Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of senior management involvement, organisational commitment and group efficacy on ITIL implementation benefits

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Senior management involvement, organisational commitment and group efficacy are expected to have a positive impact on Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) implementation benefits. Specifically, more involvement, commitment and efficacy should produce greater achievement. Analysing data from a survey of 446 Nordic ITIL experts, this paper examines the relationships between these predictor factors and benefits, and investigates which is most critical. This study verifies the importance of all factors, but contrary to previous research, which has especially emphasised the role of senior management, in this research, group efficacy has proved to be the strongest predictor, indicating that the capabilities of those involved in the ITIL implementation are more important for realising the potential benefits than is senior management involvement. This work contributes to theorising in an important area of practice by testing and validating measurements and instruments for an empirical-based model of ITIL implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu V, Hartono E, Lederer AL, Sethi V (2002) The impact of organizational commitment, senior management involvement, and team involvement on strategic information systems planning. Inf Manag 39(6):513–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck T, Demirgûc-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (2005) Financial and legal constraints to growth: does firm size matter? J Financ 60(1):137–177. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00727.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess S (2002) Managing information technology in small business: challenges and solutions. Idea Group, Hershey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cater-Steel A (2009) IT service departments struggle to adopt a service-oriented philosophy. Int J Inf Syst Serv Sect 1(2):69–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cater-Steel A, Pollard C (2008) Conflicting views on ITIL implementation: managed as a project—or business as usual? Paper presented at the 2008 Information Resources Management Association (IRMA) International Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4230/

  • Cater-Steel A, Tan W-G (2005) Implementation of IT infrastructure library (ITIL) in Australia: progress and success factors. Paper presented at the 2005 IT Governance International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. http://eprints.usq.edu.au/998/

  • Cater-Steel A, Toleman M (2010) IT service management standards: education challenges. In: Jakobs K (ed) New applications in IT standards: developments and progress. Information Science Reference (IGI Global), Hershey, pp 225–241

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cater-Steel A, Toleman M, Tan W-G (2006) Transforming IT service management—the ITIL impact. Paper presented at the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia

  • Cater-Steel A, Tan W-G, Toleman M (2007) itSMF Australia 2007 conference: summary report of ITSM standards and frameworks survey. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Cater-Steel A, Tan W-G, Toleman M (2009) itSMF Australia 2009 conference: summary report of ITSM standards and frameworks survey. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

  • Chin WW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Vinzi VE, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares; concepts, methods and application. Springer, New York

  • Commerce, O. o. G. (2007) Service strategy. The Stationary Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger S, Winniford M, Erickson-Harris L (2008) Service management in operations. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada

  • Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Mark Res 38(2):269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong L (2008) Exploring the impact of top management support of enterprise systems implementations outcomes; two case studies. Bus Process Manag J 14(2):204–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman LF, Brush C, Manolova T (2005) Co-alignment in the resource-performance relationship: strategy as mediator. J Bus Ventur 20(3):359–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmanuelides PA (1993) Towards an integrative framework of performance in product development projects. J Eng Technol Manag 10:363–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk FR, Miller NB (1992) A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press

  • Fortune J, White D (2006) Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model. Int J Project Manag 24(1):53–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen D, Straub D (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(1):91–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB (1999) Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Acad Manag J 42(2):138–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Randel AE, Earley PC (2000) Understanding group efficacy: an empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group Organ Manag 25(1):67–97. doi:10.1177/1059601100251005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist ME (1987) Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Acad Manag Rev 12(3):472–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz O, Liehr-Gobbers K, Krafft M (2010) Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In: Vinzi VE, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares; concepts, methods and application. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve H (2003) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Acad Manag J 46(2):685–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer M (2007) The process audit. Harv Bus Rev 85(4):111–123

  • Hochstein A, Tamm G, Brenner W (2005) Service-oriented IT management: benefit, cost and success factors. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany

  • Iden J (2009) Implementing IT service management. Lessons from a university IT department. In: Cater-Steel A (ed) Information technology governance and service management: frameworks and adaptations. IGI Global, Hershey

    Google Scholar 

  • Iden J (2010) The adoption of ITIL in the Nordic countries: a survey. Paper presented at the Norsk konferanse for organiasjoners bruk av IT (NOKOBIT), Gjøvik, Norway

  • Iden J, Eikebrokk TR (2013) Implementing IT service management: a systematic literature review. Int J Inf Manag 33(3):512–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iden J, Langeland L (2010) Setting the stage for a successful ITIL adoption: a Delphi study of IT experts in the norwegian armed forces. Inf Syst Manag 27(2):103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iden J, Steindal F, Stokke B (2007) The implementation of IT infrastructure library (ITIL) in Norway: progress, success factors and benefits. NOKOBIT, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke EA, Fredrick E, Bobko P, Lee C (1984) Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performances. J Appl Psychol 69:241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrone M, Kolbe LM (2010) Uncovering ITIL claims: iT executives’ perception on benefits and business-IT alignment. IseB 9(3):363–380. doi:10.1007/s10257-010-0131-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride N (2009) Exploring service issues within the IT organisation: four mini-case studies. Int J Inf Manag 29(3):237–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough EF III (2000) Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. J Prod Innov Manag 17:221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. J Vocat Behav 14(2):224–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative indicators in information systems research. MIS Q 31(4):623–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard C, Cater-Steel A (2009) Justifications, strategies, and critical success factors in successful ITIL implementations in U.S. and Australian companies: an exploratory study. Inf Syst Manag 26(2):164–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard CE, Gupta D, Satzinger JW (2010) Teaching systems development: a compelling case for integrating the SDLC with the ITSM lifecycle. Inf Syst Manag 27(2):113–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potgieter BC, Botha JH, Lew C (2005) Evidence that use of the ITIL framework is effective. Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the national advisory committee on computing qualifications, Tauranga, NZ

  • Premkumar G (2003) A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in small business. J Organ Comput Electron Commer 13(2):91–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadri G, Robertson IT (1993) Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: a review and meta-analysis. Appl Psychol Int Rev 42:139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik GR (1977) Commitment and the control of organizational behaviour and belief. In: Staw BM, Salancik GR (eds) New directions in organizational behaviour. St. Clair Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of IT in contemporary firms. MIS Q 27(2):237–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon ME (1971) Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Adm Sci Q 16:142–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanyi A (2006) More for less. The power of process management. Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM (1977) Two sides of commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida

  • Straub D, Boudreau M-C, Gefen D (2004) Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun AIS 13:380–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan W-G, Cater-Steel A, Toleman M (2009) Implementing IT service management: a case study focusing on critical success factors. J Comp Inf Sys 50(2):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor S (2007) The official introduction to the ITIL service lifecycle. The Stationary Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bon J (2002) IT service management: an introduction. Addison-Wesley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolridge B, Schmid T, Floyd SW (2008) The middle management perspective on strategy process: contribution, synthesis, and future research. J Manag 34(6):1190–1221

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045, Bergen, Norway

    Jon Iden

  2. University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

    Tom Roar Eikebrokk

Authors
  1. Jon Iden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Roar Eikebrokk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Iden.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Profile of responding organisations and respondents (n = 446)

 

Percent

Business sector

 IT

36

 Public government

21

 Health and social affairs

7

 Telecommunications

6

 Finance and insurance

5

 Education and research

5

 Transport and logistics

5

 Others

15

Turnover

 Less than 5.0 million euros

7

 Between 5.0 and 15.0 million euros

6

 Between 15.5 and 50.0 million euros

10

 More than 50.0 million euros

53

 Don’t know

24

Number of employees

 More than 2,000

52

 500–2,000

18

 100–499

17

 Fewer than 100

13

Number of IT employees

 More than 300

29

 Between 100 and 300

22

 Between 50 and 99

13

 Between 25 and 49

17

 Fewer than 24

19

When was the ITIL project started?

 2008–2009

25

 2006–2007

34

 2004–2005

25

 Before 2003

16

Budget for ITIL project

 Less than 50,000 euros

14

 Between 50,000 and 100,000 euros

13

 Between 100,000 and 300,000 euros

11

 More than 300,000 euros

16

 No budget

46

Respondent’s role in ITIL project

 Process owner

23

 Project manager

22

 Project member

22

 Project owner

17

 Process developer

16

Respondents’ years of experience with ITIL

 3 years or less

36

 4–6

39

 7–9

16

 10 years or more

9

Appendix 2: The survey instrument

  1. 1.

    Which ITSM forum are you a member of?

  2. 2.

    What is your role in the ITIL project?

  3. 3.

    Are you ITIL certified?

  4. 4.

    How many years have you been working with ITIL?

  5. 5.

    Why did your organisation chose to implement ITIL?

  6. 6.

    Who took the initiative to introduce ITIL in your organisation?

  7. 7.

    In what year was your ITIL-project initiated?

  8. 8.

    How big is your overall budget for the ITIL-project?

  9. 9.

    What percentage of your project’s budget will be spent on the following: external consultant, ITIL software, and ITIL training?

  10. 10.

    Please rank the relative significance of the following statements concerning senior Management involvement, organisational commitment, and group efficacy.

  11. 11.

    Please rate your organisation’s implementation progress in ITIL, the Service Design processes.

  12. 12.

    Please rate your organisation’s implementation progress in ITIL, the Service Transition processes.

  13. 13.

    Please rate your organisation’s implementation progress in ITIL, the Service Operation processes.

  14. 14.

    Please rate your organisation’s implementation progress in ITIL, the Service Strategy, and the Continual Service Improvement processes.

  15. 15.

    Please rank the relative significance of the benefits that the ITIL-implementation has provided to your organisation.

  16. 16.

    Please rank the relative significance of the effects that the ITIL-implementation has provided to your organisation.

  17. 17.

    How do you evaluate your ITIL-project?

  18. 18.

    To what extend has ITIL met the expectations of your organisation?

  19. 19.

    Did your organisation consider interrupting the ITIL-project during its implementation?

  20. 20.

    If yes to question 20, what was the main reason for not wanting to implement ITIL?

  21. 21.

    How would you describe your organisation’s business conditions during the ITIL implementation?

  22. 22.

    What is your position in the organisation?

  23. 23.

    To which business sector does your organisation belong?

  24. 24.

    Approximately how many full-time IT professionals are employed in your organisation?

  25. 25.

    Approximately how many staff in total does your organisation employ?

  26. 26.

    What is your organisation’s annual turnover?

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics

Variable

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. deviation

Time

 Year initiated

1.000

16.000

4.283

2.367

Size

 IT employees

1.000

6.000

4.164

1.600

 Staff in total

1.000

6.000

4.940

1.418

 Turn over

1.000

5.000

4.392

0.961

Business condition

1.000

4.000

2.255

1.099

Sector

1.000

2.000

1.247

0.395

Management involvement

    

 Mngt feedback

1.000

5.000

2.877

1.164

 Mngt champion

1.000

5.000

3.288

1.256

 Who intro2

0.000

1.000

0.727

0.441

Organisational commitment

 Budget

1.000

5.000

3.668

1.478

 Resources

1.000

5.000

3.134

1.110

 Key people staying

1.000

5.000

3.367

1.064

 Trying their hardest

1.000

5.000

3.664

0.919

Group efficacy

 Sufficient knowledge

1.000

5.000

3.684

0.929

 Well defined method

1.000

5.000

3.389

0.961

 Easy to understand ITIL

1.000

5.000

3.418

0.961

 Easy to develop own processes

1.000

5.000

3.307

0.957

 English no problem

1.000

5.000

3.575

1.217

ITIL project benefits

 Customer satisfaction

1.000

5.000

3.278

1.008

 User satisfaction

1.000

5.000

3.249

0.929

 Focuson IT services

1.000

5.000

3.574

0.880

 Professional standard

1.000

5.000

3.423

0.879

 IT costs

1.000

5.000

2.612

0.948

 Roles and responsibilities

1.000

5.000

3.557

0.921

Satisfaction with ITIL

 Mngt satisfied

1.000

5.000

3.279

0.912

 Staff satisfied

1.000

5.000

3.082

0.874

 Stay within budget

1.000

5.000

3.255

1.067

 Stay within time limits

1.000

5.000

2.787

1.062

ITIL expectations

 Leading or gusing

1.000

5.000

3.099

1.158

 Customers expect

1.000

5.000

2.585

1.375

 Based on BP

1.000

5.000

4.150

0.821

 Improve prof std

1.000

5.000

4.260

0.750

 Improve IT service focus

1.000

5.000

4.275

0.760

 Reduce IT costs

1.000

5.000

3.336

0.973

 Improve cust satisfaction

1.000

5.000

4.162

0.815

Appendix 4: Indicator weights

Latent variable

Manifest variables

Outer weight

Critical ratio (CR)

Lower bound (95 %)

Upper bound (95 %)

Time

Year initiated

0.422

20.440

0.379

0.464

Size

IT employees

0.542

2.379

−0.615

0.708

Staff in total

0.074

0.344

−0.423

0.575

Turn over

0.159

1.304

−0.202

0.315

Business condition

Business condition

0.909

41.259

0.870

0.963

Sector

Sector

2.531

30.510

2.350

2.728

Mgmt involvement

Mngt feedback

0.407

2.777

0.127

0.672

Mngt champion

0.434

3.286

0.167

0.666

Who intro2

0.863

2.622

0.069

1.602

Org commitment

Budget

0.013

0.171

−0.110

0.197

Resources

0.323

2.771

0.081

0.535

Key people staying

0.575

4.983

0.315

0.814

Trying their hardest

0.280

2.102

−0.124

0.530

Group efficacy

Sufficient knowledge

0.313

7.260

0.239

0.422

Well defined method

0.362

6.975

0.253

0.462

Easy to understand ITIL

0.243

6.961

0.148

0.308

Easy to develop own processes

0.317

9.373

0.254

0.392

English no problem

0.267

5.049

0.149

0.385

ITIL project benefits

Customer satisfaction

0.266

2.360

0.015

0.460

User satisfaction

0.075

0.574

−0.138

0.391

Focuson IT services

0.110

1.127

−0.145

0.282

Professional standard

0.281

2.603

0.073

0.525

IT costs

0.295

3.282

0.103

0.497

Roles and responsibilities

0.395

4.047

0.168

0.608

Satisfaction with ITIL

Mgmt satisfied

0.498

4.737

0.322

0.810

Staff satisfied

0.636

6.129

0.410

0.818

Stay within budget

0.152

1.853

−0.004

0.340

Stay within time limits

−0.005

−0.074

−0.178

0.116

ITIL expectations

Leading or gusing

0.201

2.305

−0.036

0.350

Customers expect

0.417

4.834

0.257

0.568

Based on BP

0.251

1.589

−0.126

0.541

Improve prof std

0.318

1.358

−0.136

0.850

Improve IT service focus

0.126

0.558

−0.390

0.588

Reduce IT costs

0.081

0.729

−0.175

0.286

Improve cust satisfaction

0.309

2.058

−0.142

0.566

Appendix 5: Correlation matrix, latent variables

 

Size

Business condition

Sector

Mgmt involvement

Org. commitment

Group efficacy

ITIL expect.

ITIL project benefits

Satisfaction with ITIL

Time

0.277

0.052

−0.038

−0.004

0.017

0.038

0.094

0.162

0.061

Size

1.000

0.119

−0.031

0.105

0.042

0.092

0.122

0.103

0.032

Business condition

0.119

1.000

0.029

−0.024

0.014

0.045

0.011

0.004

−0.046

Sector

−0.031

0.029

1.000

−0.020

0.001

−0.059

−0.172

−0.102

−0.059

Mgmt involvement

0.105

−0.024

−0.020

1.000

0.519

0.345

0.217

0.339

0.348

Org commitment

0.042

0.014

0.001

0.519

1.000

0.509

0.273

0.417

0.431

Group efficacy

0.092

0.045

−0.059

0.345

0.509

1.000

0.409

0.459

0.488

ITIL expectations

0.122

0.011

−0.172

0.217

0.273

0.409

1.000

0.441

0.366

ITIL benefits

0.103

0.004

−0.102

0.339

0.417

0.459

0.441

1.000

0.676

ITIL satisfaction

0.032

−0.046

−0.059

0.348

0.431

0.488

0.366

0.676

1.000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iden, J., Eikebrokk, T.R. The impact of senior management involvement, organisational commitment and group efficacy on ITIL implementation benefits. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 13, 527–552 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-014-0253-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-014-0253-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation