An Empirical Taxonomy of Implementation Processes Based on Sequences of Events in Information System Development

A widely accepted and usable taxonomy is a fundamental element in the development of a scientific body of knowledge. However, the creation of good empirical taxonomies of implementation processes is complicated by the need to consider the dynamics of the implementation process. This paper addresses this difficulty by using an optimal matching procedure to measure the pairwise distances among event sequences occurring in 53 computer-based information system IS implementation projects. Cluster analysis based on these inter-sequence distances is used to generate the empirical taxonomy of implementation processes. The resulting taxonomy includes six distinct archetypical processes. One of the process types is labeled textbook life cycle type 4 due to its close resemblance to the detailed, rational approach commonly prescribed in IS textbooks. The logical minimalist process type 1 follows some of the basic steps of the textbook approach, but is characterized by little project definition and infrequent assignment of personnel. Whereas both textbook life cycle and logical minimalist approaches use external vendors and consultants to some extent, external dependence is much greater in traditional off-the-shelf type 2 and outsourced cooperative type 5 processes. The traditional off-the-shelf process simply involves purchasing the system from an external vendor, with little system construction or assignment of personnel. In contrast, the outsourced cooperative process consists of joint system development by internally assigned personnel and external vendors. The remaining two process types-problem-driven minimalist type 3 and in-house trial and error type 6-are both considerably influenced by performance problems. The problem-driven minimalist process is initiated by such problems, with little project definition, and results in a reassignment of organizational roles. The in-house trial-and-error process begins like textbook life cycle, with a clear project definition, but involves frequent system modifications to respond to the performance problems encountered during the project. The paper demonstrates how an empirical taxonomy that incorporates the dynamics of event sequences may be developed. The archetypes comprising the taxonomy are related to other implementation process models available in the literature. Some limitations of the study are acknowledged and its implications for future research and practice are discussed.

[1]  A. Abbott,et al.  Measuring Resemblance in Sequence Data: An Optimal Matching Analysis of Musicians' Careers , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  B. McKelvey Guidelines for the Empirical Classification of Organizations. , 1975 .

[3]  C. Lindblom Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. , 1979 .

[4]  H. Klein,et al.  Information systems development as social action: Theoretical perspective and practice , 1991 .

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

[6]  David R. Brodwin,et al.  Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon , 1984 .

[7]  Henry Mintzberg The Nature of Managerial Work , 1974, Operational Research Quarterly (1970-1977).

[8]  S. Harris,et al.  Organizational Performance and Information Technology Investment Intensity in the Insurance Industry , 1991 .

[9]  Dave Ulrich,et al.  General Organizational Classification: An Empirical Test Using the United States and Japanese Electronics Industries , 1990 .

[10]  R. Zmud An Examination of Push-Pull Theory Applied to Process Innovation in Knowledge Work , 1984 .

[11]  John A. Hartigan,et al.  Clustering Algorithms , 1975 .

[12]  Girish N. Punj,et al.  Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Application , 1983 .

[13]  Allen G. Smith,et al.  Structured Ethnography , 1982 .

[14]  G. Huber The Nature and Design of Post-Industrial Organizations , 1984 .

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

[16]  E. B. Swanson,et al.  Information System Implementation: Bridging the Gap Between Design and Utilization , 1988 .

[17]  Donald C. Pelz,et al.  Originality level and the innovating process in organizations , 1982 .

[18]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

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

[20]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[21]  Lucas Hc The evolution of an information system: from key-man to every person. , 1978 .

[22]  P. C. Nutt Types of organizational decision processes. , 1984, Administrative science quarterly.

[23]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[24]  Daniel Robey,et al.  A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships , 1992, MIS Q..

[25]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Tactics of Implementation , 1986 .

[26]  Kenneth J. Arrow,et al.  A Strategy of Decision, Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. , 1964 .

[27]  Akbar Zaheer,et al.  Electronic Integration and Strategic Advantage: A Quasi-Experimental Study in the Insurance Industry , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  Steven L. Alter Development Patterns for Decision Support Systems , 1978, MIS Q..

[29]  R. I. Sutton,et al.  The Stigma of Bankruptcy: Spoiled Organizational Image and Its Management , 1987 .

[30]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Implementation: The Key to Successful Information Systems , 1981 .

[31]  James F. Courtney,et al.  A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success , 1985, MIS Q..

[32]  Arch G. Woodside,et al.  An Inductive Model of Industrial Supplier Choice Processes , 1984 .

[33]  Randall L. Schultz The implementation of forecasting models , 1984 .

[34]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  A History of Mechanical Inventions , 1961, Nature.

[35]  K. R. Harrigan An Application of Clustering for Strategic Group Analysis , 1985 .

[36]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  Management information systems : conceptual foundations, structure, and development , 1985 .

[37]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program , 1990 .

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

[39]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Information Systems Implementation: Testing a Structural Model , 1990 .

[40]  Michael Newman,et al.  User Involvement as an Interaction Process: A Case Study , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  M. Lorr Cluster analysis for social scientists , 1938 .

[42]  Blake Ives,et al.  Executive Involvement and Participation in the Management of Information Technology , 1991, MIS Q..

[43]  M. Miles Qualitative Data as an Attractive Nuisance: The Problem of Analysis , 1979 .

[44]  Malcolm Munro,et al.  Information Technology Assessment and Adoption: A Field Study , 1985, MIS Q..

[45]  A. Lewin,et al.  Determining organizational effectiveness: another look, and an agenda for research , 1986 .

[46]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Explaining organizational behavior , 1982 .

[47]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  An innovation research perspective on information system implementation , 1986 .

[48]  William J. Doll,et al.  Avenues for Top Management Involvement in Successful MIS Development , 1985, MIS Q..

[49]  Roger Bakeman,et al.  Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis , 1986 .

[50]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Rituals in Information System Design , 1984, MIS Q..

[51]  Lynn A. Isabella Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Construe Key Organizational Events , 1990 .

[52]  A. H. Schainblatt,et al.  The Researcher and The Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation , 1965 .

[53]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[54]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .