Control Mechanisms for Managing Modularized ISD projects

Information Systems Development (ISD) projects widely utilize modularization to enable better management and control. Yet, the modalities for effectively managing modularized ISD projects are not clearly established. By adopting a ‘control theory’ perspective and leveraging case study approach, we examine eight modularized ISD projects to unearth the mechanisms for managing modularized ISD projects effectively. Results demonstrate that lack of module interdependencies increase the use of formal controls and decrease the informal clan controls. However, informal clan controls may be required for team members to understand the project requirements. Further, it was found that an error in the identification of module interdependencies creates fluctuations in Business Requirement Specifications (BRSs), which in turn, originates project management issues at the later stages of the projects. Rather than utilizing the component-sharing modularity, the use of sectional modularity minimizes the fluctuations in BRS, which ultimately reduces the project management issues in ISD projects.

[1]  S. Senarath,et al.  Credit Default Swaps and the Global Financial Crisis: Reframing Credit Default Swaps as Quasi-Insurance , 2015 .

[2]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  Examining the influence of modularity and knowledge management (KM) on dynamic capabilities: Insights from a call center , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[3]  Helmut Krcmar,et al.  The Future of Outsourcing in the Asia-Pacific Region: Implications for Research and Practice - Panel Report from PACIS 2014 , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Laurie J. Kirsch,et al.  Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Torgeir Dingsøyr,et al.  A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Identifying Software Project Risks: An International Delphi Study , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  M. Patton Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .

[8]  Allen S. Lee A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies , 1989, MIS Q..

[9]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Organizational Control: Two Functions. , 1975 .

[10]  Angelika Zimmermann,et al.  Knowledge transfer in IT offshoring relationships: the roles of social capital, efficacy and outcome expectations , 2014, Inf. Syst. J..

[11]  John K. Gershenson,et al.  Product modularity: Definitions and benefits , 2003 .

[12]  William G. Ouchi,et al.  Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. , 1980 .

[13]  William G. Olchi The Transmission of Control Through Organizational Hierarchy , 1978 .

[14]  Shanuka Senarath The Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t solve the principal-agent problem in asset securitisation , 2017 .

[15]  Miguel Goulão,et al.  Coupling and Cohesion as Modularization Drivers: Are We Being Over-Persuaded? , 2001, CSMR.

[16]  Marcelo Cataldo,et al.  The impact of geographic distribution and the nature of technical coupling on the quality of global software development projects , 2012, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[17]  M. K. Raja,et al.  Quality function deployment usage in software development , 1996, CACM.

[18]  Darshana Sedera,et al.  Introducing System Controls for Control Theory , 2014 .

[19]  Bernard J. Jaworski Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences , 1988 .

[20]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[21]  L. Kirsch The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process , 1996 .

[22]  Shih-Wei Chou,et al.  The factors that affect the performance of open source software development – the perspective of social capital and expertise integration , 2011, Inf. Syst. J..

[23]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  A dynamic model of offshore software development , 2011, J. Inf. Technol..

[24]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  Measuring coupling and cohesion: an information-theory approach , 1999, Proceedings Sixth International Software Metrics Symposium (Cat. No.PR00403).

[26]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[27]  William R. King,et al.  Predictors of Formal Control Usage in IT Outsourcing Partnerships , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in software development , 1995, CACM.

[29]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[30]  R. Sanchez Strategic flexibility in product competition , 1995 .

[31]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[32]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Exploring Adoption and Use of Agile Methods: A Comparative Case Study , 2013, AMCIS.

[33]  Jens Dibbern,et al.  Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs Between Software Projects Offshored to India , 2008, MIS Q..

[34]  A. Tiwana Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing , 2008 .

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

[36]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[37]  Darshana Sedera,et al.  Multi-layered Control Mechanisms in Software Development Outsourcing , 2018, PACIS.

[38]  Walter P. Bond,et al.  Toward software requirements modularization using hierarchical clustering techniques , 2005, ACM Southeast Regional Conference.

[39]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.