Discussion of the Theory and its Implications for Research and Practice

Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 23)


In the following sections, the substantive theory introduced in the previous chapter will be discussed in the context of other information systems research. Next, its strength and weaknesses will be set out. Finally, implications of the proposed theory for practitioners are set out.


Information Intensity International Firm Substantive Theory Information System Research Ground Theory Methodology 
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.


  1. Mayhew, B. H. 1981. Structuralism versus Individualism: Part II, ideological and other obfuscations. Social Forces. 59, 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Lewin, K., 1952. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Cartwright, D. (ed.), Tavistock, London, Chapters  5,  8.Google Scholar
  3. Joshi, K., 1992 A causal path model of the overall user attitudes toward the MIS function: The case of user information satisfaction. Information Management, 22(2), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, M. D. J. 1982. Managing international information systems. Harvard Business Review, Sep/Oct 60(5), 153–162.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, E. E. 1989. The implementation of information systems for workers: A structural equation model. Information Management, 16(4), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, Chapters  3 5.Google Scholar
  7. Hurt, F. 1998. Implementing great new ideas through the use of force-field analysis. Direct Marketing, 61(1), 54–56.Google Scholar
  8. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earl, M. J. 1989. Management Strategies for Information Technology. Prentice-Hall, London, Chapters  6 8.Google Scholar
  11. Ajimal, K. S. 1985. Force field analysis – A framework for strategic thinking. Long Range Planning, 18(5), 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas, J. 1985. Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiMaggio, P. J. 1995. Comments on ‘what theory is not’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler Cox plc. 1991. Globalization: The information technology challenge. Amdahl Executive Institute Research Report, London, Chapters  3,  5,  6.Google Scholar
  16. Simon, H. A., 1961. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 2nd edition. The Macmillan Company, New York,  Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  17. Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Company, Hawthorne, NY, Chapters 2 – 12 .Google Scholar
  18. Sankar, C., Apte, U., Palvia, P. 1993. Global information architectures: Alternatives and trade-offs. International Journal of Information Management, 13, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholas, J. M. 1989. Successful project management: A force-field analysis. Journal of Systems Management, 40(1), 24–30, 36.Google Scholar
  21. Sabherwal, R. 1999. The relationship between information system planning sophistication and information system success: An empirical assessment. Decision Sciences, 30(1), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weill, P., Broadbent, M., St. Clair, D. 1994. Information technology value and the role of information technology infrastructure investments. In: Luftman, J. (ed.), Strategic Alignment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 55–83.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gregory, F. 1993. Cause, effect, efficiency and soft systems models. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(4), 333–344.Google Scholar
  25. Lewin, K. 1938. The Conceptual Representation and the Measurement of Psychological Forces. Vol. I, No. 4 of the series: Contributions to Psychological Theory. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, Chapters  5,  7 9.Google Scholar
  26. Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and Organizational Theory. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, Chapters  2,  3.Google Scholar
  27. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, W., Chrissis, M. B. 1994. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley Longman Inc., Reading, MA,  Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  28. Grundy, T. 1997. Management accounting for strategic performance. Management Accounting-London, 75(11), 63–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information ManagementVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations