Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 59–68 | Cite as

The rise of the phoenix: methodological innovation as a discourse of renewal

Research Article


The imperatives on contemporary organizations to adapt to an increasingly uncertain and turbulent environment are intense. The pace of change is at least as great in the public as the private sector, with technology being integral to the UK government's modernization agenda. Resilience refers to the ability of individuals and organizations to cope with change through a continuous process of renewal. Much research on resilience is uncritical, normative and written from a detached perspective that emphasizes the agency of senior management. In contrast, this paper provides an ethnographically based account of resilience at the middle level of a large, public sector bureaucracy. Finding itself under increasing pressure to move away from its traditional, technically oriented role, the IS function sought to reinvent itself as a strategic driver of business transformation. The development of a business process reengineering methodology was seen as the key to operationalizing this new role. Although innovation in IS methodology can be problematic, here it was brought off successfully. This was attributed to several factors, including the adoption of a participative action research approach and the commitment of IS management. Above all, the sense of crisis prevailing at the outset of the initiative was decisive. Crises present a major challenge to organizational sense-making; here, a resilient ‘discourse of renewal’ was kindled with the impending threat interpreted positively as a proactive opportunity to develop the new strategic identity. The paper concludes with some critical reflections on the limits of managerial agency and the notion of resilience as a designable capacity.


resilience public sector methodology innovation action research renewal crisis 


  1. Avison, D., Wood-Harper, A., Vidgen, R.T. and Wood, J.R.G. (1998). A Further Exploration in to Information Systems Development: The evolution of multiview 2, Information Technology & People 11 (2): 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, C.K. and Pratt, M. (2000). From Threat-Rigidity to Flexibility: Toward a learning model of autogenic crisis on organisations, Journal of Organizational Change 13 (1): 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskerville, R. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1998). Diversity of Information Systems Action Research Methods, European Journal of Information Systems 7 (2): 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and Innovation in the Public Sector, Learning and Organisational Development Journal 23 (8): 467–476.Google Scholar
  6. Boyne, G., Day, P. and Walker, R. (2002). The Evaluation of Public Service Inspection: A theoretical framework, Urban Studies 39 (7): 1197–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabinet Office (2005). Transformation Government Enabled by Technology, Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, S., Mathiassen, L. and Robey, D. (2006). The Dialectics of Resilience: A multilevel analysis of a telehealth innovation, in B. Donnelan et al. (eds.) The Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology for Organizational Resilience, New York: Springer, pp. 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davenport, T. (1992). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P. (1989). User Acceptance of Technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science 35 (8): 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison, R. (2001). GSS and Action Research in the Hong Kong Police, Information Technology and People 14 (1): 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. and Stolterman, E. (2002). Information Systems Development: Methods in Action, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Mäler, K.-G., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H. and Svedin, U. (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations, Swedish Advisory Council [WWW document] August 2006).
  14. Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A multi-level exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm, Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 10–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Grotberg, E. (1997). The International Resilience Project: Findings from the research and the effectiveness of interventions, in B. Bain, et al. (eds.) Psychology and Education in the 21st Century, Edmonton: IC Press, pp. 118–128.Google Scholar
  17. Hamel, G. and Välikangas (2003). The Quest for Resilience, Harvard Business Review 81 (9): 52–63.Google Scholar
  18. Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering Work: Don't automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, July–August 68 (4): 104–112.Google Scholar
  19. Hardgrave, B.C., Davis, F. and Riemenschneider, C.K. (2003). Investigating Determinants of Software Developers' Intentions to Follow Methodologies, Journal of Management Information Systems 20 (1): 123–151.Google Scholar
  20. Hyde, L. (1998). Trickster Makes This World, New York: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  21. Iivari, J. (1996). Why are CASE Tools not Used? Communications of the ACM 39 (10): 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kautz, K. and McMaster, T. (1994). The Failure to Introduce System Development Methods: A factor-based analysis, in L. Levine (ed.) Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
  23. Kawalek, P. and Wastell, D. (2005). Pursuing Radical Transformation in Information Age Government: Case studies using the SPRINT methodology, Journal of Global Information Management 13 (1): 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kovoor-Misra, S., Clair, J.A. and Bettenhausen, K.L. (2001). Clarifying the Attributes of Organizational Crises, Technology Forecasting and Social Change 67 (1): 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Boston: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  26. Laudon, J. and Laudon, K. (2005). Management Information Systems, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Lundblad, J. (2003). A Review and Critique of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory as it Applies to Organisations, Organisational Development Journal 21 (4): 50–64.Google Scholar
  28. Luthans, F. (2002). The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 695–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacIntosh, R. (2003). BPR: Alive and Well in the Public Sector, International Journal of Operations and Production Management 23 (3): 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mallik, L. (1998). Putting Organizational Resilience to Work, Industrial Management 40 (6): 8–13.Google Scholar
  31. Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology and People 15 (4): 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McMaster, T. and Wastell, D.G. (2004). Success and Failure Revisited in the Implementation of New Technology: Some reflections on the CAPELLA project, in B. Fitzgerald and E. Wynn (eds.) Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness, Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. McMaster, T. and Wastell, D.G. (2005). Diffusion or Delusion? Challenging an IS research tradition, Information Technology and People 18 (4): 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, A.D., Goes, J. and Brooks, G.R. (1995). Organisations Reacting to Hyperturbulence, in G. Huber and W. Glick (eds.) Organisational change and redesign, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 66–111.Google Scholar
  35. Mustonen-Ollila, E. and Lyytinen, K. (2003). How Organizations Adopt Information System Process Innovations: A longitudinal analysis, European Journal of Information Systems 13 (3): 35–51.Google Scholar
  36. Newman, M. and Robey, D. (1992). A Social Process of User–Analyst Relationships, MIS Quarterly 16 (2): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, T. and Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the Lives of Child and Young People; Resilience Factors, Scottish Executive Education Department.Google Scholar
  38. Orlikowski, W. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in system development, MIS Quarterly 17 (3): 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettigrew, A. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and practice, Organisational Science 1 (3): 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pulley, M.L. (1997). Leading Resilient Organizations, Leadership in Action 17 (4): 1–5.Google Scholar
  41. Riolli, L. and Savicki, V. (2003). Information System Organizational Resilience, Omega 31 (3): 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogers, E.M. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations, New York: the Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Seeger, M.W., Ulmer, R.R., Novak, J.M. and Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-Crisis Discourse and Organisational Change, Failure and Renewal, Journal of Organizational Change 18 (1): 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheffi, Y. (2005). The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability or Competitive Advantage, Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, S.J. (2000). The Reorganisation of the Information Systems of the US Naval Construction Forces: An action research project, European Journal of Information Systems 9 (3): 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002). Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in the Public Services, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Templeton, G.F. and Byrd, T.A. (2003). Determinants of the Relative Advantage of a Structured SDM During the Adoption Stage of Implementation, Information Technology and Management 4 (4): 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van de Ven, A.H. (1995). Managing the Process of Organizational Innovation, in G. Huber and W. Glick (eds.) Organisational Change and Redesign, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 269–294.Google Scholar
  49. Wastell, D.G. (1996). The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a social defence, Information Systems Journal 6 (1): 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wastell, D.G. (1999). Learning Dysfunctions in Information Systems Development: Overcoming the social defences with transitional objects, MIS Quarterly 23 (4): 581–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wastell, D.G. (2006). Information Systems and Evidence-Based Policy in Multi-Agency Networks: The micro-political contingencies of situated innovation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (3): 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wastell, D.G. and White, P. (1993). Using Process Technology to Support Cooperative Work: Prospects and design issues, in D. Diaper and C. Sanger (eds.) CSCW in practice, London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
  53. Weick, K. (1995). Sense-Making in Organizations., Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham University Business SchoolNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Information Systems Institute, Salford UniversityGreater ManchesterUK
  3. 3.Manchester Business SchoolManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations