|
Article Excerpt
Abstract
Management support is considered to be a critical factor in the successful implementation of information systems innovations. The literature suggests a complex relationship between management support and implementation success. However, the empirical literature typically hypothesizes and tests a simple main-effects model. Drawing upon the role of the institutional context and metastructuration actions, we propose a contingent model in which task interdependence moderates the effect of management support on implementation success. A meta-analysis of the empirical literature provides strong support for the model and begins to explain the wide variance in empirical findings. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Keywords: IS success, IS utilization, IS implementation, management support, task interdependence, meta-analysis, contingency models
Introduction
The successful implementation of information systems innovations remains a theoretical as well as a managerial challenge. Many IS innovations introduced by organizations are either rejected by end users or are under-used (Markus and Keil 1994; Sauer 1993). This outcome has an important bearing on the competitive position of organizations as strategic initiatives are underpinned increasingly by IS innovations.
IS researchers have examined the effect of a wide range of factors on successful implementation. In particular, the role of management support has been identified as a critical factor (Jarvenpaa and Ives 1991; Kwon and Zmud 1987; Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988; Purvis et al. 2001). The literature has developed rich theory, hypothesizing a number of mediating and moderating mechanisms, such as management's control over scarce resources, the effect of symbolic actions indicating management commitment, and management decisions affecting key contingencies such as reward systems.
In contrast, the empirical literature, while acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between management support and implementation success, typically hypothesizes a simple main effect (Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988; Sanders and Courtney 1985; Yetton et al. 1999). This approach neither reflects the richness of the theory, nor provides a good description or explanation of the relationship. The main-effects model needs to be extended to capture the complexity of the relationship.
The goal of this paper is to begin this task. We draw upon recent studies that focus on the role of the institutional context in successful implementation (Majchrzak et al. 2000; Orlikowski et al. 1995; Purvis et al. 2001). A key proposition of this stream of research is that the institutional context affects end-users' ability and motivation to successfully adopt and use IS innovations. Further, it proposes that the institutional context can be shaped in ways that facilitate successful implementation.
We extend this stream of research in two ways. First, we identify the role of management support in shaping the institutional context. This contributes to and extends earlier research that has identified the role played by technology users and technology-use mediators in shaping the institutional context (Majchrzak et al. 2000; Orlikowski et al. 1995). Second, we identify the role of an important situational contingency, task interdependence, in shaping the institutional context and, consequently, the successful implementation of IS innovations. These two insights are combined to develop a model of implementation success. The model describes how the effect of management support on implementation success is moderated by task interdependence. A meta-analysis of previous empirical findings provides strong support for the model.
We begin by briefly describing current theory, extending it to include the effect of task interdependence. The sample selection procedures, sample characteristics, measurement instruments and meta-analysis techniques are then described. As hypothesized, we find that task interdependence moderates the effect of management support on implementation success and that the main effect of management support on implementation success is weak. Finally, we discuss validity threats and the implications for theory and managerial practice.
Management Support, Task Interdependence, and IS Implementation
Research into the implementation of IS innovations considers management support as a critical factor in successful implementation (Jarvenpaa and Ives 1991; Kwon and Zmud 1987; Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988; Purvis et al. 2001). The research argues that management support is critical because the implementation of IS innovations is resource intensive. Substantial material and managerial resources are required not only to develop IS applications and infrastructures, but also to support end users during implementation. Such resources are more likely to be forthcoming when the change enjoys management support.
In addition, symbolic actions of support by senior managers contribute to successful implementation. These actions legitimize IS innovations, signal management commitment to successful implementation, and serve to convince end users to expend the effort required to adopt the innovations (Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988; Purvis et al. 2001). Such actions could be in the form of a visible association with the project, active championship, organizational communications, or personal use of technologies (Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988; Rai and Howard 1994; Rai and Patnayakuni 1996).
Finally, support and supervision of end users during implementation also contributes to implementation success (Bhattacharjee 1996). Managers need to work closely with end users to mandate, negotiate, persuade, motivate, and support them in adopting IS innovations. Management support is also considered critical for reconceptualizing work processes and for changing existing routines and processes that are critical for successful implementation (Purvis et al. 2001).
The above discussion identifies a few of the hypothesized effects of management support on implementation success. The full literature has developed a rich, complex set of relationships between management support and implementation success. It identifies a number of variables that potentially mediate or moderate the relationship. In contrast, the empirical analysis is limited to modeling implementation success as a simple linear function of management support (for an exception, see Purvis et al. 2001). This limits the value of the theory for both researchers and practitioners. Researchers lack empirical evidence to evaluate competing theoretical models. Practitioners lack guidelines to decide on the appropriate form and extent of management support under different sets of conditions.
Cumulatively, this stream of empirical research has reported mixed findings. While most studies report a positive effect, a wide variance in effect sizes occurs across studies, ranging from as low as r = -0.15 (Ginzberg 1981) and r = 0.01 (Guimaraes et al. 1992) to as high as r = 0.44 (Russo 1993) and r = 0.45 (Sanders and Courtney 1985). Analysis of the cumulative empirical evidence finds that 63 percent of the variance across findings remains unexplained (see Appendix A). This pattern suggests two conclusions. First, the dominance of positive correlations confirms the importance of management support to implementation success. Second, and more importantly, extending the typical main-effects model to include moderator variables could explain the variance in empirical findings.
To identify a potential moderator, we draw upon the research on the role of the institutional context in the implementation of technology. We build on this stream of research to identify the joint role of management support and task interdependence in shaping the institutional context. We then develop a contingent model in which task interdependence moderates the effect of management support on implementation success.
Management Support and the Institutional Context
Chatterjee et al. (2002), Orlikowski et al. (1995), and Purvis et al. (2001) explore ways in which institutional context and individual actions interact to shape the implementation of IS innovations. Key aspects of the institutional context, such as workflow patterns, work procedures, routines, reward systems, and control and coordination mechanisms both constrain the implementation of technology and are adapted to accommodate new technology (Majchrzak et al. 2000; Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski et al. 1995).
The process of mutual adaptation of technology and institutional context involves two distinct sets of processes (Leonard-Barton 1988; Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski et al. 1995; Purvis et al. 2001). The first includes actions taken by users to appropriate technology features and to adapt technologies to accomplish work. The structuration of technology by users in this manner draws upon and reproduces existing institutional contexts (Orlikowski 1992; Orlikowski et al. 1995; Purvis et al. 2001).
The second set of processes includes actions to reshape the institutional context (Orlikowski et al. 1995). These metastructuration actions include changes to key aspects of the institutional context, such as workflow patterns, work procedures, routines, organization structures, control and coordination mechanisms, and reward structures (Leonard-Barton 1987; Majchrzak et al. 2000; Purvis et al. 2001; Sviokla 1996). Metastructuration actions are critical to the successful implementation of new technology in organizations (Purvis et al. 2001).
Here, drawing on the above research, we propose that management support is critical in undertaking metastructuration actions. The development of institutional mechanisms, including control and coordination mechanisms to regulate task performance, is a key management responsibility (Galbraith 1973; Majchrzak et al. 2000; Mintzberg 1979). Further, managerial interventions are undertaken, in part, to regulate organizational performance, which is sensitive to the fit between task requirements and the mechanisms to regulate task performance (Galbraith 1973; Mintzberg 1979). It follows that management interventions that shape the institutional context are powerful influences on implementation success (Purvis et al. 2001; Sviokla 1996).
Our synthesis of the above literatures identifies four distinct metastructuration actions that managers undertake to ensure successful implementation: instituting new structures, new performance control systems, new coordination mechanisms, and changes to performance goals. We briefly describe these processes and discuss the role of management support in the metastructuration process.
Instituting New Structures
IS innovations are often based on complex technologies that pose a high knowledge burden and are difficult for end users to grasp (Attewell 1992; Fichman 1992). In such cases, the ability of end users to learn and use technologies effectively is often critical to successful implementation. End users resist IS innovations when they perceive learning barriers to be too high.
Managerial interventions, such as authorizing end-user training and the development of end-user resource materials can promote end-user learning and overcome such barriers. Alternatively, institutional mechanisms that reduce the burden of learning on end users can also overcome such barriers (Attewell 1992; Fichman 1992). For instance, internal technical help desks or access to external support services can reduce the initial knowledge burden on end users. Such changes to the institutional context are resource intensive and are more likely to be undertaken when IS innovations enjoy high levels of management support.
Instituting...
|
