F. Allen,et al.  Confronting the shadow organization: How to detect and defeat negative norms , 1973 .

[57]  L. Zucker.  Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. , 1986 .

[58]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[59]  P. Ghemawat,et al.  Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The , 1993 .

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

[61]  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..

[62]  Niels Lohmann.  Compliance by design for artifact-centric business processes , 2013, Inf. Syst..

[63]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  A tale of two coalitions – marginalising the users while successfully implementing an enterprise resource planning system , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[64]  K. Weick.  The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster , 1993 .

[65]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Aligning in practice: from current cases to a new agenda , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[66]  D. Teece,et al.  The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction , 1994 .

[67]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

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

[69]  Yvonne Dittrich,et al.  Software engineering beyond the project - Sustaining software ecosystems , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

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

[71]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

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

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

[74]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Strategic Information Management , 2016 .

[75]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value , 2004, MIS Q..