Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The roles of contextual elements in post-merger common platform development: an empirical investigation

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

With congeneric mergers, which involve firms with interrelated but not identical business lines that develop diverse products and services, a major challenge for organizations is the development of a common platform that fulfills similar business functions across multiple divisions. Through a field study of a post-merger common platform development initiative, we develop a framework that highlights how environmental and organizational contexts shape the process of common platform development (CPD). Our study provides an account of how the focal organization transitioned to a platform-based approach by achieving a balance between stable and flexible aspects of the common platform through negotiations among the divisions acquired through mergers and acquisitions. These negotiations were enabled through various boundary-spanning activities and the guided successive enrichment of boundary objects used in CPD process.

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

  • Alaranta M (2008) This has been quite some chaos: integrating information systems after a merger – a case study. In Turku School of Economics. University Of Turku, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alaranta M and Henningsson S (2007) Shaping the Post-Merger Information Systems Integration Strategy. In 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences, p 237b, IEEE Computer Society, Waikoloa, HI.

  • Alaranta M and Henningsson S (2008) An approach to analyzing and planning post-merger IS integration: insights from two field studies. Information Systems Frontiers 10 (3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alaranta M and Kautz K (2007) A framework for understanding post-acquisition IS integration, TUCS Technical Report # 833. TUCS Laboratory, Network Economics Institute, Finland, pp 155–189.

  • Ancona D and Caldwell D (1992) Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (4), 634–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balogun J, Gleadle P, Hailey VH and Willmott H (2005) Managing change across boundaries: boundary-shaking practices. British Journal of Management 16 (4), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14 (3), 312–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunetto G (2006) Integrating information systems during mergers: integration modes typology, prescribed vs constructed implementation process. In 14th European Conference On Information Systems (Ljungberg J and Andersson M, Eds), pp 378–389, AIS, Goteborg.

  • Carlile P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13 (4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile P (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15 (5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang RA, Curtis GA and Jenk J (2002) Keys to the Kingdom: How an Integrated IT Capability Can Increase Your Odds of M&A Success, pp 1–32, Accenture, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao R-D and Lin F-R (2009) A multiple case study on post-merger IT integration with IT culture conflict perspective. In 42nd Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences, pp 1–10, IEEE Computer Society Press, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.

  • Draffan G (2011) Mergers & acquisitions in Wood & Paper Industry. Endgame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube L and Pare G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly 27 (4), 597–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudas M and Tobisson P (2007) Information systems integration in mergers and acquisitions: an enterprise architecture perspective. In: Department Of Informatics. Lund University, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbanna AR (2008) Strategic systems implementation: diffusion through drift. Journal of Information Technology 23 (2), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein MJ (2005) The determinants and evaluation of merger success. Business Horizons 48 (1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez R and Gould R (1994) Dilemma of state power: brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. American Journal of Sociology 99 (6), 1455–1491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomazzi F, Panella C, Pernici B and Sansoni M (1997) Information systems integration in mergers and acquisitions: a normative model. Information & Management 32 (6), 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudén A and Strannegard P (2003) Business process integration: the next wave. EAI Journal, 8–12.

  • Halonen R, Haapala H, Acton T, Conboy K and Golden W (2009) Information systems – unavoidable nuisances in combining local administratives? In 22nd Bled eConference eEnablement: Facilitating an Open, Effective and Representative eSociety (Swatman PMC, Zimmermann H-D, Gricar J, Pucihar A, Lenart G and Babnik M, Eds), pp 1–13, AIS, Bled, Slovenia.

  • Hanseth O and Braa K (2001) Who’s in control: designers, managers-or technology? infrastructures at norsk hydro. In From Control To Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures (Ciborra C, Ed), pp 125–147, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell H and Higgins L (2002) IS integration: your most critical M&A challenge. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance 13 (2), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedman J and Kalling T (2003) The business model concept: theoretical underpinnings and empirical illustrations. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henningsson S and Carlsson S (2011) The DySIIM model for managing IS integration in mergers and acquisitions. Information Systems Journal 21 (5), 441–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houwelingen JWV (2008) Relevance and usability of enterprise architectures during post merger IT integrations. In School of Management and Governance: Business Information Technology, pp 1–83, University Of Twente, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang E and Chuang MH (2007) Extending the theory of planned behaviour as a model to explain post-merger employee behaviour of IS use. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (1), 240–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola H, Uusitalo O and Henno J (2010) IS integration and enterprise migration – adaptation in global context. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems 3 (1/2), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J and Tseng M (2000a) Fundamentals of product family architecture. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11 (7), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J and Tseng M (2000b) Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design 11 (3), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston KD and Yetton PW (1996) Integrating information technology divisions in a bank merger fit, compatibility and models of change. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 5 (3), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johri A (2008) Boundary Spanning Knowledge Broker: An Emerging Role in Global Engineering Firms. In 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, Saratoga Springs, NY.

  • Keepence B and Mannion M (1999) Using patterns to model variability in product families. IEEE Software 16 (4), 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher M, Schwanninger C and Groher I (2006) Transitioning to a Software Product Family Approach – Challenges and Best Practices. In IEEE Computer Society, 10th International Conference on Software Product Line, (O’BRIEN L, Ed), Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Kirsch L and Haney M (2006) Requirements determination for common systems: turning a global vision into a local reality. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (2), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli R and Kettinger WJ (2004) Informating the clan: controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 363–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Rosa M, Van Der Aalst WMP, Dumas M and Milani FP (2013) Business process variability modeling: A survey Working Paper, QUT ePrints.

  • Larsen MH (2005) ICT Integration in an M&A Process. In The 9th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, pp 1146–1159, AIS, Bangkok, Thailand.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levina N and Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 335–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K, Newman M and Al-Muharfi A-RA (2009) Institutionalizing enterprise resource planning in the Saudi steel industry: a punctuated socio-technical analysis. Journal of Information Technology 24 (4), 286–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main T and Short J (1989) Managing the merger: building partnership through IT planning at the new baxter. MIS Quarterly 13 (4), 469–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus M (1989) Case selection in a disconfirmatory case study. In The Information Systems Research Challenge, Harvard Business School Research Colloquium (Cash J and Nunmaker J, Eds), pp 20–26, Harvard Business School, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily B, Perrone V and Zaheer A (2003) Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science 14 (1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor J, Northrop L, Jarrad S and Pohl K (2002) Initiating software product lines. IEEE Software 19 (4), 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta M and Hirschheim R (2007) Strategic alignment in mergers and acquisitions: theorizing IS integration decision making. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8 (3), 143–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merminod V and Rowe F (2012) How does PLM technology support knowledge transfer and translation in new product development? Transparency and boundary spanners in an international context. Information and Organization 22 (4), 295–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M and Lehnerd A (1997) The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles M and Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2002) Paper Industry M&A – The Consolidation Craze. Printing Impression.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H and Westley F (2001) Decision making: it’s not what you think. MIT Sloan Management Review 42 (3), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandhakumar J, Rossi M and Talvinen J (2005) The dynamics of contextual forces of ERP implementation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14 (2), 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northrop L (2002) SEI’s software product line tenets. IEEE Software 19 (4), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organization. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science 11 (4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen DJ and Yoong P (2001) Relationship building and the use of ICT in boundary-crossing virtual teams: a facilitator’s perspective. Journal of Information Technology 16 (4), 205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski SD and Robey D (2004) Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly 28 (4), 645–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer M (2003) Horizontal mergers in the paper industry. RAND Journal of Economics 34 (3), 495–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl K, Böckle G and Van Der Linden F (2005) Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Tech- Niques. Springer, Germany.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rai A, Patnayakuni R and Seth N (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert M and Weber B (2012) Process configuration support. In Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems: Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins SS and Stylianou AC (1999) Post-merger systems integration: the impact on IS capabilities. Information & Management 36 (4), 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg J, Holmstrom J and Lyytinen K (2013) Platform change: theorizing the evolution of hybrid product platforms in process automation. In Platform Strategy Research Symposium (Parker G and Alstyne MV Eds), Boston University, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarrazin H and West A (2011) Understanding the strategic value of IT in M&A. McKinsey Quarterly 12 (1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer S, Guinan P and Cooprider J (2008) Social interactions of information systems development teams: a performance perspective. Information Systems Journal 20 (1), 81–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi H and Uysal VB (2011) Cross-business information technology integration and acquirer value creation in corporate mergers and acquisitions. Information Systems Research 22 (4), 703–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilson D, Lyytinen K and Sørensen C (2010) Research commentary-digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research 21 (4), 748–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilson D, Sørensen C and Lyytinen K (2012) Change and Control Paradoxes in Mobile Infrastructure Innovation: The Android and iOS Mobile Operating Systems Cases. In 45th Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences, pp 1324–1333, IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii.

  • Tiwana A, Konsynski B and Bush AA (2010) Platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research 21 (4), 675–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truex D, Baskerville R and Travis J (2000) Amethodical system development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10 (1), 53–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner EL, Moll J and Newell S (2011) Accounting logics, reconfiguration of ERP systems and the emergence of new accounting practices: a sociomaterial perspective. Management Accounting Research 22 (3), 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen W, Wang WK and Wang TH (2005) A hybrid knowledge-based decision support system for enterprise mergers and acquisitions. Expert Systems with Applications 28 (3), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnhoven F, Spil T, Stegwee R and Fa RTA (2006) Post-merger IT integration strategies: an IT alignment perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan A and Louis M-R (1999) The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations 52 (1), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin R (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Y, Boland R, Lyytinen K and Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science 23 (5), 1398–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Y, Henfridsson O and Lyytinen K (2010) The new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research 21 (4), 724–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, U.S.A.

    Radhika P Jain

  2. Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Balasubramaniam Ramesh

Authors
  1. Radhika P Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balasubramaniam Ramesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Radhika P Jain.

Additional information

Supplementary information accompanies this article on the European Journal of Information Systems website (www.palgravejournals.com/ejis)

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, R., Ramesh, B. The roles of contextual elements in post-merger common platform development: an empirical investigation. Eur J Inf Syst 24, 159–177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.42

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.42

Keywords

Search

Navigation