A Paradox of Progressive Saturation: The Changing Nature of Improvisation over Time in a Systems Development Project

In this paper, we investigate improvisation in a systems development project within the context of safety-critical, rigid quality management standards. This study took place within a technology company in the automotive industry over a 31-month period and focused on the development of an innovative information system for automobiles. Our analysis traced different forms of improvised practice over the course of a systems development project at the company, along with various triggers of improvisation. We found that as the project progressed, the latitude to improvise became saturated by the increasing structural influences on improvisation. Yet, paradoxically, these structural influences provoked developers to improvise in ways that were progressively more innovative by drawing on accumulated knowledge; we call this phenomenon a ‘paradox of progressive saturation’. The study identifies ten forms of improvisation unfolding across different stages of a systems development project. We offer a conceptualization of the paradox of progressive saturation to represent the changing nature of improvisation over time, which contributes to the literature on improvisation in information systems development.

[1]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory , 1998 .

[2]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The Information Age Confronts Education: Case Studies on Electronic Classrooms , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries , 2002 .

[4]  Per Runeson,et al.  Combining agile methods with stage-gate project management , 2005, IEEE Software.

[5]  Jan Weglarz,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

[6]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  The 'Third Hand': IT-Enabled Competitive Advantage in Turbulence Through Improvisational Capabilities , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Ted Gioia,et al.  The Imperfect Art: Reflections on Jazz and Modern Culture , 1988 .

[8]  Giovan Francesco Lanzara,et al.  Between transient constructs and persistent structures: designing systems in action , 1999, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[9]  K. Seers.  Qualitative data analysis , 2011, Evidence Based Nursing.

[10]  Richard A. Schrenker,et al.  Software engineering for future healthcare and clinical systems , 2006, Computer.

[11]  M. Archer,et al.  Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. By Margaret S. Archer , 2009 .

[12]  Ellen Christiaanse,et al.  Exploring users' appropriation and post‐implementation managerial intervention in the context of industry IOIS , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[13]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Distributed development and scaled agility: improvising a grid for particle physics , 2007 .

[14]  Alistair Mutch,et al.  Technology, Organization, and Structure - A Morphogenetic Approach , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[15]  Joe Nandhakumar,et al.  A temporal perspective of the computer game development process , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[16]  Christine Moorman,et al.  The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development , 1998 .

[17]  David E. Avison,et al.  The fiction of methodological development: a field study of information systems development , 1999, Inf. Technol. People.

[18]  Joe Nandhakumar,et al.  Too close for comfort? Distance and engagement in interpretive information systems research , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[19]  K. Weick.  That's Moving Theories that Matter , 1999 .

[20]  Joe Nandhakumar,et al.  Opening up to agile games development , 2008, CACM.

[21]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis , 2017, ArXiv.

[22]  W. Gibb Dyer,et al.  Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt , 1991 .

[23]  Jorgen P. Bansler,et al.  Improvisation in Action: Making Sense of IS Development in Organizations , 2003 .

[24]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  Irwin Brown,et al.  Conceptualising improvisation in information systems security , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  K. Weick.  Making Sense of the Organization , 2000 .

[27]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Improvisation Effect: A Case Study of User Improvisation and Its Effects on Information System Evolution , 2008, ICIS.

[28]  A. Langley.  Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[29]  Tore Dybå.  Improvisation in Small Software Organizations , 2000, IEEE Software.

[30]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study , 2001 .

[31]  P. Louridas,et al.  Design as Bricolage: Anthropology Meets Design Thinking , 1999 .

[32]  K. WeiK..  The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster , 2009, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[33]  Steven R. Rakitin,et al.  Coping with defective software in medical devices , 2006, Computer.

[34]  M. Hoegl,et al.  The role of team behavioral integration and cohesion in shaping individual improvisation , 2009 .

[35]  Jeffrey S. Saltz,et al.  The need for new processes, methodologies and tools to support big data teams and improve big data project effectiveness , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data).

[36]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Collective agility, paradox and organizational improvisation: the development of a particle physics grid , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[37]  K. Weick.  Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis , 1998 .

[38]  David Mendonça,et al.  Decision support for improvisation in response to extreme events: Learning from the response to the 2001 World Trade Center attack , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[39]  Nilmini Wickramasinghe,et al.  A bricolage perspective on healthcare information systems design: an improvisation model , 2012, DATB.

[40]  Aditya G. Parameswaran,et al.  DataHub: Collaborative Data Science & Dataset Version Management at Scale , 2014, CIDR.

[41]  Niek F. du Plooy.  Information systems as social systems , 2003 .

[42]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  Capability Maturity Model , 1991 .

[43]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Is Internet-Speed Software Development Different? , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[44]  Davide Nicolini.  Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections , 2009 .

[45]  H. V. D. Water,et al.  ISO 9000 series ‐ Certification and performance , 2001 .

[46]  John Effah,et al.  How FOSS Replaced Proprietary Software at a University: An Improvisation Perspective in a Low-income Country , 2014 .

[47]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[48]  Andrew D. Brown,et al.  Making sense of sensemaking narratives , 2008 .

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