Advertisement

Abstract

The classic story of the blind men and the elephant teaches us that in order to fully understand something, we need to observe it from more than one perspective. In this paper, we extend the range of perspectives available for researchers by developing a typology of models. The typology is based on the process-variance dichotomy suggested by Mohr (1982). A selection of empirical IS research is classified with the typology, resulting in the identification of four distinct hybrid models. The research using these four forms is able to make valuable contributions to our knowledge of IS, refuting Mohr’s claim that hybrid models are inferior to pure process and variance models. The analysis of the IS research using the typology is combined with a series of interviews with process researchers to yield a collection of implications for researchers interested in studying process or hybrid models.

Keywords

Variance Model Hybrid Model Process Approach System Dynamic Model Hybrid Form 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1983). “Sequences of Social Events: Concepts and Methods for the Analysis of Order in Social Processes.” Historical Methods, Volume 16, Number 4, pp. 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, A. (1992). “From Causes to Events: Notes on Narrative Positivism.” Sociological Methods Research, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 428–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdel-Hamid, T. K. (1989). “A Study of Staff Turnover, Acquisition, and Assimilation and Their Impact on Software Development Cost and Schedule.” Journal of Management Information Systems,Volume 6, Number 1, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
  4. Abdel-Hamid, T. K., and Madnick, S. E. (1989). “Lessons Learned from Modeling the Dynamics of Software Development.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 32, Number 12, pp. 1426–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin, Volume 58, pp. 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannella, A. A., Jr., and Paetzold, R. L. (1994). “Pfeffer’s Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder.” Academy of Management Review, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 331–342.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. DeSanctis, G.; Poole, M. S.; Lewis, H.; and Desharnais, G. (1991). “Using Computing in Quality Team Meetings: Initial Observations from the IRS-Minnesota Project.” Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 8, Number 3, pp. 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). `Building Theories from Case Study Research.“ Academy of Management Review, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 532–550.Google Scholar
  11. Galegher, J., and Kraut, R. E. (1994). “Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing.” Information Systems Research, Volume 5, Number 2, pp. 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta, Y. P., and Gupta, M. C. (1990). “A Process Model to Study the Impact of Role Variables on Turnover Intentions of Information Systems Personnel.” Computers in Industry, Volume 15, pp. 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joshi, K. (1991). “A Model of Users’ Perspective on Change: The Case of Information Systems Implementation.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 229242.Google Scholar
  14. Lave, C. A., and March, J. G. (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Mackay, J. M., and Elam, J. J. (1992). “A Comparative Study of How Experts and Novices Use a Decision Aid to Solve Problems in Complex Knowledge Domains.” Information Systems Research, Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 150–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markus, M. L. (1994). “Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice.” Organization Science, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 502–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markus, M. L. (1983). “Power, Politics, and Mis Implementation.” Communications of the ACM, Volume 26, Number 6, pp. 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. (1988). “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research.” Management Science, Volume 34, Number 5, pp. 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: JosseyBass.Google Scholar
  22. Monge, P. R. (1990). “Theoretical and Analytical Issues in Studying Organizational Processes. ” Organization Science, Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 406–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman, M., and Noble, F. (1990). “User Involvement as an Interaction Process: A Case Study” Information Systems Research, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, M., and Robey, D. (1992). “A Social-Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, M., and Sabherwal, R. (1996). “Determinants of Commitment to Information System Development: A Longitudinal Investigation.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 20, Number 1, pp. 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman, M., and Sabherwal, R. (1989). “A Process Model for the Control of Information System Development Projects.” In J. I. DeGross, J. C. Henderson, and B. R. Konsynski (Editors), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, pp. 185–197.Google Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development.” MIS Quarterly, Volume 17, Number 3, pp. 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). “Improvising Organizational Transformation over time: A Situated Change Perspective.” Information Systems Research, Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. (1991). “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions.” Information Systems Research, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. -27.Google Scholar
  30. Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. (1994). “Genre Repertoire: Structuring of Communicative Practices in Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 39, Number 4, pp. 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orlikowski, W. J.; Yates, J.; Okamura, K.; and Fujimoto, M. (1995). “Shaping Electronic Communication: The Metastructuring of Technology in the Context of Use.” Organization Science, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poole, M. S., and DeSanctis, G. (1992). “Microlevel Structuration in Computer-Supported Group Decision Making.” Human Communication Research, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 4–49.Google Scholar
  33. Poole, M. S., and Holmes, M. E. (1995). “Decision Development in Computer-Assisted Group Decision Making.” Human Communication Research, Volume 22, Number 1, pp. 90–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rich, P. (1992). “The Organizational Taxonomy: Definition and Design.” Academy of Management Review, Volume 17, Number 4, pp. 758–781.Google Scholar
  35. Robey, D., and Newman, M. (1996). “Sequential Patterns in Information Systems Development: An Application of a Social Process Model.” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Volume 14, Number 1, pp. 30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sabherwal, R., and Robey, D. (1993). “An Empirical Taxonomy of Implementation Process Based on Sequences of Events in Information System Development.” Organization Science, Volume 4, Number 4, pp. 548–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sabherwal, R., and Robey, D. (1995). “Reconciling Variance and Process Strategies for Studying Information Systems Development.” Information Systems Research, Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sambamurthy, V., and Poole, M. S. (1992). “The Effects of Variations in Capabilities of GDSS Designs on Management of Cognitive Conflict in Groups.” Information Systems Research, Volume 3, Number 3, pp. 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sen, A.; Vinze, A.; and Liou, S. F. T. (1994). “Role of Control in the Model Formulation Process.” Information Systems Research, Volume 5, Number 3, pp. 219248.Google Scholar
  40. Soh, C.; Ang, S.; and Neo, B. S. (1994). “Building the Application Portfolio: A Process Analysis.” In J. I. DeGross, S. L. Huff, and M. C. Munro (Editors), Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Vancouver, pp. 407–418.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A., and Juliet, C. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Google Scholar
  42. Tyre, M. J., and Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). “Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaptation in Organizations.” Organization Science, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 98–118.Google Scholar
  43. Vicinanza, S. S.; Mukhopadhyay, T.; and Prietula, M. J. (1991). “Software-Effort Estimation: An Exploratory Study of Expert Performance.” Information Systems Research, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Shaw
    • 1
  • S. Jarvenpaa
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations