Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software process improvement with weak management support: an analysis of the dynamics of intra-organizational alliances in IS change initiatives

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Software Process Improvement (SPI) projects are large-scale, complex organization-wide change initiatives. They require considerable investments in personnel, time and money and impact just about every aspect of software firms. The group charged with conducting an SPI project has, however, little formal authority to influence or force software professionals to engage in SPI work or to define and implement changes. The SPI literature suggests that successful SPI initiatives depend on strong commitment from top management. But what should the SPI group do if management support is weak? In this paper, we present an analysis of how an SPI group can use alliances to obtain influence and succeed when management support is weak. Our study is based on a 3-year longitudinal field study of SPI change initiatives at Denmark Electronics. Our findings show that a lack of top management support is not necessarily incompatible with success. This research opens an important new area of research on intra-organizational alliances and information system (IS) implementation. It has the potential to offer new theories and practical advice on how IS implementation projects can be more effectively managed.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaen I, Arent J, Mathiassen L and Ngwenyama O (2001) A conceptual MAP of software process improvement. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 81–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamsson P (2001) Rethinking the concept of commitment in software process improvement. Scandinavian Journal of Information System 13, 37–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamsson P and Jokela T (2000) Development of Management Commitment in Software Process Improvement. In Proceedings of the 23rd Informations Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (SVENSSON L, SNIS U, SØRENSEN C, FÄGERLIND H, LINDROTH T and MAGNUSSON M), pp 487–506, University of Trollhättan Uddevalla, Sweden.

  • Avison D, Lau F, Myers M and Nielsen P (1999) Action research, Communications of the ACM 42 (1), 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkundi P and Harrison DA (2006) Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about structure's effects on teams. The Academy of Management Journal 49 (1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I, Goldstein DK and Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11 (3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjesson G and Mathiassen L (2004) Improving software organizations: agility challenges and implications. Information Technology and People 18 (4), 359–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P and Wacquant LJD (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass DJ (1984) Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (4), 518–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt R (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt R (1997) The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1975) Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies 8 (1), 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chell E (1998) Critical incident technique. In Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research (SYMON G and CASSELL C, Eds), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen AR and Bradford DL (2003) Influence without authority: the use of alliances, reciprocity, and exchange to accomplish work. In Organizational Influence Processes (PORTER LW, ANGLE HL and ALLEN RW, Eds), pp 384–394, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1990) The Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of the University of Harvard, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (Suppl), S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook KS and Emerson RM (1978) Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review 43 (5), 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross R and Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6), 928–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN and Cross R (2003) Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks 25 (3), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå T (2003) Factors of software process improvement success in small and large organizations: an empirical study in a Scandinavian context. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 28 (5), 148–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson B and Roos I (2001) Critical incident techniques: towards a framework for analyzing the criticality of critical incidents. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12 (3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin NE and Johnsen EC (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Process 16, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase V, Messnarz R, Koch G, Kugler HJ and Decrinis P (1994) Bootstrap: fine-tuning process assessment. IEEE Software 11 (4), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen B, Rose J and Tjornehoj G (2004) Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field. International Journal of Information Management 24 (6), 457–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb J, Zubrow D, Goldenson D, Hayes W and Paulk MC (1997) Software quality and the capability maturity model. Communications of the ACM 40 (6), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey WS (1990) Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen JH, Mathiassen L and Nielsen PA (2004) Managing risk in software process improvement: an action research approach. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 395–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen J, Nielsen PA and Nørbjerg J (1999) Situated assessments of problems in software development. The Database for Advances in Information Systems 30 (2), 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL and Ives B (1991) Executive involvement and participation in the management of information technology. MIS Quarterly 15 (2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein K, Lim B, Saltz J and Mayer D (2004) How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6), 952–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D and Hanson J (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review 71 (4), 104–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishna A and Uphoff N (1999) Mapping and measuring social capital: a conceptual and empirical study of collective action for conserving and developing watersheds in Rajasthan, India. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper #13. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter J (1996) Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13 (1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee AS and Baskerville R (2003) Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14 (3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin N (1999) Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin N (2001) Building a network theory of social capital. In Social Capital Theory and Research (LIN N, COOK K and BURT R, Eds), Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1981) Implementation politics: top management support and user involvement. Systems, Objectives, Solutions 1 (4), 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1983) Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 26 (6), 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML and Benjamin RI (1996) Change agentry – the next IS frontier. MIS Quarterly 20 (4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology and People 15 (4), 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen L, Pries-Heje J and Ngwenyama O (2002) Improving Software Organizations: From Principles to Practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFeeley R (1996) IDEAL: A User's Guide for Software Process Improvement CMU/SEI-96-HB-001, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge P (1990) Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes, Organization Science 1 (4), 406–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama O and Nielsen PA (2003) Competing values in software process improvement: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (1), 100–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen PA and Ngwenyama O (2002) Organizational influence processes in software process improvement. In Proceedings of the Xth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2002) (WRYCZA S, Ed), University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen PA and Nørbjerg J (2001) Assessing software processes: low maturity or sensible practice. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13 (1–2), 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nørbjerg J and Ngwenyama O (2005) Building and maintaining alliances in SPI: implications for organizing effective SPI. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems. University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh H, Chung M and Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6), 806–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh H, Labianca G and Chung M (2006) A multilevel model of group social capital. The Academy of Management Review 31 (3), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk MC, Curtis B and Chrissis MB (1993) Capability Maturity Model for Software v. 1.1. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-93-TR-024. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Pelled LH, Eisenhardt K and Xin K (1999) Exploring the black box: an analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict and productivity. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal Field research on change: theory and Practice. Organization Science 1 (3), 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM and Baron JN (1997) Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review 62, 673–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson and Co, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter LW, Angle HL and Allen RW (2003a) Influence, power, and politics in organizational settings. In Organizational Influence Processes (PORTER LW, ANGLE HL and ALLEN RW, Eds), pp 3–13, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter LW, Angle HL and Allen RW (2003b) Lateral influence. In Organizational Influence Processes (PORTER LW ANGLE HL and ALLEN RW, Eds), pp 275–281, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes A (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam R (1993) The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect 4 (13), [WWW document] http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_prosperous_community.

  • Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R and Zuckerman E (2001) Networks, diversity and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12 (4), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R, Jeyaraj A and Chowa C (2006) Information system success: individual and organizational determinants. Management Science 52 (12), 1849–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe R, Liden R, Wayne S and Kraimer M (2001) Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. The Academy of Management Journal 44 (2), 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong J, Chee-Sing JY and Raman K (1996) Top management support, external expertise and information systems implementation in small businesses. Information Systems Research 7 (2), 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2000) Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intra-organizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21 (9), 925–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intra-firm networks. The Academy of Management Journal 41 (4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1988) Tales from the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4 (1), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer A, McEvily B and Perrone V (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the Effects of Inter-organizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organizational Science 9 (2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Innovation and Technology Management, Ryerson University, Canada

    Ojelanki Ngwenyama

  2. Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

    Jacob Nørbjerg

Authors
  1. Ojelanki Ngwenyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob Nørbjerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Nørbjerg.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table a1 Description of empirical materials
Full size table

Appendix B

See Table B1.

Table b1 Example of coded empirical observations of the project managers’ social network ((1) First phase of the SPI project; (2) Last phase of the SPI project)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ngwenyama, O., Nørbjerg, J. Software process improvement with weak management support: an analysis of the dynamics of intra-organizational alliances in IS change initiatives. Eur J Inf Syst 19, 303–319 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.18

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.18

Keywords

Search

Navigation