Strategic alliances have been recognized as arenas with potential for opportunistic behavior by partners. Hence, a firm needs to have an adequate level of confidence in its partner's cooperative behavior. In this article we examine the notion of confidence in partner cooperation in alliances and suggest that it comes from two distinct sources: trust and control. We make the argument that trust and control are parallel concepts and that their relationship is of a supplementary character in generating confidence. In addition, we suggest that control mechanisms have an impact on trust level and that the trust level moderates the effect of control mechanisms in determining the control level. Finally, we discuss various ways to build trust within strategic alliances and important alliance control mechanisms.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259291.pdf

Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances

While researchers go to great lengths to justify and prove theoretical links between constructs, the relationship between measurement items and constructs is often ignored. By default, the relationship between construct and item is assumed to be reflective, meaning that the measurement items are a reflection of the construct. Many times, though, the nature of the construct is not reflective, but rather formative. Formative constructs occur when the items describe and define the construct rather than vice versa.

In this research, we examine whether formative constructs are indeed being mistaken for reflective constructs by information systems researchers. By examining complete volumes of MIS Quarterly and Information Systems Research over the last 3 years, we discovered that a significant number of articles have indeed misspecified formative constructs. For scientific results to be valid, we argue that researchers must properly specify formative constructs. This paper discusses the implications of different patterns of common misspecifications of formative constructs on both Type I and Type II errors. To avoid these errors, the paper provides a roadmap to researchers to properly specify formative constructs. We also discuss how to address formative constructs within a research model after they are specified.

/pdf/specifying-formative-constructs-in-information-systems-1bdpzwab2g.pdf

Specifying formative constructs in information systems research

Trust and control are inextricably interlinked with risk in strategic alliances. Hence, to understand how partner firms can effectively reduce and manage this risk, we need to examine the inter-relationships between trust, control, and risk. In this article, we propose a comprehensive and integrated framework of the three constructs in the context of strategic alliances, contending that trust and control are the two principal antecedents of risk. First, we suggest that the three constructs are each comprised of certain key dimensions. Risk can be considered separately as relational risk and performance risk. The two dimensions of trust are identified as goodwill trust and competence trust, and control is differentiated in terms of the three modes of behaviour control, output control, and social control. Second, we discuss systematically the various linkages between the different types of trust, control, and risk in alliances. Third, we suggest several risk reduction approaches — minimizing relational risk...

Trust, Control, and Risk in Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework:

https://www.pm.lth.se/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/5._Qual_Interview_Texto_Leitura_Atividade_2.pdf

The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft

Wold’s (1974; 1982) partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) ap-proach and the advanced PLS-SEM algorithms by Lohmoller (Lohmoller 1989) have enjoyed steady popularity as a key multivariate analysis methods in management infor-mation systems (MIS) research (Gefen et al. 2011). Chin’s (1998b) scholarly work and technology acceptance model (TAM) applications (e.g., Gefen and Straub 1997) are milestones that helped to reify PLS-SEM in MIS research. In light of the proliferation of SEM techniques, Gefen et al. (2011), updating Gefen et al. (2000), presented a compre-hensive, organized, and contemporary summary of the minimum reporting requirements for SEM applications. Such guidelines are of crucial importance for advancing research for several reasons. First, researchers wishing to apply findings from prior studies or wanting to contribute to original research must comprehend other researchers’ decisions in order to under-stand the robustness of their findings. Likewise, when studies arrive at significantly different results, the natural course is to attempt explaining the differences in terms of the theory or concept employed, the empirical data used, and how the research method was applied. A lack of clarity on these issues, including the methodological applications, contradicts the goals of such studies (Jackson et al. 2009). Even worse, the misapplication of a technique may result in misinterpretations of empirical outcomes and, hence, false conclusions. Against this background, rigorous research has a long-standing tradition of critically reviewing prior practices of reporting standards and research method use (e.g., Boudreau et al. 2001). While the use of covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) techniques has been well documented across disciplines (e.g., Medsker et al. 1994; Shook et al. 2004; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 2000), few reviews to date have investigated usage practices specific to PLS-SEM (see, however, Gefen et al. 2000). Previous reviews of such research practices were restricted to strategic management (Hulland 1999) and, more recently, marketing (Hair et al. 2012; Henseler et al. 2009), and accounting (Lee et al. 2011). The question arises as to how authors publishing in top IS journals such as MIS Quarterly have used PLS-SEM thus far, given the SEM recommendations of Gefen et al. (2011). By relating Gefen et al.’s (2011) reporting guidelines to actual practice, we attempt to identify potential problematic areas in PLS-SEM use, problems which may explain some of the criticism of how it has been applied (e.g., Marcoulides et al. 2009; Marcoulides and Saunders 2006). By reviewing previous PLS-SEM research in MIS Quarterly, we can hopefully increase awareness of established reporting standards. The results allow researchers to further improve the already good reporting practices that have been established in MIS Quarterly and other top journals and thus could become blueprints for conducting PLS-SEM analysis in other disciplines such as strategic management and marketing.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2224526_code1463265.pdf?abstractid=2176426&type=2

A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and other complex information systems represent critical organizational resources. For such systems, firms typically use consultants to aid in the implementation process. Client firms expect consultants to transfer their implementation knowledge to their employees so that they can contribute to successful implementations and learn to maintain the systems independent of the consultants. This study examines the antecedents of knowledge transfer in the context of such an interfirm complex information systems implementation environment. Drawing from the knowledge transfer, information systems, and communication literatures, an integrated theoretical model is developed that posits that knowledge transfer is influenced by knowledge-related, motivational, and communication-related factors. Data were collected from consultant-and-client matched-pair samples from 96 ERP implementation projects. Unlike most prior studies, a behavioral measure of knowledge transfer that incorporates the application of knowledge was used. The analysis suggests that all three groups of factors influence knowledge transfer, and provides support for 9 of the 13 hypotheses. The analysis also confirms two mediating relationships. These results (1) adapt prior research, primarily done in non-IS contexts, to the ERP implementation context, (2) enhance prior findings by confirming the significance of an antecedent that has previously shown mixed results, and (3) incorporate new IS-related constructs and measures in developing an integrated model that should be broadly applicable to the interfirm IS implementation context and other IS situations. Managerial and research implications are discussed.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25148668.pdf

Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations

Control theory attempts to explain how one person or group in an organization can ensure that another person or group works toward and attains a set of organizational goals. Prior empirical work investigating control theory has shown that characteristics of the task and of the organizational environment predict the use of various types of control. However, this paper argues that when control theory is applied to a complex, nonroutine task such as the management of information systems development, the theory of control is incomplete. In particular, it proposes that knowledge of the task is a key determinant of type of control.

Four modes of control behavior, outcome, clan, and self art identified from the organizational literature; each high-lights different aspects of control in organizations. Building on prior empirical work, this paper integrates the different theoretical perspectives and predicts the circumstances under which each type of control will be implemented. Survey responses from 96 participants of 32 systems development efforts suggest that the extent to which behaviors are monitored interacts with the project sponsor's level of systems development knowledge to determine the amount of behavior control; that outcome control is a function of the extent to which behaviors are monitored and outcomes are measurable; and that self-control is dependent on the extent to which outcomes are measurable and the level of the project sponsor's knowledge about systems development activities. No relationship between clan control and the independent variables was found.

The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process

Increasingly, business clients are actively leading information systems (IS) projects, often in collaboration with IS professionals, and they are exercising a greater degree of project control. Control is defined as all attempts to motivate individuals to achieve desired objectives, and it can be exercised via formal and informal modes. Much of the previous research investigating the choice of control mode has focused on direct reporting relationships between IS project leaders and their superiors in a hierarchical setting. However, the client-IS relationships may take on a variety of forms, including both hierarchical and lateral settings. Moreover, prior research has found that the knowledge of the systems development process is a key antecedent of control, yet clients are unlikely to be as knowledgeable as IS professionals about this process. It is therefore unclear whether prior findings will generalize to the client-IS pair, and the goal of this research is to examine the exercise of control across this relationship. Data were gathered from a questionnaire survey of 69 pairs of clients and IS project leaders. The results are largely consistent with prior research on the antecedents offormal control modes, but they shed new insight on the choice ofinformal control modes.

Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client

For many organizations, the ability to make coordinated, organization-wide responses to today's business problems is thwarted by the lack of data integration or commonly defined data elements and codes across different information systems. Though many researchers and practitioners have implicitly assumed that data integration always results in net benefits to an organization, this article questions that view. Based on theories of organizational information processing, a model of the impact of data integration is developed that includes gains in organization-wide coordination and organization-wide decision making, as well as losses in local autonomy and flexibility, and changes in system design and implementation costs. The importance of each of these impacts is defended by theoretical arguments and illustrated by case examples. This model suggests that the benefits of data integration will outweigh costs only under certain situations, and probably not for all the data the organization uses. Therefore, MIS researchers and practitioners should consider the need for better conceptualization and methods for implementing "partial integration" in organization.

The impact of data integration on the costs and benefits of information systems

In today's competitive environment, an increasing number of firms are buildingcommon information systems, which will be deployed globally, to support their strategic globalization initiatives. These systems are designed to meet the requirements of a diverse set of stakeholders with different business needs, priorities, and objectives. One managerial tool for addressing and reconciling such differences is control, which encompasses all attempts to motivate individuals to act in a manner that is consistent with organizational objectives. This paper examines two research questions. How do stakeholders exercise control during different phases of large IS projects? Why do control choices change across project phases? Results of two case studies suggest control is exercised differently for each phase. During the initial phase of a project, control is exercised as "collective sensemaking," in which both IS and business stakeholders utilize mostly informal mechanisms of control. During development, "technical winnowing" of mechanisms occurs such that control is vested primarily in IS managers, who structure hierarchical relationships with subordinates and who rely extensively on formal control mechanisms. Both IS and business stakeholders employ formal and informal mechanisms during implementation to exercise control as "collaborative coordinating." The results also suggest that changes in control choices from one project phase to another are triggered by factors in the project, stakeholder, and global contexts. As factors change across phases, so too do control choices. Further, problems that surface in one project phase trigger changes to controls in subsequent phases. These findings are integrated into a model of the dynamics of control. Implications of these results are drawn, and directions for future research are suggested.

Laurie J. Kirsch

Papers

Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations

The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process

Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client

The impact of data integration on the costs and benefits of information systems

Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control