Contingency Theory in Information Systems Research

Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 28)

Abstract

Contingency theory, which originated in organizational theory, has been utilized in information systems (IS) research for the past 25 years. This ­theory is based on two central findings: First, there is not one best way to organize or manage a firm. Second, each specific method a firm could choose to organize or manage is not equally effective (Galbraith 1973). IS researchers have utilized the primary contingency theory variables of environment; technology, structure, and management effectiveness in their study of important topics; which include systems planning, systems design, systems implementation, performance, user involvement, and Internet adoption. This chapter describes the main contingency theory constructs which are used in IS research and the seminal work in organizational theory; the primary research methods; and lastly, the limitations of ­contingency theory.

Keywords

Contingency Theory IT IS 

Abbreviations

AIS

Accounting information systems

EDP

Electronic data processing

IS

Information systems

IT

Information technology

MIS

Management information systems

SEM

Structural equation modeling

SME

Small/medium enterprise

References

  1. Andres, H. P., & Zmud, R. W. (2002). A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 41–70.Google Scholar
  2. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  3. Cerruti, C. (2008). The impact of offshoring on firm competitiveness. Transition Studies Review, 15(1), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Child, J. (1977). Organization design and performance: Contingency theory and beyond. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 8(2&3), 169–183.Google Scholar
  5. Danziger, J. N. (1979). Technology and productivity: A contingency analysis of computers in local government. Administration & Society, 11(2), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edström, A. (1977). User influence and the success of MIS projects: A contingency approach. Human Relations, 30(7), 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feidler, F. F. (1964). Advances in experimental social psychology, contingency model of leadership effectiveness. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fiedler, F. F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Franz, C. R. (1985). User leadership in the systems development life cycle: A contingency model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2(2), 5.Google Scholar
  10. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Giaglis, G. M., Klein, S., & O’Keefe, R. M. (2002). The role of intermediaries in electronic ­marketplaces: Developing a contingency model. Information Systems Journal, 12, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ginzberg, M. J. (1980). An organizational contingencies view of accounting and information systems implementation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodhue, D. L., Quillard, J. A., & Rockart, J. F. (1988). Managing the data resource: A contingency perspective. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon, L. A., & Miller, D. (1976). A contingency framework for the design of accounting information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(1), 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Chen, H. G. (2006). The effects of user partnering and user non-support on project performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(2), 68–88.Google Scholar
  16. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1979). Organization and management: A systems and contingency approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Khazanchi, D. (2005). Information technology (IT) appropriateness: The contingency theory of “fit” and IT implementation in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 88–95.Google Scholar
  18. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1986). Organization and environment managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lin, W. T., & Shao, B. B. M. (2000). The relationship between user participation and system ­success: A simultaneous contingency approach. Information Management, 37(6), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKeen, J. D., & Guimaraes, T. (1997). Successful strategies for user participation in systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 133–150.Google Scholar
  21. McKeen, J. D., Guimaraes, T., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1994). The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: An investigation of four contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 427–451.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, D. (1975) Towards a contingency theory of strategy formulation. Academy of Management Proceedings, 66–68.Google Scholar
  23. Otley, D. T. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and ­prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schonberger, R. J. (1980). MIS design: A contingency approach. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 4(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seliem, A. A. M., et al. (2003). The relationship of some organizational factors to information systems effectiveness: A contingency analysis of Egyptian data. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(1), 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2007). The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 219–238.Google Scholar
  27. Sugumaran, V., & Arogyaswamy, B. (2003–2004). Measuring IT performance: Contingency. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(2), 79–86.Google Scholar
  28. Teo, T. S. H., & Pian, Y. (2003). A contingency perspective on Internet adoption and competitive advantage. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Umanath, N. S. (2003). The concept of contingency beyond “It Depends”: Illustrations from IS research stream. Information Management, 40(6), 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weill, P., & Olson, M. H. (1989). An assessment of the contingency theory of management ­information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
  31. Wetherbe, J. C., & Whitehead, C. J. (1977). A contingency view of managing the data processing organization. MIS Quarterly, 1(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood, S. (1979). A reappraisal of the contingency approach to organization. Journal of Management Studies, 16(3), 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  34. Zhu, Z. (2002). Evaluating contingency approaches to information systems design. International Journal of Information Management, 22(5), 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Dixon School of AccountingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations