Power and Authority Over Systems Developers by the Business Client

This paper reports on research into how systems developers enact an information systems development methodology (ISDM) with a focus on describing how enactment is bound up in everyday social and organisational structures. A case study of an IT department within a major financial institution is used to explore the impact of power and authority structures in the enactment of an in-house developed ISDM.The case study develops an argument that authority structures such as policies and work practices embedded within the ISDM are active forces in the systems development process. The findings depict business exercising nearly complete control over the development process and systems developers as playing a reluctant, but submissive role. The study also develops a theoretical framework that integrates elements of a social actor model to provide a more fine-grained analysis concentrating on the relationships among systems developers, the business client, the ISDM, and the environment surrounding its use.

[1]  Thomas A. Schwandt.  Dictionary of qualitative inquiry , 2001 .

[2]  Leiser Silva,et al.  Epistemological and theoretical challenges for studying power and politics in information systems , 2007, Inf. Syst. J..

[3]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  The diffusion of information systems development methods , 2003, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

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

[5]  Samar Mouakket,et al.  Varieties of Political Process During Systems Development , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Markos Goulielmos,et al.  Systems development approach: transcending methodology , 2004, Inf. Syst. J..

[7]  Neil F. Doherty,et al.  From technical to socio-technical change: tackling the human and organizational aspects of systems development projects , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[8]  David E. Avison,et al.  Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools , 1988 .

[9]  Rob Kling,et al.  Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research , 2003, MIS Q..

[10]  Cynthia Mathis Beath,et al.  The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  Gurpreet Dhillon,et al.  Dimensions of power and IS implementation , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[12]  Bongsug Chae,et al.  The surface of emergence in systems development: agency, institutions, and large-scale information systems , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Roberta Lamb,et al.  Alternative Paths Toward a Social Actor Concept , 2006, AMCIS.

[14]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[15]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Erik Stolterman,et al.  Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: Their impact on past, present and future ISM research , 2000, Inf. Technol. People.

[17]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Organizational power and the information services department , 1984, CACM.

[18]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practices? , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[19]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  A framework for understanding how a unique and local IS development method emerges in practice , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Kees van Slooten,et al.  On the Adaptation of an Agile Information Systems Development Method , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[21]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[23]  A. Pickering.  The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[24]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods , 2000 .

[25]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Power and Information Technology Research: A Metatriangulation Review , 2002, MIS Q..

[26]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[27]  Jan Mouritsen,et al.  The commodification of expertise: The case of systems development consulting , 1991 .

[28]  Karlheinz Kautz,et al.  Persistent problems and practices in information systems development , 2007, Inf. Syst. J..

[29]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1986 POWER OVER USERS : ITS EXERCISE BY SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS , 2017 .

[30]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The Relationship Between Organisational Culture and the Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies , 2001, CAiSE.

[31]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Information Systems in Organizations and Society: Speculating on the Next 25 Years of Research , 2004, Relevant Theory and Informed Practice.

[32]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  Four paradigms of information systems development , 1989, CACM.

[33]  Michael Cullen,et al.  Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework for Studying and Teaching the Human Contexts of Information and Communication Technologies , 2009 .

[34]  Sanjay Gosain,et al.  Enterprise Information Systems as Objects and Carriers of Institutional Forces: The New Iron Cage? , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[35]  Per Backlund.  Adopting the Knowledge Embedded in New Methods - The Challange of Aligning Old and New Practices , 2004, ECIS.