Facilitating Enterprise Transformation Through Legitimacy – An Institutional Perspective

Much research has been conducted in order to design sophisticated enterprise transformation (ET) methods, for instance in terms of enterprise architecture management. However, only little attention has been paid to the factors that, to some extent independent of a method's sophistication, exert pressure on a transformation approach's desirability, appropriateness, and acceptance. Grounded in institutional theory, this paper structures and exemplifies design factors that should be obeyed in order to build and anchor an effective enterprise transformation approach in an intra-organizational context. Specifically we found the factor of legitimacy to be crucial for successful ET. Strategies for gaining legitimacy are discussed accordingly. Overall, this paper's institutional perspective contributes to better understand and design ET approaches.

[1]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[2]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[4]  Kristian Hjort-Madsen,et al.  Enterprise Architecture Implementation and Management: A Case Study on Interoperability , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[5]  Kristian Hjort-Madsen,et al.  Institutional patterns of enterprise architecture adoption in government , 2007 .

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

[7]  Philip Selznick.  Foundations of the Theory of Organization , 1948 .

[8]  Mark C. Suchman.  Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[9]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? , 2001, MIS Q..

[10]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[11]  E. Romanelli,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1992 .

[12]  Jan A. P. Hoogervorst,et al.  Enterprise Governance and Enterprise Engineering , 2009, The Enterprise Engineering Series.

[13]  Wei Li,et al.  Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[14]  Robert Winter,et al.  Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design - An Empirical Analysis , 2011, Wirtschaftsinformatik.

[15]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective , 2003, MIS Q..

[16]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  João Baptista,et al.  Institutionalisation as a process of interplay between technology and its organisational context of use , 2009, J. Inf. Technol..

[18]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[19]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Coping with contradictions in business process re-engineering , 1996, Inf. Technol. People.

[20]  Sabine Buckl,et al.  On the State-of-the-Art in Enterprise Architecture Management Literature , 2011 .

[21]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[23]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  Structure and Process in Modern Societies , 1961 .

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

[25]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Anatomy of a Design Theory , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..