Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 787–802 | Cite as

Factors affecting the performance of internal control task team in high-tech firms

  • Jengchung Victor Chen
  • I-Han Lu
  • David C. Yen
  • Andree E. Widjaja


The rise of global trade and economic development is not only apparently grown in terms of volume but with value as well. Such spurt has evoked the risk management that is associated with export business, and can allow high-tech items fall into the hands of foreign military programs or terrorist organizations. The internal control compliance for export has set the in-house procedures for firms to adopt, facilitate, and abide with defined national export control requirements. This is crucial for firms to prevent potential violations on export rules and regulations. Introducing internal control program for export compliance can mitigate terrorist activities. This present study has taken Taiwan on board to determine the acquaintance of export risk and the implementation of internal control program through a team effort. Hence, the purpose of this study is to investigate the factors affecting the performance of internal control task team within a firm. The findings show that team-based incentives have a positive impact on team cohesion while knowledge sharing and knowledge integration have a significant impact on team performance. Furthermore, it is found that higher social-related risks and technical-related risks may increase team management risk, and the reduction in team management risk is beneficial to improve team performance.


Risk management Team cohesion Knowledge sharing Export control compliance Team performance Internal control 


  1. AHK-Taiwan (2013). Industrial landscape in Taiwan. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  2. Ahuja, M. K., Galletta, D. F., & Carley, K. M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical study. Management Science, 49(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2007). Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical study of ERP implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1232–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), 5–8.Google Scholar
  6. Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010). Teams’ reactions to conflict and teams’ task and social outcomes: the moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership. European Management Journal, 28(3), 220–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barki, H., Rivard, S., & Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development risk. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennet, B. T. (2007). Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: Protecting critical infrastructure and personnel. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–112.Google Scholar
  12. Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. Part I: the Causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2013). Special issue: multiple dimensions of value in information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke, D. D., Nixon, M. A., Wilson, L. E., & Higgins, S. (2009). Export controls and their effect on business operations. The Entrepreneurial Executive, 14, 1–24.Google Scholar
  16. Census (2006). U.S. trade in advanced technology products-information & communications. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  17. Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge sharing: an investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 309–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chase, M. S., Pollpeter, K. L., & Mulvenon, J. C. (2004). Shanghaied? The economic and political implications of the flow of information technology and investment accross the Taiwan Strait. RAND Corporation Technical Report no. 133, July 2004, p. 64.Google Scholar
  19. Cheong, M., & Lee, V. C. S. (2011). A microblogging-based approach to terrorism informatics: exploration and chronicling civilian sentiment and response to terrorism events via Twitter. Information Systems Frontiers, 13, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Holye (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chinapost (2004). Firm under probe for selling sensitive technology. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  23. Chow, C. W. (1982). The demand for external auditing: size, debt and ownership influences. Accounting Review, 57(2), 272–291.Google Scholar
  24. Chynoweth, A. G., Nesterikhin, Y. E., Pyatnitsky, L. N., & Sobolev, A. (1994). An assesment of the controllability of dual-use technologies: Optoelectronic devices. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  25. Clay, W. (2003). Computer attack and cyber terrorism: vulnerabilities and policy issues for congress.
  26. Coase, R. (1937). The theory of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2001). Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Defense-Aerospace (2015). Russian air task force uses KAB-1500 L guided bombs to attack terrorist facilities in Syria Accessed 10 December 2015.
  31. Delios, A., & Beamish, P. (2000). Ownership strategy of Japanese firms: transactional, institutional and experience influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 915–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dong, S., Johar, M. S., & Kumar, R. L. (2011). A benchmarking model for management of knowledge-intensive service delivery networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Elkins, A. C., Dunbar, N. E., Adame, B., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2013). Are users threatened by credibility assessment systems? Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ewusi-Mensah, K., & Przasnyski, Z. H. (1991). On information systems project abandonment: an exploratory study of organizational practices. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fairman, R., & Yapp, C. (2005). Enforced self-regulation, prescription, and conceptions of compliance within small businesses: the impact of enforcement. Law & Policy, 27(4), 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fedorowicz, J., & Gogan, J. L. (2010). Reinvention of interorganizational systems: a case analysis of the diffusion of a bio-terror surveillance system. Information Systems Frontiers, 12, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of a housing project. New York: Harpers.Google Scholar
  38. Figl, K., Mendling, J., & Strembeck, M. (2013). The influence of notational deficiencies on process model comprehension. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(6).Google Scholar
  39. Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  40. Foster, B. P., McClain, G., & Shastri, T. (2010). Impact on pre-and post-Sarbanes Oxley users’ perceptions by incorporating the auditor’s fraud detection responsibility into the auditor’s internal control report. Research in Accounting Regulation, 22(2), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frank, A. G., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Echeveste, M. E. (2014). Factors influencing knowledge transfer between NPD teams: a taxonomic analysis based on sociotechnical approach. R&D Management, 45(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Garcia-Alonso, M. C., & Hartley, K. (2000). Export controls, market structure and international coordination. Defence and Peace Economics, 11(3), 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gemuenden, H. G., & Lechler, T. Success factors of project management: the critical few empirical investigation. In Portland International Conference on Management and Technology, Portland, Oregon, 27-31 Jul 1997 (pp. 375–377).Google Scholar
  44. Gill, T. G. (1995). High-tech hidebound: case studies of information technologies that inhibited organizational learning. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goh, J. C.-L., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. (2013). Developing the agile IS development practices in large-scale IT projects: the trust-mediated organizational controls and IT project team capabilities perspectives. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(12).Google Scholar
  46. Hakim, A., & Hakim, H. (2010). A practical model on controlling the ERP implementation risks. Information Systems, 35(2), 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hallward-Driemeier, M., Iarossi, G., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2002). Exports and manufacturing productivity in east asia: a comparative analysis with firm-level data. NBER Working Papers.Google Scholar
  48. Han, W.-M., & Huang, S.-J. (2007). An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1), 42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.04.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hayne, S. C., Troup, L. J., & McComb, S. A. (2011). “Where’s Farah?”: knowledge siols and information fusion by distributed collaborating teams. Information Systems Frontiers, 13, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. He, J., Butler, B. S., & King, W. R. (2007). Team cognition: development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Higuera, R. P., Gluch, D. P., Dorofee, A. J., Murphy, R. L., Walker, J. A., & Williams, R. C. (1994). An introduction to team risk management. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology. Landon: Pearson Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Homeland-Security (2004). Potential indicators of terrorist activity infrastructure category: Hydroelectric dams. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  54. Hund, G., & Seward, A. (2008). Broadening industry governance to include nonproliferation. Richland: Pacific Northwest Center for Global Security Publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jones, S. A., Beck, M. D., & Gahlaut, S. (2009). Trade controls and international security. In N. E. Busch & D. H. Joyner (Eds.), Combating weapons of mass destruction: The future of international non-proliferation policy (pp. 118–138). Athens: University of GeorgiaPress.Google Scholar
  56. Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: the impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2008). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808.Google Scholar
  58. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kassenova, T. (2010). Strategic trade controls in Taiwan. The Nonproliferation Review, 17(2), 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kassenova, T. (2012). Global non-proliferation and the taiwan dilemma. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  61. Kastner, J. (2011). Taiwan opens hi-tech to mainland investor. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  62. Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., & Schmidt, R. C. (1998). A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM, 41(11), 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Keith, M., Demirkan, H., & Goul, M. (2013). Service-oriented methodology for systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 227–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Knoll, S. W., & Horton, G. (2011). Changing the perspective: using a cognitive model to improve thinkLets for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kuczmarski, C. T. (1996). Innovation: Leadership strategies for the competitive edge. Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books.Google Scholar
  66. Kunio, M. (2007). Supply chain security: the customs community’s response. World Customs Journal, 1(2), 51–59.Google Scholar
  67. Landau, S. B., & Leventhal, G. S. (1976). A simulation study of administrators’ behavior toward employees who receive job offers1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(4), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Levi, D. (2014). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  69. Li, C., Peters, G. F., Richardson, V. J., & Watson, M. W. (2012). The consequences of information technology control weaknesses on management information systems: the case of Sarbanes-Oxley internal control reports. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 179–204.Google Scholar
  70. Lindow, P. E., & Race, J. D. (2002). Beyond traditional audit techniques. Journal of Accountancy - New York, 194(1), 28–33.Google Scholar
  71. Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J. (1998). Attention shaping and software risk: a categorical analysis of four classical risk management approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Maholtra, A., Gosain, S., & El Sawy, O. (2007). Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Information Systems Research, 18(3), 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Maxtech (2015). New market research on the world market for military infrared imaging detectors and systems. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  74. Mikuriya, K. (2007). Supply chain security: the customs community’s response. World Customs Journal, 1(2), 51–58.Google Scholar
  75. Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: a retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 20(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Milne, P. (2007). Motivation, incentives and organisational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. MySinchew (2007). Taiwan firm sold DPRK precision equipment. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  78. Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V., & 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), 191–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nohria, N., Hansen, M. T., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.Google Scholar
  80. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “BA”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometry theory. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  82. Ochs, J. R., & Parkinson, K. L. (1997). Fraud knows no boundaries. Business Credit, 99(10), 42–43.Google Scholar
  83. Oh, O., Agrawal, M., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Information control and terrorism: tracking the Mumbai terrorist attack through twitter. Information Systems Frontiers, 13, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Otim, S., Dow, K. E., Grover, V., & Wong, J. A. (2012). The impact of information technology investments on downside risk of the firm: alternative measurement of the business value of it. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. ÖZERLİ, B. (2013). Taiwan offers lucrative business opportunities for Turkish investors. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  86. Patnayakuni, R., & Ruppel, C. P. (2010). A socio-technical approach to improving the systems development process. Information Systems Frontiers, 12, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pennock, M. J., & Haimes, Y. Y. (2002). Principles and guidelines for project risk management. Systems Engineering, 5(2), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rai, A., Keil, M., Hornyak, R., & Wüllenweber, K. (2012). Hybrid relational-contractual governance for business process outsourcing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(2), 213–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ransbotham, S., Mitra, S., & Ramsey, J. (2012). Are markets for vulnerabilities effective? MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  90. Reus, T. H., & Liu, Y. (2004). Rhyme and reason: emotional capability and the performance of knowledge-intensive work groups. Human Performance, 17(2), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Seashore, S. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the individual work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  93. Shuraida, S., & Barki, H. (2013). The influence of analyst communication in IS projects. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(9).Google Scholar
  94. Sillitto, H. G. (2006). Military optoelectronics. In J. P. Dakin & R. G. W. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of optoelectronics. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  95. Soper, D. S., Demirkan, H., Goul, M., & St Louis, R. (2012). An empirical examination of the impact of ICT investments on future levels of institutionalized democracy and foreign direct investment in emerging societies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 3.Google Scholar
  96. Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R. E. (1988). Work-group cohesion. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Swan, J., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2000) Limits of IT-driven knowledge management initiatives for interactive innovation processes: Towards a community-based approach. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conferece on System Sciences, 4–7 Jan. 2000 (pp. 1013): Published by the IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  98. Tan, G. (2011) Internal compliance programmes: day to day operational challenges & best practices. In Japan joint industry outreach seminar on export control, Manila, Philippones, 13 Jan. 2011 (14 pp).Google Scholar
  99. Technology (2002). Technology alert list. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  100. Tkacik, J. J. (2007). America’s stake in Taiwan. Accessed 10 December 2010.
  101. Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framwork and an action research program. In A.H. Van de Ven, & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  102. U.S. Department of Commerce (2010). Compliance guidelines: how to develop an effective export management and compliance program and manual. Accessed 26 June 2011.
  103. van Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., van Tuijl, H., Algera, J. A., & Thierry, H. (2002). Task complexity and task, goal, and reward interdependence in group performance management: a prescriptive model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 363–383.Google Scholar
  104. Venkatesh, V., & Windeler, J. B. (2012). Hype or help? A longitudinal field study of virtual world use for team collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(10), 5.Google Scholar
  105. Wallace, L., Keil, M., & Rai, A. (2004). How software project risk affects project performance: an investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wang, E. T. G., Ying, T. C., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2006). Group cohesion in organizational innovation: an empirical examination of ERP implementation. Information and Software Technology, 48(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. White, K. B., & Leifer, R. (1986). Information systems development success: perspectives from project team participants. MIS Quarterly, 10(3), 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wuebbels, M. (2005). Is Taiwan getting serious about export controls? The Nonproliferation Review, 12(2), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R., & Johnston, K. (2000). A model of information systems development project performance. Information Systems Journal, 10(4), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Yudken, J. S. (2010). Manufacturing insecurity: America’s manufacturing crisis and the erosion of the U. S. defense industrial base. High Road Strategies. Accessed 10 December 2015.
  111. Zenger, T. R., & Marshall, C. (2000). Determinants of incentive intensity in group-based rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jengchung Victor Chen
    • 1
  • I-Han Lu
    • 1
  • David C. Yen
    • 2
  • Andree E. Widjaja
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of International ManagementNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan
  2. 2.School of Economics and BusinessSUNY College at OneontaOneontaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer SciencePelita Harapan UniversityTangerangIndonesia

Personalised recommendations