| 1. |
- Mähring, Magnus, et al.
(author)
-
Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs
- 2015
-
In: Information Systems Research. - : INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences). - 1047-7047 .- 1526-5536. ; 26:1, s. 57-80
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Though information technology (IT) transformation programs are gaining in importance, we know little about the nature of the challenges involved in such programs and how to manage them. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted a multiyear case study of a large IT transformation program in a major commercial bank, during which we encountered the interrelated themes of paradoxes and ambidexterity. Grounded in our case, we construct a substantive theory of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs that identifies and explains the paradoxes that managers need to resolve in IT transformation programs. The ambidexterity areas we identified are (1) IT portfolio decisions (i.e., IT efficiency versus IT innovation), (2) IT platform design (i.e., IT standardization versus IT differentiation), (3) IT architecture change (i.e., IT integration versus IT replacement), (4) IT program planning (i.e., IT program agility versus IT project stability), (5) IT program governance (i.e., IT program control versus IT project autonomy), and (6) IT program delivery (i.e., IT program coordination versus IT project isolation). What weaves these six areas together is the combined need for IT managers to employ ambidextrous resolution strategies to ensure short-term IT contributions and continuous progress of IT projects while simultaneously working toward IT transformation program success as a foundation for IT-enabled business transformation. However, in addition to this commonality, we find that the nature of paradoxical tensions differs across the six areas and requires slightly different management strategies for paradox resolution. Ambidexterity areas (1), (2), and (3) are associated with IT transformation strategizing and, in addition to balancing short- and long-term goals, require the mutual accommodation and blending of business and IT interests in the spirit of IT-business partnering to achieve IT-enabled business change and IT-based competitiveness. Ambidexterity areas (4), (5), and (6) are associated with IT program and project execution and, in addition to balancing short- and long-term requirements, require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing "local" needs at the IT project level and "global" needs at the IT program level.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sahaym, Arvin, et al.
(author)
-
Value Destruction in Information Technology Ecosystems : A Mixed-Method Investigation with Interpretive Case Study and Analytical Modeling
- 2023
-
In: Information Systems Research. - : Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). - 1047-7047 .- 1526-5536. ; 34:2, s. 508-531
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Many of today’s software systems are created by leveraging ecosystems consisting of heterogeneous “complementors” and “hub” firms. In fact, the reliance on ecosystems is prevalent in the enterprise resource planning (ERP) domain, where larger ERP vendors form collaborative relationships with smaller industry-specific vendors to co-create value for themselves and their customers. However, value creation and destruction processes are often intertwined. A key motivation for this study is to shed light on the behavioral contingencies and underlying mechanisms that might lead to value destruction over time instead of the initially intended value co-creation. Furthermore, although value co-creation in collaborative relationships associated with ecosystems is often highlighted, research has been scarce on offering an in-depth analysis of the challenges in these relationships that can destroy value. This study attempts to address this issue by uncovering the underlying mechanisms that lead a hub firm and its complementors toward value destruction. Our mixed-methods approach involves the use of a combination of interpretive case study and analytical modeling to highlight nuances and develop conceptual propositions about the conditions that can potentially lead to value destruction. Our context is a globally reputed information technology (IT) firm known for providing business solutions (SOFTCo, a pseudonym) and numerous relatively small, less powerful customer-facing service firms (PartnerCos, a pseudonym). Our findings show that opportunism, unjust appropriation of rents, shirking, exploitation of asymmetric power, and undue dependence can initiate a value destruction process. Furthermore, our study revealed an unexpected emergence of a “pack of wolves,” where resentful PartnerCos formed a collective to tackle the opportunistic behaviors of SOFTCo by starting to align with its competitor, further destroying value for SOFTCo’s ecosystem. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on value co-creation/destruction in IT ecosystems. It also offers an illustration of a mixed-methods study where seemingly incommensurable approaches are harnessed to develop a theoretical understanding.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wiener, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Moving IS Project Control Research into the Digital Era: The "Why" of Control and the Concept of Control Purpose
- 2019
-
In: Information Systems Research. - : INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences). - 1526-5536 .- 1047-7047. ; 30:4, s. 1387-1401
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this research commentary, we argue that the current digital era compels a reconsideration and problematization of research on information systems (IS) project control. IS projects are key to the pursuit of digital innovation and transformation activities, and the control of IS projects is central to creating and capturing value from these activities. However, IS project control research has not kept pace with current developments in the digital era. Specifically, we find that existing research has been dominated by an underlying agency theory perspective, which is not attuned to salient aspects of current control settings, such as digital innovation initiatives, and thus restricts our understanding of IS project control. To address this shortcoming, we problematize core assumptions underlying existing IS project control research and draw on stewardship theory to present an alternative set of assumptions complementing the prevalent agency theory perspective; introduce the concept of control purpose (why); offer empirical support for its conceptual distinction between value-appropriation and value-creation control purposes; and develop a research agenda that helps move IS project control research into the digital era.
|
|
| 4. |
- Xu, Heng, et al.
(author)
-
Editorial: Some Thoughts on Reviewing for Information Systems Research and Other Leading Information Systems Journals
- 2023
-
In: Information Systems Research. - : INFORMS. - 1526-5536 .- 1047-7047. ; 34:4, s. 1321-1338
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Peer review of research before publication is both an essential and an integral part of scientific knowledge production. For reputable journals, the peer review process distinguishes knowledge claims in journal articles from those in sources with unknown or varying veracity. The peer review process assures readers that the published work is credible (i.e., conducted in line with prescribed norms of research) and meets a certain threshold with respect to contributions and potential impact. Leading journals are perceived as such not only because the best research is submitted to them but also because of the efforts of the best reviewers and editors in evaluating and, when applicable, developing the initially submitted manuscripts1 to publishable form. The sustained quality of reviews is critical for journals such as Information Systems Research (ISR). With the number of submissions to ISR growing each year, as well as an explicit policy of encouraging and celebrating inclusive excellence (Sarker 2023), there is a need for more reviewers for the journal (and the discipline, more generally) who have the necessary expertise to evaluate submitted papers, who understand and are attuned to the norms of the different traditions and genres of work submitted, and who know how to craft reviews that ensure the review process supports effective knowledge production. In this editorial, we draw on the expertise of some of the experienced associate editors (AEs) at ISR2 who represent different research traditions to provide guidance on how ISR reviewers can contribute reviews that AEs and authors are likely to find valuable. The primary audience of this editorial is Ph.D. students and early career scholars who occasionally review for, or seek to review for, ISR and similar journals. Although experienced reviewers likely know most of what we will say in the next few pages, we are hopeful that the editorial can provide a useful recapitulation of characteristics of reviews that are appreciated by ISR editors, irrespective of the reviewers’ experience. Finally, revisiting what reviewers look for in manuscripts can prove helpful for authors submitting papers to journals such as ISR. Before proceeding, we would like to acknowledge the efforts of editors and editorial board members from various journals who have organized reviewer development workshops (e.g., Rai 2019, Whitley 2023), and reflections on the review process and effective reviews by notable scholars in our discipline (e.g., Lee 1995; Saunders 2005a, b; Straub 2009; Kohli and Straub 2011; Davison 2015; Rai 2016; Leidner et al. 2022); see Table 1. Our editorial does not seek to supplant this accumulated wisdom but seeks to add nuances to the various guidelines that have been offered in the past. We illustrate key points with examples from various research traditions.
|
|
| 5. |
- Yoo, Y., et al.
(author)
-
The new organizing logic of digital innovation : An agenda for information systems research
- 2010
-
In: Information systems research. - : Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). - 1047-7047 .- 1526-5536. ; 21:4, s. 724-735
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this essay, we argue that pervasive digitization gives birth to a new type of product architecture: the layered modular architecture. The layered modular architecture extends the modular architecture of physical products by incorporating four loosely coupled layers of devices, networks, services, and contents created by digital technology. We posit that this new architecture instigates profound changes in the ways that firms organize for innovation in the future. We develop (1) a conceptual framework to describe the emerging organizing logic of digital innovation and (2) an information systems research agenda for digital strategy and the creation and management of corporate information technology infrastructures. © 2010 INFORMS.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
