Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different IT Projects, but the same Conflicts. Action Research During IT Deployment

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information System (IS) research has overlooked user conflicts in teams among simultaneous or successive Information Technology (IT) projects, leaving a gap in comprehending the potential contagion processes leading to project failure. While IS literature has separately developed theories on conflicts and conflict contagion, we conceptualize a whole theoretic system we call "IT Conflict Contagion" (IT-CC). This theory is used as a driver for a 2-year action research project conducted at a French management consulting firm during the second attempt of its Business Intelligence (BI) tool baptized “PMT.” While most MIS methods tend to manage conflicts within the boundaries of an IT project, we emphasize the need for a comprehensive understanding of past IT implementations and their impact on subsequent projects despite the different aims, designs, and functionalities of these IT systems. This research calls for IS researchers and practitioners to adopt a holistic conflict management perspective, considering the IT portfolio and the interplay between various IT systems to ensure successful IT 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

Data Availability

The author confirms that all data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Notes

  1. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/managing-large-technology-programs-in-the-digital-era

References

  • Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Akkermans, H. A., & Van Helden, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allard-Poesi, F., & Perret, V. (2005). Rôles et conflits de rôles du responsable projet. Revue Française De Gestion, 31(154), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.154.193-209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenier, M., & Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks. Systèmes D’information & Management, 20(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.3917/sim.151.0061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E. (1991). Information Systems Development Research: An Exploration of Ideas in Practice. The Computer Journal, 34(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/34.2.98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). The social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 195–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01390436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsade, S. G. (2002). The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/026839696345289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. D. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice: foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 329–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.2307/249403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J., Rivard, S., & Aubert, B. A. (2004). L’exposition au risque d’implantation d’ERP: éléments de mesure et d’atténuation. Systèmes D’information Et Management, 9(2), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, P., & Rowe, F. (2001). ERP project dynamics and enacted dialogue. ACM SIGMIS Database: THe DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32(4), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/506139.506145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bou Saba, P., & Meissonier, R. (2020). Fighting fire with fire: action research on the inoculation technique to limit the resistances related to an IT project. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 25(3), 87–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bou Saba, P. (2017) IT Conflict contagion: Action research in a consulting firm. Economics and finance. English: Université Montpellier.

  • Chiasson, M., Germonprez, M., & Mathiassen, L. (2009). Pluralist action research: A review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 19(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00297.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetsee, L. D. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 204–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collan M., Tétard F. (2011) Lazy user model: solution selection and discussion about switching costs. In: Salmela H., Sell A. (Eds.), Nordic contributions in is research. SCIS 2011. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol. 86. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Crano, W. D., & Cooper, R. E. (1973). “Examination of Newcomb’s Extension of Structural Balance Theory”: Erratum. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Markus, M. L. (1999). Rigor vs. relevance revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Malaurent, J. (2021). Research perspectives: Improving action research by integrating methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(3), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., Ferreira, J., & Babu, J. (2020). Sustaining Open Source Communities by Understanding the Influence of Discursive Manifestations on Sentiment. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10059-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2019). Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD). Information Technology & People, 33(2), 477–501.

  • Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict. American Behavioral Scientist, 17(2), 248. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427301700206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507699302002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M., Bunker, D., Elbanna, A. R., Ravishankar, M. N., & Srivastava, S. C. (2014). Research on Information Systems Failures and Successes : Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9500-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewushi-Mensah, K. C. K. (1997). Critical issues in abandoned information systems developments projects. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 74–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L., Jehn, K. A., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Mannix, E. A. (2007). The effect of trust on conflict and performance in groups split by demographic faultlines. In IACM 2007 Meeting Paper. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Hambrick, D. C., Humphrey, S. E., & Gupta, A. (2012). The Structural Origins of Interdependence in TMTs: When Does Executive Group Composition Matter? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1), 11985. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2012.11985abstract

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillenbaum, G. G. (1968). Heider’s theory of balance. Human Relations, 21(2), 177–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, K.-K., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Information & Management, 40(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00134-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Van Der Voort, H., & Van Veenstra, A. F. (2014). Failure of large transformation projects from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems : Management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9511-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasperson, J. S., Carte, T. A., Saunders, C. S., Butler, B. S., Croes, H. J., & Zheng, W. (2002). Review: Power and information technology research: A metatriangulation review. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 397–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25005-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K., Rispens, S., Jonsen, K., & Greer, L. (2013). Conflict contagion: A temporal perspective on the development of conflict within teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-05-2011-0039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J. J., Muhanna, W. A., & Klein, G. (2000). User resistance and strategies for promoting acceptance across system types. Information & Management, 37(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(99)00032-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jinasena, D. N., Spanaki, K., Παπαδόπουλος, Θ, & Balta, M. (2020). Success and Failure Retrospectives of FinTech Projects: A Case Study approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(1), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10079-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (1995). Patterns of Large Software Systems: Failure and Success. Computer, 28, 86–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalika, M., BoukefCharki, N., & Isaac, H. (2007). La théorie du millefeuille et l’usage des TIC dans l’entreprise. Revue Française De Gestion, 33(172), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.172.117-129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Kwok-Kee, W. E. I. (2006). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (1994). Review of hidden conflict in organizations, by D. M. Kolb & J. M. Bartunek. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 285–287.

  • Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel, W. F., Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 20(4), 345. https://doi.org/10.2307/3709294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating User Resistance to Information Systems Implementation: A Status Quo Bias Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 567. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. U., & Kishore, R. (2018). Do we fully understand information systems failure? An exploratory study of the cognitive schema of IS professionals. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(6), 1385–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9838-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, R., & Kettinger, W. J. (2004). Informating the clan: Controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: the role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/256897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2016). The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Dans SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016). User Personality and Resistance to Mandatory Information Systems in Organizations: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Test of Dispositional Resistance to Change. Journal of Information Technology, 31(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, E. T. K., Pan, S. L., & Tan, C. W. (2005). Managing user acceptance towards enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems – understanding the dissonance between user expectations and managerial policies. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & Mathiassen, L. (1998). Attention shaping and software risk – a categorical analysis of four classical risk management approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why Does Social Exclusion Hurt? The Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaurent, J., & Karanasios, S. (2020). Learning from workaround practices: The challenge of enterprise system implementations in multinational corporations. Information Systems Journal, 30(4), 639–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1145/358141.358148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, C. (2000). Learning from Adopters’ Experiences with ERP: Problems Encountered and Success Achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/026839620001500402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2010). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissonier, R., & Houzé, E. (2010). Toward an ‘IT Conflict-Resistance Theory’: Action research during IT pre-implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(5), 540–561. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x013005020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohlmann, M., Zalmanson, L., Henfridsson, O., & Gregory, R. W. (2021). Algorithmic management of work on online labor platforms: When matching meets control. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 1999–2022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2000). How Emotions Work: The Social Functions of Emotional Expression in Negotiations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(00)22002-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (2001). Advice for an action researcher. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2007). IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(2), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noesgaard, M. S., Nielsen, J. A., Jensen, T. B., & Mathiassen, L. (2023). Same but different: variations in reactions to digital transformation within an organizational field. Journal of the Association of Information Systems (JAIS), 24(1), 12–34.

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riad, S. (2023). The Virus and Organization Studies: A changing episteme. Organization Studies, 44(6), 1003–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). It could be worse: A study on the alleviating roles of trust and connectedness in intragroup conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(3–4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060710833450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managing organizational conflict: A nontraditional approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). The Free Press

  • Røvik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, F. (1999). Cohérence, intégration informationnelle et changement: Esquisse d’un programme de recherche à partir des progiciels intégrés de gestion. Système D’information Et Management, 4(4), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Models of Conflict Management. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02396.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(10), 1152–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.10.1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saba, M., Bou Saba, P., & Harfouche, A. (2018). Hidden facets of IT projects are revealed only after deployment. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-06-2016-0144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. (2022). IT project failure, termination, and the marginal cost trap. Journal of Modern Project Mangement, 10(2), 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenewolf, G. (1990). Emotional contagion: Behavioral induction in individuals and groups. Modern Psychoanalysis, 15(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (1988). Category accessibility as implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(88)90048-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., & Kim, Y. K. (2006). Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-006-8782-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath, A. (2015). Diffusion of deception in social media: Social contagion effects and its antecedents. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1353–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9509-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (1969). Organizational Context and Interdepartmental Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4), 522. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Meister, D. B., & Gray, P. H. (2013). Social Influence and Knowledge Management Systems Use: Evidence from Panel Data. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1968). Systematic observational methods. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 357–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). Manage intra‐team conflict through collaboration. Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge for Evidence‐Based Management, 327–346.

  • Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of intragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publishing.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to Dr. Jean-Louis Aune, the Director General of Efficient Innovation, for his supportive, helpful, and enthusiastic role in facilitating our research at the company's facilities. Additionally, we are thankful to the members of the Information Systems group at the Montpellier Research in Management (MRM) laboratory for their valuable insights throughout the research project. We also appreciate the cooperation of our colleagues at Efficient Innovation who provided access to data and expertise, significantly aiding our research.

Funding

This research was supported and partly funded by the ANRT (Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie—French Ministry for Higher Education and Research) as part of an industrial collaboration (CIFRE contract no. 497/2014) with Efficient Innovation, a French management consultancy. Efficient Innovation also contributed to the funding of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, 92916, Paris La Défense, France

    Peter Saba

  2. IAE, MRM, Reliance en Complexité, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Régis Meissonier

  3. Université Paris Nanterre, 92000, Nanterre, France

    Antoine Harfouche

Authors
  1. Peter Saba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Régis Meissonier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antoine Harfouche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Saba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1 

1.1 First version of the PMT

For each eligible project, the BI tool tests hypotheses related to uncertainties, technical, and scientific issues. The PMT establishes a "checklist" comprising items from the Frascati Manual. A weighted score is assigned to each item based on a questionnaire completed with the client. The overall assessment is depicted on three axes: novelty/new level of knowledge, technical uncertainty, and experimental development level. However, the final determination of project eligibility is based on both the selection criteria and the consultants' diagnosis obtained through face-to-face interviews with R&D managers at the client company.

Appendix 2

Table 9.

Table 9 Research design and results
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 10.

Table 10 Risk factors used as an interview guide during Cycle 1
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 11.

Table 11 Pseudonyms of the respondents
Full size table

Appendix 5

5.1 Version 2 of the PMT

figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saba, P., Meissonier, R. & Harfouche, A. Different IT Projects, but the same Conflicts. Action Research During IT Deployment. Inf Syst Front (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10467-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-023-10467-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation