Conceptualizing and analyzing fit in information systems research : an empirical comparison of perspectives

The impacts of information technology on business performance has been a focus of research in recent years. In this regard, contingency models based on the notion of « fit » between the organization’s management of IT, its environment, strategy, and structure seem to hold some promise. However, given different conceptual definitions of fit adopted and statistical analysis methods chosen by researchers, results of empirical studies may vary. Six perspectives are examined as they pertain to the relationships between the firm’s environmental uncertainty, its strategic orientation, its structure, its strategic management of IT, and its performance, namely moderation, mediation and matching as bivariate approaches to fit, and covariation, profile deviation and gestalts as systems approaches. These relationships are analyzed by means of an empirical study of 110 small and medium-sized enterprises. Results obtained from applying and comparing the six perspectives illustrate their significant differences and confirm the need for conceptual and methodological rigor when applying contingency theory in IS research.

[1]  P. Julien.  The State of the Art in Small Business and Entrepreneurship , 2018 .

[2]  Yi Liu,et al.  Information technology and organizational structure , 2002 .

[3]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  Beyond the productivity paradox , 1998, CACM.

[4]  Jong-min Choe,et al.  The relationship model between the influence factors and the strategic applications of information systems , 1998 .

[5]  Yolande E. Chan,et al.  Business Strategic Orientation, Information Systems Strategic Orientation, and Strategic Alignment , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  William R. King,et al.  Integration between Business Planning and Information Systems Planning: An Evolutionary-Contingency Perspective , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  William R. King,et al.  Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and IS planning , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[8]  Arun Rai,et al.  Refocusing where and how IT value is realized: An empirical investigation , 1996 .

[9]  Varun Grover,et al.  An Empirically Derived Taxonomy of Information Technology Structure and Its Relationship to Organizational Structure , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Nava Pliskin,et al.  The effects of information systems integration and organizational culture on a firm's effectiveness , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[11]  V. Chagué.  Gérer la technologie dans les PME , 1996 .

[12]  W. Currie.  Organizational structure and the use of information technology: Preliminary findings of a survey in the private and public sector , 1996 .

[13]  Douglas L. MacLachlan,et al.  Fax Surveys: Return Patterns and Comparison with Mail Surveys , 1996 .

[14]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View , 1995, MIS Q..

[15]  Guy Paré,et al.  Matching information technology and organizational structure: an empirical study with implications for performance , 1995 .

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

[17]  J. Tirole,et al.  The Management of Innovation , 1994 .

[18]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  An empirical investigation of the antecedents of telecommunication-based interorganizational systems , 1994 .

[19]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  The Alignment between Organizational Critical Success Factors and Information Technology Capability in Academic Institutions , 1994 .

[20]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The productivity paradox of information technology , 1993, CACM.

[21]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  Information technology, incentives and the optimal number of suppliers , 1993, Proceedings of ELECTRO '94.

[22]  S. Zahra,et al.  Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance , 1993 .

[23]  Philip Powell,et al.  Information Technology and Business Strategy: A Synthesis of the Case for Reverse Causality , 1992, ICIS.

[24]  J. Iivari.  The organizational fit of information systems , 1992, Inf. Syst. J..

[25]  Rashi Glazer.  Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset , 1991 .

[26]  William H. Glick,et al.  Understanding Technology-Structure Relationships: Theory Development and Meta-Analytic Theory Testing , 1991 .

[27]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .

[28]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Paul Alpar,et al.  A Microeconomic Approach to the Measurement of Information Technology Value , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  The Impact of the Environment on the Management of Information Systems , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  Hamid Tavakolian,et al.  Linking the Information Technology Structure with Organizational Competitive Strategy: A Survey , 1989, MIS Q..

[32]  Peter Weill,et al.  An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems , 1989, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Peter Weill,et al.  Managing Investment in Information Technology: Mini Case Examples and Implications , 1989, MIS Q..

[34]  Richard Leifer,et al.  Matching Computer-Based Information Systems with Organizational Structures , 1988, MIS Q..

[35]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Using Subjective Evaluations of Organizational Performance in Small Business Research , 1988 .

[36]  E. B. Swanson,et al.  Information systems in organization theory: a review , 1987 .

[37]  David Miller.  Strategy Making and Structure: Analysis and Implications for Performance , 1987 .

[38]  Danny Miller,et al.  Psychological and Traditional Determinants of Structure. , 1986 .

[39]  Donald H. Bender,et al.  Financial Impact of Information Processing , 1986, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[40]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory. , 1984 .

[41]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Exploring the Concept of “Fit” in Strategic Management , 1984 .

[42]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit , 1984 .

[43]  J. Ettlie,et al.  Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation , 1984 .

[44]  J. Turner.  Organizational Performance, Size, and the Use of Data Processing Resources , 1983 .

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

[46]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  Strategies for Information Requirements Determination , 1982, IBM Syst. J..

[47]  William H. DeLone.  Firm Size and the Characteristics of Computer Use , 1981, MIS Q..

[48]  C. B. Schoonhoven.  Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency "theory.". , 1981, Administrative science quarterly.

[49]  G. Rice,et al.  Decision Theory and the Small Businessman , 1979 .

[50]  Steven K. Paulson,et al.  Small Business and the Theory of Small Bureaucracies , 1979 .

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

[52]  P. H. Friesen,et al.  Archetypes of Strategy Formulation , 1978 .

[53]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[54]  João Bosco Lodi,et al.  Strategy and structure , 1969 .

[55]  Robert E. Stauffer,et al.  THE STRUCTURE OF SMALL BUREAUCRACIES , 1966 .

[56]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research , 1965 .

[57]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  Information Technology and Productivity: A Review of the Literature , 1996, Adv. Comput..

[58]  Louis Raymond,et al.  The Contribution of IT to the Bottom Line: A Contingency Perspective of Strategic Dimensions , 1995, ICIS.

[59]  Lorin M. Hitt,et al.  The Three Faces of IT Value: Theory and Evidence , 1994, ICIS.

[60]  Yolande E. Chan,et al.  Investigating Information Systems Strategic Alignment , 1993, ICIS.

[61]  Guy Paré,et al.  Information Technology and Organizational Structure Revisited: Implications for Performance , 1993, ICIS.

[62]  David J. Miller,et al.  Stale in the Saddle: CEO Tenure and the Match Between Organization and Environment , 1991 .

[63]  Marion G. Sobol,et al.  The relationship between computerization and performance: A strategy for maximizing the economic benefits of computerization , 1983, Inf. Manag..

[64]  Danny Miller,et al.  TOWARD A NEW CONTINGENCY APPROACH: THE SEARCH FOR ORGANIZATIONAL GESTALTS , 1981 .

[65]  Michael E. Porter.  Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors , 1980 .

[66]  J. Rockart.  Chief executives define their own data needs. , 1979, Harvard business review.

[67]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[68]  B. Longest.  Sampling techniques. , 1971, Hospitals.

[69]  W. Holtzman.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. , 1951 .