The Contingent Effects of Management Support and Task Interdependence on Successful Information Systems Implementation

Management support is considered to be a critical factor in the successful implementation of information systems innovations. The literature suggests a complex relationship between management support and implementation success. However, the empirical literature typically hypothesizes and tests a simple main-effects model. Drawing upon the role of the institutional context and metastructuration actions, we propose a contingent model in which task interdependence moderates the effect of management support on implementation success. A meta-analysis of the empirical literature provides strong support for the model and begins to explain the wide variance in empirical findings. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

[1]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[2]  J. Cockcroft.  The process of technological innovation , 1965 .

[3]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

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

[5]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[6]  Alexander M. Maish.  A User's Behavior Toward His MIS , 1979, MIS Q..

[7]  Daniel Robey,et al.  User Attitudes and Management Information System Use , 1979 .

[8]  M. Ginzberg.  An organizational contingencies view of accounting and information systems implementation , 1980 .

[9]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions , 1981 .

[10]  G. Glass,et al.  Meta-analysis in social research , 1981 .

[11]  Paul H. Cheney,et al.  Concepts, Theory, and Techniques: FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF COMPUTER-BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN THE OIL INDUSTRY , 1982 .

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

[13]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[14]  T. Bikson,et al.  Factors in Successful Implementation of Computer-Based Office Information Systems: , 1985 .

[15]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches , 1985 .

[16]  T. H. Kwon,et al.  Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation , 1987 .

[17]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization , 1988 .

[18]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology , 1988 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[20]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[21]  S. Barley.  The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. , 1990, Administrative science quarterly.

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

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

[24]  Geoffry S. Howard,et al.  Discretionary Use of Computers: An Empirically Derived Explanatory Model* , 1991 .

[25]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings , 1991 .

[26]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[27]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1992 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION : A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH , 2017 .

[28]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  The Determinants of DSS Success: An Integrated Model* , 1992 .

[29]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Independent Variables , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Jaehoon Whang.  An empirical study of factors influencing interorganizational information systems implementation: A case of the real estate industry , 1992 .

[31]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers , 1992, MIS Q..

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

[33]  R. Saavedra,et al.  Complex interdependence in task-performing groups , 1993 .

[34]  Chris Sauer,et al.  Why information systems fail: a case study approach , 1993 .

[35]  Dorothy Leonard-Barton,et al.  The case for integrative innovation: an expert system at Digital , 1993 .

[36]  A. A. Adekoya.  Evaluation of factors promoting successful microcomputing implementation in the Nigerian workplace , 1993 .

[37]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  The Nature and Determinants of IT Acceptance, Routinization, and Infusion , 1993, Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology.

[38]  Arun Rai,et al.  Propagating CASE usage for software development: An empirical investigation of key organizational correlates , 1994 .

[39]  Barton Lee Dahmer,et al.  Factors associated with implementation and usage of technology-based training: developing and testing a technology implementation model , 1994 .

[40]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[41]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing , 1995 .

[42]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Exploring the Factors Associated with Expert Systems Success , 1995, MIS Q..

[43]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use , 1995 .

[44]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Explaining the Effect of Incentives and Control Mechanisms on Information Technology Usage: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Test , 1996, ICIS.

[45]  Arun Rai,et al.  A Structural Model for CASE Adoption Behavior , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[46]  K. Klein,et al.  The Challenge of Innovation Implementation , 1996 .

[47]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies , 1997 .

[48]  Laurie J. Kirsch,et al.  Portfolios of Control Modes and IS Project Management , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  Peter B. Seddon.  A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[50]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  Testing Moderator Variable Hypotheses Meta-Analytically: , 1998 .

[51]  Rajeev Sharma,et al.  Successful IS innovation: the contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation process , 1999, J. Inf. Technol..

[52]  P. Yetton,et al.  The effects of budget goals and task interdependence on the level of and variance in performance , 1999 .

[53]  Lars Groth.  Future organizational design : the scope for the IT-based enterprise , 1999 .

[54]  Peter A. Bamberger,et al.  The Antecedents and Consequences of Union Commitment: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[55]  Lars Groth,et al.  Future Organizational Design , 1999 .

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

[57]  John J. Sviokla.  Knowledge Workers and Radically New Technology , 2000 .

[58]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems via Meta-Analysis , 2001, MIS Q..

[59]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design - The Case for Incentive Alignment , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[60]  Russell L. Purvis,et al.  The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation , 2001 .

[61]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  A Contingency Approach to Software Project Coordination , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[62]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Shaping UP for E-Commerce: Institutional Enablers of the Organizational Assimliation of Web Technologies , 2002, MIS Q..