control configuration and control enactment in information systems projects: review and expanded...
TRANSCRIPT
Control Configuration and Control Enactment in Information Systems Projects: Review and Expanded Theoretical Framework Martin Wiener, Bentley University Magnus Mähring, Stockholm School of Economics Ulrich Remus, University of Innsbruck Carol Saunders, Northern Arizona University
Theory and Review
Citation: Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., and Saunders, C. (2016) “Control Configuration and Control Enactment in Information Systems Projects: Review and Expanded Theoretical Framework,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 741-774.
• The control of IS projects is a key activity for deployment of IT resources and ultimately for value creation through IT
• In our study, we provide a systematic review and synthesis of the literature and develop an expanded theoretical framework for IS project control with supporting conjectures
• Our review reveals that prior research primarily studies the contextual antecedents and performance consequences of control modes and amounts, and thus focuses on control configurations (what?)
• In contrast, prior research largely neglects control enactment (how?), that is, how the controller interacts with the controllee to put controls into practice
• Informed by the review results, we conceptualize control enactment in terms of control style (authoritative vs. enabling) and control congruence (communicational and evaluational)
• Expanding the toolbox of concepts available to IS researchers, our framework helps resolve existing research gaps and inconsistencies, and opens up new avenues for future research on the control of IS projects
2
In a nutshell Summary
• Introduction – Motivation – Foundations
• Literature review – Methodology & Analytical framework – Key results
• Theory development – Expanded theoretical framework – Definitions & Conceptualizations – Conjectures
• Contributions
3
Contents Overview
2
1
3
4
4
Controlling IS projects is a challenging task, contributing to the continuing high failure rate
• Inherent complexity (KIRSCH 1996; MÄHRING & KEIL 2008)
• Abstract work processes and project outcomes (CHOUDHURY & SABHERWAL 2003)
• Project dynamics (e.g., goals, team members, stakeholders, context factors) (KIRSCH 2004)
• Lack of relevant knowledge (KIRSCH ET AL. 2002)
• Etc.
Control challenges IS project failure
Motivation
FBI Virtual Case File project
“I did not do the things I should have done to make sure that [the project] was a success” (FBI DIRECTOR RICHARD MUELLER)
EXAMPLE
2 1 3 4
• Control is often thought to be dyadic (controller vs. controllee), with the controller carrying out specific activities to regulate or adjust the controllee behavior (CHOUDHURY & SABHERWAL 2003; KIRSCH 1996)
• Control activities are typically categorized into different types and modes of control (JAWORSKI 1988; KIRSCH 1996; OUCHI 1979)
5
Control modes have been the dominant theoretical lens in IS project control research over the last 20 years Foundations
Control activities Controller Controllee
Behavior control
Outcome control
Clan control
Self-control
Input control
Formal control Informal control Types
Modes
2 1 3 4
6
We followed established guidelines to conduct a comprehensive review centering on three major themes
• Five-step search process (WEBSTER & WATSON 2002)
– Manual & Keyword search (AIS Basket of Eight)
– Database search (EBSCO & ScienceDirect)
– Backward & Forward search
• Study exclusion criteria – No focus on “IS project control” – Conference papers that resulted in
journal articles – Research-in-progress papers – No original content
(e.g., announcements, forewords)
• Final review sample of 57 studies
• Theme 1: Control choices (antecedents)
• Theme 2: Control effects (consequences)
• Theme 3: Control dynamics (changes)
Review methodology Analytical framework
Literature review 2 1 3 4
Note: A = Agreement; G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 7
The review revealed areas of agreement, gaps, and inconsistencies in extant IS project control literature Review results (1/2)
Theme Key points
Control choices
• Four key antecedents of control mode choices: behavior observability, outcome measurability, controller and controllee IS knowledge (A)
• Two key antecedents of control amount choices: complexity of the project task and the controller’s trust in the controllee (A)
• While the potential importance of control style is identified in the literature, little is known about the antecedents of different control styles (G)
Control effects
• Performance-enhancing effect of formal/informal control in internal IS projects (A) • Studies on outsourced IS projects have produced mixed results with regard to the
link between control and performance (I) • Prior literature provides initial evidence for distinct and partly inverse control effects
on project efficiency, quality, and adaptiveness (G) • Studies are inconclusive as to whether formal and informal controls act as
complements, substitutes, or simultaneously as both (I) • Strong focus on intended control consequences; this focus largely neglects
unintended, socio-emotional consequences of control (G)
Control dynamics
• Less than one sixth of the reviewed studies apply a dynamic perspective (G) • Performance problems trigger changes in control portfolio configurations (A) • Like static studies, dynamic studies focus on control modes and amounts (G)
2 1 3 4
Note: A = Agreement; G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 8
Most importantly, it shows that earlier research has primarily focused on control portfolio configurations (What modes?) Review results (2/2)
Theme Key points
Conceptual basis
• Great majority of the studies in our sample view IS project control in terms of control modes and amounts, and thus focus on control portfolio configurations (A)
• Only six studies also consider facets of how controls are put into practice, focusing on either control style or control congruence (G)
• About 90% of the reviewed studies draw upon the well-established ‘Kirsch typology’ to classify controls into four modes: behavior, outcome, clan and self-control (A)
• In contrast, only three studies in the review sample include input control as third mode of formal control in their analysis (G)
Research method
• Review does not point to any bias in IS project control research by the dominance of a particular method (qualitative and quantitative studies are well balanced)
• However, one can observe a strong methodological focus on surveys (27 studies) and case studies (24) as compared to the rather limited use of other methods, such as ethnographies, experiments, and multi-method approaches (G)
• Only five survey-based studies in our review sample collected matched-pair data covering both sides of the control dyad; all other surveys relied on data collected from only one side of the dyad (typically the controller), thereby neglecting the controllee’s perspective and implicitly assuming control congruence between controller and controllee (G)
2 1 3 4
9
On this basis, we offer an expanded framework of IS project control that pays particular attention to how controls are enacted
Traditional view Expanded view
Theoretical framework 2 1 3 4
10
Drawing on the insights gained from our review, we conceptualize control enactment (how?) in terms of control style and congruence
Definitions & Conceptualizations
Control enactment Interaction between controller and controllee through which the controller implements formal controls
and/or promotes informal controls
Enabling Anticipation of breakdowns
(repair) & visibility of control activities (transparency)
(ADLER & BORYS 1996)
Control style Manner in which the interaction between
controller and controllee is conducted (GREGORY ET AL. 2013; GREGORY & KEIL 2014)
Authoritative Top-down control style that
relies on bureaucratic values and lacks repair &
transparency features (ADLER & BORYS 1996)
Communicational Shared understanding between controller and controllee regarding the
enacted controls (OUCHI 1978)
Evaluational Controller-controllee
agreement regarding the appropriateness of the
enacted controls (NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. 2013)
Control congruence Degree of similarity between controller and controllee perceptions of enacted controls
(NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. 2013)
vs. +
2 1 3 4
Note: C = Conjecture (see slides 12-15) 11
Our expanded framework with supporting conjectures inspires exploration of novel theoretical relationships within the area Conjectures (overview) 2 1 3 4
Antecedents of control-style choices
and dynamics C1 C2
Interplay between control styles and
(informal) control modes
Consequences of control styles and
control congruence C4 C5 C6
Interplay between control styles and
control congruence C7 C8
C3
Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 12
The choice of a particular control style depends on controller-controllee power asymmetries and performance problems Conjectures (1/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
1a In IS project control relationships, power asymmetries in favor of the controller (based on formal authority and/or knowledge) increase the likelihood for the use of an authoritative control style.
• Antecedents of control-style choices (G)
1b In IS project control relationships, power symmetries or power asymmetries in favor of the controllee (e.g., lack of controller IS knowledge) increase the likelihood for the use of an enabling control style.
• See above
2 In situations where an enabling control style is in use, the anticipation and/or occurrence of performance problems in IS projects increase the likelihood for a shift to an authoritative control style.
• Antecedents of control-style choices (G)
• Control dynamics in terms of control style (G)
• Input control (G)
2 1 3 4
Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 13
Control styles have distinct effects on the enactment of informal controls and the different dimensions of IS project performance Conjectures (2/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
3 In IS project control relationships, enacting formal controls (i.e., input, behavior, and outcome controls) in an enabling control style facilitates the enactment of informal controls (i.e., clan and self-controls), whereas enacting formal controls in an authoritative control style may counteract the enactment of informal controls.
• Interaction effects between formal/informal controls (I)
• Input control (G)
4a Under the precondition that the controller possesses the appropriate knowledge, enacting controls in an authoritative control style is particularly beneficial for IS project efficiency.
• Distinct control effects on IS project efficiency, quality, and adaptiveness (G)
4b Enacting controls in an enabling control style is particularly beneficial for IS project quality and adaptiveness.
• See above
2 1 3 4
Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 14
An authoritative control style and a lack of control congruence increase the risk of unintended control consequences Conjectures (3/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
5 While the use of an authoritative control style is more likely to evoke negative socio-emotional control consequences (such as controllee dissatisfaction and demotivation) in IS projects, the use of an enabling control style is more likely to mitigate such negative socio-emotional control consequences.
• Negative socio-emotional consequences of control activities (G)
• Controllee perspective (G)
6 Both communicational congruence and evaluational congruence are important to ensure that controls have the intended impact on controllee behaviors, and ultimately increase IS project performance.
• Direct control effects on the performance of outsourced IS projects (I)
• Negative socio-emotional consequences of control activities (G)
• Controllee perspective (G)
2 1 3 4
Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 15
Contextual factors such as task complexity and power distance influence the interplay between control styles and congruence Conjectures (4/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
7 In IS projects with high task complexity, enacting controls in an enabling control style helps achieve communicational congruence between controller and controllee; whereas in IS projects with low task complexity, enacting controls in an authoritative control style helps achieve communicational congruence.
• Interplay between control style and congruence (G)
8 In IS projects conducted within cultural contexts characterized by high power distance, enacting controls in an authoritative control style helps achieve evaluational congruence between controller and controllee; whereas in IS projects conducted within cultural contexts characterized by low power distance, enacting controls in an enabling control style helps achieve evaluational congruence.
• Interplay between control style and congruence (G)
2 1 3 4
1. By addressing control style, a key aspect of control enactment, our expanded theoretical framework points toward possible expansions of our understanding of control choices (C1) and dynamics (C2) in IS projects
2. Our framework proposes that the control style influences whether formal and informal controls complement or substitute each other (C3), thereby offering an explanation for inconclusive results in prior literature
3. Conceptualizing control enactment in terms of control style (C4) and control congruence (C6), the framework offers a way to better understand how control activities impact IS project performance
4. Our framework incorporates not only intended (performance-related) control consequences, but also unintended consequences (C5, C6)
5. The framework prompts new questions about how control styles are related to communicational congruence (C7) and evaluational congruence (C8), and how contextual factors might influence this interplay
6. Incorporating input control, our framework moves beyond the prevalent view of projects as in essence closed systems with predefined resources
16
Our expanded framework highlights the importance of studying control configuration (what) and enactment (how) in combination Main contributions 2 1 3 4
Our aim and hope is for this Theory and Review study to inspire and provide the conceptual basis for novel, exciting and useful research
on IS project control that pushes the boundaries of the research area
17
Contact Author team
Martin WIENER
Magnus MÄHRING
Ulrich REMUS
Carol SAUNDERS
Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. 1996. “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive,” Administrative Science Quarterly (41:1), pp. 61-89.
Choudhury, V., and Sabherwal, R. 2003. “Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects,” Information Systems Research (14:3), pp. 291-314.
Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., and Keil, M. 2013. “Control Balancing in Information Systems Development Offshoring Projects,” MIS Quarterly (37:4), pp. 1211-1232.
Gregory, R. W., and Keil, M. 2014. “Blending Bureaucratic and Collaborative Management Styles to Achieve Control Ambidexterity in IS Projects,” European Journal of Information Systems (23:3), pp. 343-356.
Jaworski, B. J. 1988. “Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing (52:3), pp. 23-39.
Kirsch, L. J. 1996. “The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process,” Organization Science (7:1), pp. 1-21.
Kirsch, L. J. 2004. “Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control,” Information Systems Research (15:4), pp. 374-395.
Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Dong-Gil, K., and Purvis, R. L. 2002. “Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client,” Management Science (48:4), pp. 484-498.
Mähring, M., and Keil, M. 2008. “Information Technology Project Escalation: A Process Model,” Decision Sciences (39:2), pp. 239-272.
Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V., and Henry, R. M. 2013. “The Impact of Influence Tactics in Information System Development Projects: A Control-Loss Perspective,” Journal of Management Information Systems (30:1), pp. 191-225.
Ouchi, W. G. 1978. “The Transmission of Control through Organizational Hierarchy,” Academy of Management Journal (21:2), pp.173-192.
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms,” Management Science (25:9), pp. 833-848.
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review,” MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii-xxiii.
18
References