Top 10 IS Theories 2014The information systems fields focus on
theory is well established, and theIS Theory Wikiserves the need
for quick review and understanding. The popularity of theories on
the site may serve as an early indicator of the future prevalence
of these theories, or at least the share of researcher attention
during day-to-day research activities. While some theories, such as
2014s most popular theoryInstitutional Theorylikely benefits from
visitors from other disciplines, some of the changes may reflect a
move away from the individual level of analysis in IS. In fact,
none of the top five theories are at the individual level, although
2014s strongest climberSocial Network Theorycertainly incorporates
the individual perspective. Only two pure-play individual level
theories breached the top 10the Technology Acceptance Model and
Diffusion of Innovations theory, and whereas the former maintained
its 2013 spot, the latter lost several spots.
IS Theory Wiki Ranking Changes from 2013 to 2014The top 10
theory pages visited for 2014 (with across-site percentages):[1]1.
Institutional theory (9.4%)2. Social network theory (6.7%)3.
Contingency theory (6.6%)4. Organizational culture theory (5.8%)5.
Transaction cost economics (5.6%)6. DeLone and McLean IS success
model (5.1%)7. Technology acceptance model (5.1%)8. Socio-technical
theory (4.8%)9. Garbage can theory (4.0%)10. Diffusion of
innovations theory (3.7%)As expected, the same handful of theories
played around the top between the two years. For example, we note
that institutional theory was the top visited theory for both 2014
and 2013, and contingency theory, organizational culture theory,
diffusions of innovations theory, the DeLone and McLean IS success
model, and the diffusions of innovations theory all were within the
top 10 both time periods. Social network theory experienced a
significant jump from 14th to 2nd, and socio-technical theory
jumped almost the same interval, going from 17th to 8th.
Transaction cost economics and garbage can theory also felt modest
boosts of 5 and 2 respectively. Six out of the 2013 top ten dropped
a few intervals in 2014 (contingency theory, DeLone and McLean IS
success model, diffusion of innovations theory, organizational
learning theory, technology-organization-environment framework, and
the theory of planned behavior).The IS Theories Wiki is a resource
for the whole field and requires constant updates to stay relevant.
We are therefore looking for volunteers to update references and
add new theories. Please contact Dave for details.David
Eargle(daveeargle.com)Kai R. Larsen([email protected])
Institutional theory
AcronymINTAlternate name(s)Institutionalism, New Institutional
TheoryMain dependent construct(s)/factor(s)Institutional emergence,
conformity, conflict, change, isomorphismMain independent
construct(s)/factor(s)Processes which establish schemas, rules,
norms and routinesConcise description of theoryInstitutional theory
attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social
structure. It considers the processes by which structures,
including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established
as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. It inquires into
how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over
space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although
the ostensible subject is stability and order in social life,
students of institutions must perforce attend not just to consensus
and conformity but to conflict and change in social
structures.Source: Scott, W. Richard 2004. Institutional theory
P408-14 in Encyclopedia of Social Theory, George Ritzer, ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.A. Defining institutions there is no single
and universally agreed definition of an institution in the
institutional school of thought... Scott (1995:33, 2001:48) asserts
that Institutions are social structures that have attained a high
degree of resilience. [They] are composed of cultural-cognitive,
normative, and regulative elements that, together with associated
activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social
life. Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers,
including symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and
artifacts. Institutions operate at different levels of
jurisdiction, from the world system to localized interpersonal
relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are
subject to change processes, both incremental and discontinuous
Powell and DiMaggio (1991:8) shed light on the meaning of
institutions by offering a definition of the (neo-)institutional
field: The new institutionalism in organization theory and
sociology comprises a rejection of rational-actor models, an
interest in institutions as independent variables, a turn toward
cognitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties
of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to
aggregations or direct consequences of individuals attributes or
motives.B. Enactment and (re-)production of institutions These
social structures (mentioned above) are both imposed on and upheld
by the actors (e.g. an individual, an organisation, etc.)
behaviour.... One cognitively oriented view is that a given
institution is encoded into an actor through a socialization
process. When internalized, it transforms to a script (patterned
behavior). When (or if) the actor behaves according to the script,
the institution is enacted. In this manner, institutions are
continuously (re-)produced. The enactment of an institution
externalizes or objectifies it - other actors can see that the
institution is in play, and a new round of socialization starts.
After some time, the institution (and the resulting patterned
behaviour) becomes sedimented and taken for-granted. Then, it might
be difficult for the actors even to realize that their behaviour is
in fact partly controlled by an institution. Acting in accordance
with the institution is viewed as rational by those who share the
institution.Source: Fredrik Bjorck. "Institutional Theory: A New
Perspective for Research into IS/IT Security in Organisations,"
HICSS, p. 70186b, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 7,
2004Diagram/schematic of theoryTheory
elementRegulativeNormativeCognitive
Basis of complianceExpedienceSocial ObligationTaken for
granted
MechanismsCoerciveNormativeMimetic
LogicInstrumentalityAppropriatenessOrthodoxy
IndicatorsRules, laws, sanctionsCertification,
accreditationPrevalence, isomorphism
Basis of legitimacyLegally sanctionedMorally governedCulturally
supported, conceptually correct
Three Pillars of InstitutionsSource: Source: Scott, W. R.
(1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA,
SageOriginating author(s)Philip Selznick, Paul J. DiMaggio, Walter
W. Powell, W. Richard Scott, Lynne G. ZuckerSeminal
articlesSelznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of
Organizations. American Sociological Review 13: 25-35Selznick, P.
(1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. University of California Press,
Berkley, CA.Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration, A
Sociological Interpretation New York: Harper & Row.Selznick, P.
(1969) Law, Society and Industrial justice, New York: Russel Sage
Foundation.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron
cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48(2), 147-160.Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to
Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16,
191: pp.145-179.Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (1991). The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional
theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493Scott, W. R.
(1995 and 2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA,
SageOriginating areaSociology, Industrial Psychology,
Organizational Theory, Organizational BehaviorLevel of
analysisGroup, firm, industryIS articles that use the theoryAdler,
P. S. (2005). The evolving object of software development.
Organization, 12(3), 401.Aguila, A. R. d., Bruque, S., &
Padilla, A. (2002). Global information technology management and
organizational analysis: Research issues. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 5(4), 18.Alvarez, R. (2001). "It
was a great system": Face-work and the discursive construction of
technology during information systems development. Information
Technology & People, 14(4), 385.Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and
organizational change: An institutionalist perspective. Information
Technology & People, 13(4), 234.Bada, A. O., Aniebonam, M. C.,
& Owei, V. (2004). Institutional pressures as sources of
improvisations: A case study from a developing country context.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(3),
27.Baptista , J. (2009). Institutionalisation as a process of
interplay between technology and its organisational context of use.
Journal Of Information Technology, 24(4): 305-320.Barley, S. R.
(1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from
observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology
departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78.Barley, S.
R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and
structuration: Studying the links between action and institution.
Organization Studies (Walter De Gruyter GmbH & Co.KG.), 18(1),
93.Bharati, P., Zhang, C., and Chaudhury, A. (Forthcoming), Social
Media Assimilation in Firms: Investigating the Roles of Absorptive
Capacity and Institutional Pressures, Information Systems
Frontiers, Springer.Bharati, P. and Chaudhury, A. (2012),
Technology Assimilation Across the Value Chain: An Empirical Study
of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Information Resources
Management Journal, 25(1), pp. 38-60, January-March.Boudreau,
Marie-Claude, & Robey, Daniel. (1996). Coping with
contradictions in business process re-engineering. Information
Technology & People, 9(4), 40.Butler, T. (2003). An
institutional perspective on developing and implementing intranet-
and internet-based information systems. Information Systems
Journal, 13(3), 209-231.Cannon, A. R., & Woszczynski, A. B.
(2002). Crises and revolutions in information technology: Lessons
learned from Y2K. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 102(5/6),
318.Chatterjee, D., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V.
(2002).Shaping up for E-commerce: Institutional enablers of the
organizational assimilation of web technologies. MIS Quarterly,
26(2), 65.Cukier, W., Shortt, D., & Devine, I. (2002). ISECON
2001 best paper award winner--gender and information technology:
Implications of definitions. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 13(1), 7.Currie, W. L. (2004). The organizing vision of
application service provision: A process-oriented analysis.
Information & Organization, 14(4), 237-267.Dibbern, J., Goles,
T., Hirschheim, R., & Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information
systems outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature.
Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(4), 6.Doh, J. P.,
Teegen, H., & Mudambi, R. (2004). Balancing private and state
ownership in emerging markets' telecommunications infrastructure:
Country, industry, and firm influences. Journal of International
Business Studies, 35(3), 233.Gibbs, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L.
(2004). A cross-country investigation of the determinants of scope
of E-commerce use: An institutional approach. Electronic Markets,
14(2), 124-137.Hedman, J., & Borell, A. (2004). Narratives in
ERP systems evaluation. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 17(4), 283.Jarvenpaa, L, S., & Leidner, E, D.
(1998). An information company in mexico extending the
resource-based view of the firm to a developing country context.
Information Systems Research, 9(4), 342.King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V.,
Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C. S.
(1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation.
Information Systems Research, 5(2), 139-169.Kinsella, W. J. (2005).
Rhetoric, action, and agency in institutionalized science and
technology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 303.Kling, R.
(1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in
recent empirical research. ACM Computing Surveys, 12(1),
61-110.Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Understanding intranets
in the context of end-user computing. Database for Advances in
Information Systems, 36(1), 64.Lamb, R., King, J. L., & Kling,
R. (2003). Informational environments: Organizational contexts of
online information use. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(2), 97.Lamb, R., &
Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in
information systems research1. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197.Laudon, K.
C., & King, R. (1985). Environmental and institutional modes of
system development: A national criminal history system.
Communications of the ACM, 28(7), 728.Lawrence, C. (2003).
Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Information Technology
& People, 16(3), 374.Lucas, L. M., & Ogilvie, D. (2005).
The evolution of organisations' search strategies for knowledge.
International Journal of Information Technology & Management,
4(3), 1-1.Lynskey, M. J. (2004). Knowledge. finance and human
capital: The role of social institutional variables on
entrepreneurship in japan. Industry and Innovation, 11(4),
373.Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology
and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research.
Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.Nicolaou, A. I. (1999). Social
control in information systems development. Information Technology
& People, 12(2), 130.Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of
technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management
Sciences, 3(3), 398-427.Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R.
(2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on
information technology and research on organizations learn from
each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145.Orlikowski, W., & Robey,
D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of
organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2),
143-169.Premkumar, G., K. Ramamurthy, and M. Crum. (1997).
Determinants of EDI Adoption in the Transportation Industry.
European Journal of Information Systems, 6, 107-121.Ramiller, N. C.
(2003). Information systems and global diversity. Information
Technology & People, 16(2), 235.Reimers, K. (2003). Developing
sustainable B2B E-commerce scenarios in the Chinese context: A
research proposal. Electronic Markets, 13(4), 261-270.Robey, D.,
& Boudreau, M. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory
organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical
directions and methodological implications. Information Systems
Research, 10(2), 167-185.Robey, D., & Holmstrom, J. (2001).
Transforming municipal governance in global context: A case study
of the dialectics of social change. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 4(4), 19.Robey, Daniel, & Boudreau,
Marie-Claude. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory
organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical
directions and methodological implications. Information Systems
Research, 10(2), 167.Sahay, S. (2003). Information systems and
global diversity. Information Technology & People, 16(2),
240.Silva, L., & B, Eugenio Figueroa. (2002). Institutional
intervention and the expansion of ICTs in latin america: The case
of chile. Information Technology & People, 15(1), 8.Swanson, E.
B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with
information Technology1. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 553.Teo, H. H., Wei,
K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003).Predicting intention to adopt
interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS
Quarterly, 27(1), 19-49.Tillquist, J., King, J. L., & Woo, C.
(2002). A representational scheme for analyzing information
technology and organizational dependency. MIS Quarterly, 26(2),
91.Tingling, P. M. and M. Parent (2002). "Mimetic Isomorphism &
Technology Evaluation: Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?" Journal
for the Association of Information Systems 3,5: 113-143.Ulhi, J. P.
(2004). Open source development: A hybrid in innovation and
management theory. Management Decision, 42(9), 1095.Umanath, S, N.,
& Campbell, L, T. (1994). Differential diffusion of information
systems technology in multinational enterprises: A research model.
Information Resources Management Journal, 7(1), 6.Wang, S., &
Cheung, W. (2004). E-business adoption by travel agencies: Prime
candidates for mobile e-business. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 43-63.Wareham, J. (2002). Anthropologies
of Information Costs: Expanding the Neo-Institutional View,
Information and Organization 12(4), 219Watson, H. J., Abraham, D.
L., Chen, D., Preston, D., & Thomas, D. (2004). Data
warehousing ROI: Justifying and assessing a data warehouse.
Business Intelligence Journal, 9(2), 6.Wu, F., Mahajan, V., &
Balasubramanian, S. (2003). An analysis of e-business adoption and
its impact on business performance. Academy of Marketing
Science.Journal, 31(4), 425.Links from this theory to other
theoriesTransaction cost economics,Resource dependency
theory,Evolutionary theory, historical institutionalism,
organization culture and identity, population ecology, and
traditional- and neo-institutional sociology.External
linkshttp://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Institutional%20Theory%20Oxford04.pdf,
Chapter prepared by Scott W. R. for Great Minds in Management: The
Process of Theory Development, Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt,
eds. Oxford UK: Oxford University
Presshttp://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=issr,
Institute for Social Science Research, University of California,
Los
Angeleshttp://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/NewInstitutionalism-I.doc,
Jan Chong web
sitehttp://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/encyclo.html,
Encyclopedia of Organizationa Theory - Babson CollegeOriginal
Contributor(s)Hossam Ali-Hassan
Social network theory
This site is sponsored byBrigham Young University
This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado
Contents[hide] 1Social network theory 2Acronym 3Alternate
name(s) 4Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) 5Main independent
construct(s)/factor(s) 6Concise description of theory
7Diagram/schematic of theory 8Originating author(s) 9Seminal
articles 10Originating area 11Level of analysis 12IS articles that
use the theory 13Links from this theory to other theories
14External links 15Original Contributor(s)Social network theory
AcronymSNTAlternate name(s)Network theory, network analysisMain
dependent construct(s)/factor(s)Node size, density, link
strengthMain independent construct(s)/factor(s)Nodes, linksConcise
description of theorySocial network theory views social
relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the individual
actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between
the actors. There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In
its most simple form, a social network is a map of all of the
relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network can also
be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These
concepts are often displayed in a social network diagram, where
nodes are the points and ties are the lines.The power of social
network theory stems from its difference from traditional
sociological studies, which assume that it is the attributes of
individual actors -- whether they are friendly or unfriendly, smart
or dumb, etc. -- that matter. Social network theory produces an
alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less
important than their relationships and ties with other actors
within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for
explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for
individual agency, the ability for individuals to influence their
success, so much of it rests within the structure of their
network.Social networks have also been used to examine how
companies interact with each other, characterizing the many
informal connections that link executives together, as well as
associations and connections between individual employees at
different companies. These networks provide ways for companies to
gather information, deter competition, and even collude in setting
prices or policies.Source:
Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networkingSocial
network theory, however, is not to be confused with Social
networking. The correct source for independent and dependent
constructs is:
Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networkDiagram/schematic
of theory
Source: Biehl. M., Kim, H. and Wade, M., Relations Among the
Business Management Disciplines: A Citation Analysis using the
Financial Times Journals, OMEGA, 34, pp. 359-371, 2006.Originating
author(s)Stanley Milgram: small worlds problem, six degrees of
separationMark Granovetter: the strength of weak tiesJohn Barnes,
J. Clyde Mitchell: first to study social networks in the
fieldSeminal articlesBarnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a
Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, 7, 39-58.Burkhardt, M.E.
(1994). Social interaction effects following a technological
change: a longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 869-898.Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: the
social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.Feeley, T.H., & Barnett, G.A. (1996). Predicting employee
turnover from communication networks. Human Communication Research,
23, 370-387.Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks:
Conceptual clarification. Social Networks,1, 215-239.Freeman, L.C.,
White, D.R., & Romney, A.K. (1992). Research methods in social
network analysis. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction
Publishers.Granovetter, Mark;(1973)"The strength of weak ties"; The
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp
1360-1380M.S. Granovetter., "The strength of weak ties: A network
theory revisited," Social Structure and Network Analysis (P.V.
Marsden and N. Lin, Eds.). Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1982, pp.
105-130.Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An
approach and technique for the study of information exchange.
Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342.Ibarra, H.,
& Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense
making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee
perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303.Meyer,
G.W. (1994). Social information processing and social networks: A
test of social influence mechanisms. Human Relations, 47,
1013-1048.Milgram, S. (1967) "The Small World Problem," Psychology
Today, (May), pp. 60-67.Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003).
Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University
Press.Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). "Social Cohesion and
Embeddedness," American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.Pollock,
T.G., Whitbred, R.C., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social
information processing and job characteristics: A simultaneous test
of two theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human
Communication Research, 26, 292-330.Rice, R.E., & Richards,
W.D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and programs.
In: B. Dervin & M.J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication
sciences (pp. 105-165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.Scott, J.
(2000). Social Network Analysis: A handbook. Second edition.
London: Sage.Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network
Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Watts, D. Small Worlds, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1999.Watts, D., Strogatz, S. H. "Collective Dynamics of
Small-World Networks," Nature (393), 1998, pp. 440-442.Originating
areaSocial psychology, Social anthropology, Mathematical sociology,
Psychometrics,Level of analysisIndividual, group, networkIS
articles that use the theoryBaym, N.K. 1995. The emergence of
community in computer-mediated communication. In Cybersociety:
Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. S.G. Jones, pp.
138-163. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Biehl. M., Kim, H. and Wade, M.,
Relations Among the Business Management Disciplines: A Citation
Analysis using the Financial Times Journals, OMEGA, 34, pp.
359-371, 2006.Burkhardt, M.E. & Brass, D.J. (1990). Changing
patterns and patterns of change - The effects of a change in
technology on social network structure and power. ASQ, 35(1),
104-127.Chidambaram, L., & Bostrom, R. P. (1997a). Group
development (I): A review & synthesis of developmental models.
Group Decision & Negotiation, 6, 159-187.Chidambaram, L., &
Bostrom, R.P. (1997b). Group development (II): Implications for GSS
research and practice. Group Decision & Negotiation, 6,
231-254.Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Keisler, S. (1996). The
kindness of strangers: The usefulness of weak ties for technical
advice, Organization Science, 119-135.G. DeSanctis and M.S. Poole,
"Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive
structuration theory," Organization Science 5(2), 1982, pp.
121-147.M. Feldman, "Electronic mail and weak ties in
organizations," Office: Technology and People, 3, 1987, pp.
83-101.L. Freeman, "The impact of computer based communication on
the social structure of an emerging scientific specialty," Social
Networks 6, 1984, pp. 201-221.L. Garton, C. Haythornthwaite, and B.
Wellman,, "Studying online social networks," Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 3(1),
1997,http://207.201.161.120/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.htmlC.
Haythornthwaite, "Online personal networks," New Media and Society,
2(2), 2000, pp. 195-226.C. Haythornthwaite, "Exploring
multiplexity: Social network structures in a computer-supported
distance learning class," The Information Society, forthcoming.C.
Haythornthwaite, M.M. Kazmer, J. Robins, and S. Shoemaker,
"Community development among distance learners," Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 2000.Greg Madey, Vincent Freeh,
Renee Tynan The Open Source Software Development Phenomenon: An
Analysis Based On Social Network Theory, AMCIS, 2002L. Sproull, and
S. Kiesler, "Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational computing," Management Science 32(11), 1986, pp.
1492-1512.Sudweeks, F., M.L. Mclaughlin, and S. Rafaeli (Eds.),
Network and Netplay. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1998.Wade, M., Kim,
H. and Biehl, M., "Information Systems is NOT a Reference
Discipline (And What We Can Do About It)", Journal of AIS, Vol. 7
No. 5, pp. 247-268, May 2006.Wade, M., Kim, H. and Biehl, M., "If
the Tree of IS Knowledge Falls in a Forest, Will Anyone Hear?: A
Commentary on Grover et al.", Journal of AIS, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp.
326-335, May 2006.J.B. Walther, "Relational aspects of
computer-mediated communication," Organization Science, 6(2), 1995,
pp. 186-203.B. Wellman, J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M.
Gulia, and C. Haythornthwaite "Computer networks as social
networks," Annual Review of Sociology 22, 1996, pp. 213-238.Links
from this theory to other theoriesActor network theory,General
systems theory,Organizational knowledge creationExternal
linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking, Description of
Social Network
Serviceshttp://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/perrolle/archive/Ethier-SocialNetworks.html,
Research paper on recent research in
SNThttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/so/social_network.htm,
Description of
SNThttp://home.earthlink.net/~ckadushin/Texts/Basic%20Network%20Concepts.pdf,
Book chapter on SNTOriginal Contributor(s)Mike Wade
Contingency theory
This site is sponsored byBrigham Young University
This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado
Contents[hide] 1Contingency theory 2Acronym 3Alternate name(s)
4Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) 5Main independent
construct(s)/factor(s) 6Concise description of theory
7Diagram/schematic of theory 8Originating author(s) 9Seminal
articles 10Originating area 11Level of analysis 12IS articles that
use the theory 13Links from this theory to other theories
14External links 15Original Contributor(s)Contingency theory
AcronymN/AAlternate name(s)N/AMain dependent
construct(s)/factor(s)Efficiency, organizational performanceMain
independent construct(s)/factor(s)Strategy, technology, task,
organizational size, structure, and cultureConcise description of
theoryThere are many forms of contingency theory. In a general
sense, contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that
contend that there is no one best way of organizing / leading and
that an organizational / leadership style that is effective in some
situations may not be successful in others (Fiedler, 1964). In
other words: The optimal organization / leadership style is
contingent upon various internal and external constraints.Four
important ideas of Contingency Theory are: 1. There is no universal
or one best way to manage 2. The design of an organization and its
subsystems must 'fit' with the environment 3. Effective
organizations not only have a proper 'fit' with the environment but
also between its subsystems 4. The needs of an organization are
better satisfied when it is properly designed and the management
style is appropriate both to the tasks undertaken and the nature of
the work group.There are also contingency theories that relate to
decision making (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). According to these
models, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a
number of aspects of the situation: the importance of the decision
quality and acceptance; the amount of relevant information
possessed by the leader and subordinates; the likelihood that
subordinates will accept an autocratic decision or cooperate in
trying to make a good decision if allowed to participate; the
amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their
preferred alternatives.It is worth noting that since the mid 1980s
contingency theory has been fairly dead within the originating
field of organization theory. Apart from Lex Donaldson, professor
at Australian Graduate School of Management, and a few other
people, nobody within the field attempt to contribute to a further
development of contingency theory, foremost because of what can be
perceived as the lacking explanatory power of the
theory.Sources:http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.htmlandhttp://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/Contingency_Theories.doc/Diagram/schematic
of theory
Source: Weill, Peter; Olson, Marorethe H. (1989). An Assessment
of the Contingency Theory of Management Information Systems.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 63.Originating
author(s)Fred Fiedler (contingency theory of leadership)Seminal
articlesBurns, T., Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of
Innovation. London: Tavistock.Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency
Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol.1). 149-190. New York: Academic Press.Kast, F.,
Rosenzweig, J. (1973). Contingency Views of Organization and
Management. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Lawrence, P. R.,
Lorsch, J. W. (1967) . Organization and Environment. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.Otley, D. T. 1980. The contingency theory
of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 5(4): 413-428.Vroom, V.H. and Yetton,
P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh PressOriginating areaOrganization theory, psychology,
strategyLevel of analysisFirm, individualIS articles that use the
theoryHeeks, Richard (2002) Information Systems and Developing
Countries: Failure, Success and Local Improvisations, The
Information Society, 18:2, pp. 101-112.Andres, Hayward P.; Zmud,
Robert W. (2001/2002). A Contingency Approach to Software Project
Coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3),
41-71.Andrew D. Luzi; Kenneth D. MacKenzie (1982). An Experimental
Study of Performance Information Systems. Management Science
(pre-1986), 28(3), 243-259.Arinzn, Bay. (1991). A Contingency Model
of DSS Development Methodology. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 8(1), 149-166.Barki, Henri; Rivard, Suzanne; Talbot, Jean
(2001).An Integrative Contingency Model of Software Project Risk
Management.Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4),
37-69.Becerra-Fernandez, Irma; Sabherwal, Rajiv. (2001).
Organization Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-55.Belanger,
France, Collins, Rosann Webb, Cheney, Paul H. (2001).Technology
Requirements and Work Group Communication for
Telecommuters.Information Systems Research, 12(2), 155-176.Blanton,
J Ellis, Watson, Hugh J, Moody, Janette (1992). Toward a better
understanding of information technology organization: A comparative
case study. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), 531-555.Brown, Carol V.; Bostrom,
Robert P. (1994). Organization designs for the management of
end-user computing: Reexamining the contingencies. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 10(4), 183-211.Chang, Ruey-Dang,
Chang, Yeun-Wen, Paper, David (2003). The effect of task
uncertainty, decentralization and AIS characteristics on the
performance of AIS: an empirical case in Taiwan. Information &
Management, 40(7), 691-713.Cheon, Myun J.; Grover, Varun; Teng,
James T.C. (1995). Theoretical perspectives on the outsourcing of
information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 10(4),
209-219.Chin, Wynne W.; Marcolin, Barbara L.; Newsted, Peter R.
(2003).A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach
for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo
Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption
Study.Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.Croteau,
Anne-Marie, Raymond, Louis (2004). Performance outcomes of
strategic and IT competencies alignment. Journal of Information
Technology, 19(3), 178-190.Danziger, James N. (1979). Technology
and Productivity: A Contingency Analysis of Computers in Local
Government. Administration & Society, 11(2), 144-171.Devaraj,
Sarv, Kohli, Rajiv (2000).Information technology payoff in the
health-care industry: A longitudinal study.Journal of Management
Information Systems, 16(4), 41-67.Edstrm, Anders (1977). User
Influence and the Success of MIS Projects: A Contingency Approach.
Human Relations, 30(7), 589-607.Fiedler, Kirk Dean, Grover, Varun,
Teng, James T C. (1996).An empirically derived taxonomy of
information technology structure and its relationship to
organizational structure.Journal of Management Information Systems,
13(1), 9-34.Franz, Charles R. (1985). User Leadership in the
Systems Development Life Cycle: A Contingency Model. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 2 (2), 5.Galegher, Jolene; Kraut,
Robert E. (1994).Computer-mediated Communication for Intellectual
Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing.Information Systems
Research, 5(2),110-138.Giaglis, George M.; Klein, Stefan; O'Keefe,
Robert M. (2002). The role of intermediaries in electronic
marketplaces: developing a contingency model. Information Systems
Journal, 12(3), 231-246.Ginberg, Michael J. (1980). An
Organizational Contingencies View of Accounting and Information
Systems Implementation. Accounting, Organizations & Society,
5(4), 369-382.Goodhue, Dale L., Quillard, Judith A.,Rockart, John
F. (1988). Managing The Data Resource: A Contingency Perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 372-382.Gordon, Lawrence A., Miller, Danny.A
(1976). Contingency Framework for the Design of Accounting
Information Systems. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 1(1),
59-70.Hardgrave, Bill C.; Wilson, Rick L. (1999).Toward a
Contingency Model for Selecting an Information System Prototyping
Strategy.Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2),
113-136.Huber, George (1982). Organizational Information Systems:
Determinants of Their Performance and Behavior. Management Science,
28(2), 138-155.Jae-Nam Lee; Miranda, Shaila M.; Yong-Mi Kim
(2004).IT Outsourcing Strategies: Universalistic, Contingency, and
Configurational Explanations of Success.Information Systems
Research, 15(2), 110-131.Khazanchi, Deepak. (2005). Information
Technology (IT) Appropriateness: The Contingency Theory of "Fit"
and IT Implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 88-95.Kyu Kim, K.; Umanath,
Narayan S. (1992/1993). Structure and Perceived Effectiveness of
Software Development Subunits: A Task Contingency Analysis. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 9(3), 157-181.Lai, V.S. (1999).
A Contingency Examination of CASE-task Fit on Software Developer's
Performance. European Journal of Information Systems, 8(1),
27-49.Lee, Choong C., Grover, Varun (1999/2000). Exploring
mediation between environmental and structural attributes: The
penetration of communication technologies in manufacturing
organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems,
16(3),187-217.Lin, Winston T.; Shao, Benjamin B.M.(2000).The
relationship between user participation and system success: a
simultaneous contingency approach.Information & Management,
37(6), 283-295.Markus, M. Lynne; Bjrn-Andersen, Niels. (1987).
Power Over Users: Its Exercise by System Professionals.
Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 498-504.McKeen, James D.
Guimaraes, Tor, Wetherbe, James C. (1994). The relationship between
user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of four
contingency factors. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 427-451.McKeen, James
D., Guimaraes, Tor (1997).Successful strategies for user
participation in systems development.Journal of Management
Information Systems, 14(2), 133-150.Nidumolu, Sarma R. (1996).A
Comparison of the Structural Contingency and Risk-based
Perspectives on Coordination in Software-development
Projects.Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2),
77-113.Panagiotis Kanellis, Ray J Paul (2005). User Behaving Badly:
Phenomena and Paradoxes from an Investigation into Information
Systems Misfit. Journal of Organizational and End User
Computing17(2), 64-91.Pinsonneault, Alain; Heppel, Nelson.
(1997/1998).Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New
Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework.Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89-108.Premkumar, G, King,
William R. (1992).An empirical assessment of information systems
planning and the role of information systems in
organizations.Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2),
99-125.Ratbe, Dina, King,William R., Kim, Young-Gul (1999/2000).
The fit between project characteristics and application development
methodologies: A contingency approach. The Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 40(2), 26-33.Raymond, Louis
(1990).Organizational Context and Information Systems Success: A
Contingency Approach.Journal of Management Information Systems,
6(4), 5-20.Sabherwal, Rajiv; King, William R.(1992). Decision
Processes for Developing Strategic Applications of Information
Systems: A Contingency Approach. Decision Sciences, 23(4),
917-943.Schonberger, Richard J. (1980). MIS Design: A Contingency
Approach. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 13-20.Seliem, Ahmed A.M.; Ashour,
Ahmed S.; Khalil, Omar E.M.; Millar, Stephen J. (2003). The
Relationship of Some Organizational Factors to Information Systems
Effectiveness: A Contingency Analysis of Egyptian Data. Journal of
Global Information Management, 11(1), 40-71.Sugumaran, Vijayan,
Arogyaswamy, Bernard (2003-2004). Measuring IT Performance:
"Contingency" Variables and Value Modes. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 44(2), 79-86.Teo, Thompson S.H. (2003). A
contingency perspective on Internet adoption and competitive
advantage. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(2),
78-92.Trkman, Peter (2010). The Critical Success Factors of
Business Process Management. International Journal of Information
Management, 30 (2), 125-134Umanath, Narayan S. (2003). The concept
of contingency beyond It depends: illustrations from IS research
stream. Information & Management, 40(6), 551-562.Venkatraman,
N. (1985/1986).Research on MIS Planning: Some Guidelines from
Strategic Planning Research. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 2(3), 65-77.Weill, Peter; Olson, Marorethe H. (1989). An
Assessment of the Contingency Theory of Management Information
Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1),
59-85.Wetherbe, Jim C.; Whitehead, Canton J. (1977). A Contingency
View of Managing the Data Processing Organization. MIS Quarterly,
Mar77, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p19, 7pZhu, Zhichang (2002). Evaluating
contingency approaches to information systems design. International
Journal of Information Management, 22(5), 343-356.Zmud, R. W. 1982.
Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence of centralization
and formalization. Management Science (28): 1421-1431.Links from
this theory to other theoriesN/AExternal
linkshttp://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html,
management summary of contingency
theoryhttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/contingency_theory.htm,
brief summary of contingency
theoryhttp://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/fied.htm,
website focused on Fiedler's contingency theory of
leadershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiedler_contingency_model,
another description of Fiedler's contingency theory of
leadershiphttp://www.12manage.com/methods_contingency_theory.html,
provides definitions of didefinitions of types of contingency
theory (organization, leadership, decision
making)http://www.geocities.com/kstability/learning/management/contingency.html,
description of contingency
theory.http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/Contingency_Theories.doc/,
contingency theory summary from TwenteOriginal Contributor(s)Mike
Wade and Sally Tomasevic
Organizational culture theory
This site is sponsored byBrigham Young University
This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado
Contents[hide] 1Organizational Culture Theory 2Acronym
3Alternative Name 4Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) 5Main
independent construct(s)/factors(s) 6Concise description of theory
7Diagram/schematic of theory 8Originating authors(s) 9Seminal
articles 10Originating area 11Level of analysis 12IS articles that
use the theory 13Links from this theory to other theories
14External links 15Original Contributor(s)Organizational Culture
Theory
AcronymN/AAlternative NameCorporate cultureMain dependent
construct(s)/factor(s)Performance, organizational effectiveness,
employee commitment, employee satisfaction.Main independent
construct(s)/factors(s)Organizational culture type, organization
culture strength, and culture congruence.Concise description of
theoryDifferent concepts of culture, stemming from two distinct
disciplines (anthropology and sociology), have been applied to
organizational studies since the early 1980s. These two underlying
disciplines represent different paradigms in Burrell and Morgans
(1979) framework, and have contributed to the emergence of the
different theories and frameworks of organizational culture in the
academic literature. Anthropology takes the interpretivist view and
sees culture as a metaphor for organizations, defining
organizations as being cultures. On the other hand, sociology takes
on the functionalist view and defines culture, as something an
organization possesses. Despite the separate definitions of
organizational culture, there seems to be a movement towards a
general consensus.The most widely used organizational culture
framework is that of Edgar Schein (1988), who adopts the
functionalist view and described culture as a pattern of basic
assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group,
as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.In
Scheins (1988) model, culture exists on three levels:1. Artifacts
Artifacts are difficult to measure and they deal with
organizational attributes that can be observed, felt and heard as
an individual enters a new culture. 2. Values This level deals with
the espoused goals, ideals, norms, standards, and moral principles
and is usually the level that is usually measured through survey
questionnaires. 3. Underlying assumptions This level deals with
phenomena that remain unexplained when insiders are asked about the
values of the organizational culture. Information is gathered in
this level by observing behavior carefully to gather underlying
assumptions because they are sometimes taken for granted and not
recognized. According to Schein, the essence of organizational
culture lies in this level.Source: Schein, E. H. Organizational
Culture. WP 2088-88. Sloan School of Management Working Papers,
Massachussets Institute of Technology, 1988.Diagram/schematic of
theory
Source: Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992, Figure 9.Originating
authors(s)Edgar Schein, Andrew PettigrewSeminal articlesPettigrew,
A.M. On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science
Quarterly (24:4), 1979, pp. 570-581.Schein, E.H. Organizational
Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.Schein,
E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1992.Smircich, L. Concepts of Culture
and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly
(28:3), 1983, pp. 339-358.Originating areaSocial anthropolgy,
Social psychology, Organizational psychologyLevel of
analysisOrganization, group, individualIS articles that use the
theoryAlavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., and Leidner, D. E. An Empirical
Examination of the Influence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge
Management Practices, Journal of Management Information Systems.
(22:3), 2005-2006, pp. 191-224.Bradley, R. V., J. Pridmore, T. A.
Byrd, "Information Systems Success in the Context of Different
Corporate Cultural Types: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of
Management Information Systems (23:2), 2006, pp. 267-294.Cooper,
R.B. The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implementation,
Information and Management (27:1), 1994, pp. 17-31.Hatcher, M. A
Video Conferencing System for the United States Army: Group
Decision Making in a Geographically Distributed Environment,
Decision Support Systems (8:2), 1992, pp. 181-190.Iivari, J., and
Huisman, M. The Relationship Between Organizational Culture And The
Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies, MIS Quarterly
(31:1), 2007, pp. 35-58.Jones, M. C., Cline, M., and Ryan, S.
Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: an
organizational culture framework, Decision Support Systems (41:2),
2006, pp. 411-434.Leidner, D.E., and Kayworth, T. Review: A Review
of Culture in Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of
Information Technology Conflict, MIS Quarterly (30:2), 2006, pp.
357-399.McDermott, C.M., and Stock, G.N. Organizational culture and
advanced manufacturing technology implementation. Journal of
Operations Management (17:5), 1999, pp. 521-533.Nahm, A.Y.,
Voderembse, M.A., and Koufteros, X.A. The Impact of Organizational
Culture on Time-Based Manufacturing and Performance, Decision
Sciences (35:4), 2004, pp. 579-607.Ramamurthy, K. and King, W.R.
Computer integrated manufacturing: An exploratory study of key
organizational barriers. International Journal of Management
Science (20:4), 1992, pp. 475-491.Robey, D., and Markus, M. L.
Ritual in Information System Design, MIS Quarterly (8:1), 1984, pp.
5-15.Ruppel, C. P., and Harrington, S. J. Sharing Knowledge Through
Intranets: A Study of Organizational Culture and Intranet
Implementation, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
(44:1), 2001, pp. 37-52.Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T.,
Clapper, D. L., and McLean, E. R. Computer-Mediated Communication
and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic
and a Collectivistic Culture, Management Science (44:9), 1998, pp.
1263-1278.Zammuto, R. F., and OConnor, E. J. Gaining Advanced
Manufacturing Technologies' Benefits: The Roles of Organization
Design and Culture, The Academy of Management Review (17:4), 1992,
pp. 701-728.Links from this theory to other theoriesExternal
linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture, from
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2224,
Organizational Culture by Edgar Schein (1988), Sloan School of
Management, Massachussets Institute of Technology Working
Papers.Original Contributor(s)Oluwakemi Onwuchekwa
Transaction cost economics
This site is sponsored byBrigham Young University
This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado
Contents[hide] 1Transaction cost economics 2Acronym 3Alternate
name(s) 4Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) 5Main independent
construct(s)/factor(s) 6Concise description of theory
7Diagram/schematic of theory 8Originating author(s) 9Seminal
articles 10Originating area 11Level of analysis 12IS articles that
use the theory 13Links from this theory to other theories
14External links 15Original Contributor(s)Transaction cost
economics
AcronymTCEAlternate name(s)Transaction cost theory, theory of
the firm, markets and hierarchies / electronic hierarchies and
electronic markets /Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)Governance
structure, degree of outsourcing, outsourcing success,
inter-organizational coordination and collaborationMain independent
construct(s)/factor(s)Coordination costs, transaction risk
(opportunity costs), coordination costs, operational risk,
opportunism risk, asset specificity , uncertainty, trustConcise
description of theoryIn economics and related disciplines, a
transaction cost is a cost incurred in making an economic exchange.
A number of different kinds of transaction costs exist. Search and
information costs are costs such as those incurred in determining
that the required good is available on the market, who has the
lowest price, etc. Bargaining costs are the costs required to come
to an acceptable agreement with the other party to the transaction,
drawing up an appropriate contract, etc.. Policing and enforcement
costs are the costs of making sure the other party sticks to the
terms of the contract, and taking appropriate action (often through
the legal system) if this turns out not to be the case.Transaction
costs consist of costs incurred in searching for the best
supplier/partner/customer, the cost of establishing a supposedly
"tamper-proof" contract, and the costs of monitoring and enforcing
the implementation of the contract. Transaction cost theorists
assert that the total cost incurred by a firm can be grouped
largely into two componentstransaction costs and production costs.
Transaction costs, often known as coordination costs, are well
defined as the costs of "all the information processing necessary
to coordinate the work of people and machines that perform the
primary processes," whereas production costs include the costs
incurred from "the physical or other primary processes necessary to
create and distribute the goods or services being
produced"Transaction cost economics suggests that the costs and
difficulties associated with market transactions sometimes favor
hierarchies (or in-house production) and sometimes markets as an
economic governance structure. An intermediate mechanism, called
hybrid or relational, between these two extremes has recently
emerged as a new governance structure
.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_costKumar,
Kuldeep, Van Dissel, Han G., Bielli, Paola, "The Merchant of
Prato--Revisited: Toward a Third Rationality of Information
Systems", MIS Quarterly, Jun98, Vol. 22, Issue 2.Malone, T.W.;
Yates, J.; and Benjamin, R.I., "Electronic markets and electronic
hierarchies:, Communications of the ACM, 30, 6 (1987),p.
485.Diagram/schematic of theory
Originating author(s)Ronald Coase (1937, 1960), Oliver
Williamson (1981, 1985), Klein, Crawford, Alchian (1978)Seminal
articlesCoase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica,
4: 386.Coase, Ronald H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal
of Law and Economics, 3: 1-44.Klein, Crawford, RA Alchian, AA.
1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive
contracting process.Oliver, W. 1975. Markets and hierarchies:
Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free
Press.Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The
governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics,
22(2): 233-261.Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The economics of
organization: The transaction cost approach. The American journal
of sociology, 87(2): 233.Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic
institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting.
New York, NY: Free Press.Originating areaMicro-economicsLevel of
analysisFirmIS articles that use the theoryAng, Soon, & Straub,
Detmar W. 1998.Production and transaction economies and IS
outsourcing: A study of the U.S. banking industry. MIS Quarterly,
22(4): 535-552.Aubert, Benoit A., Rivard, Suzanne, & Patry,
Michel. 1996. A transaction cost approach to outsourcing behavior:
Some empirical evidence. Information & Management, 30(2):
51-64.Bahli, Bouchaib, & Rivard, Suzanne. 2003. The information
technology outsourcing risk: A transaction cost and agency
theory-based perspective. Journal of Information Technology
(Routledge, Ltd.), 18(3): 211-221.Bakos, J. Y., & Treacy,
Michael E. 1986. Information technology and corporate strategy: A
research perspective. MIS Quarterly, 10(2): 106.Bakos, Yannis, J.,
Brynjolfsson, & Erik. 1993. Information technology, incentives,
and the optimal number of suppliers. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 10(2): 37.Bunduchi, Raluca. 2005. Business
relationships in internet-based electronic markets: The role of
goodwill trust and transaction costs. Information systems journal,
15(4): 321.Cannel, Erran Nicholson, Brian. 2005. Small firms and
offshore software outsourcing: High transaction costs and their
mitigation. Journal of global information management, 13(3):
33.Choudhury, Vivek, & Sampler, Jeffrey L. 1997. Information
specificity and environmental scanning: An economic perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 21(1): 25.Christopher, M. H., & Kemerer, Chris
F. 1994. Computerized loan origination system: An industry case
study of the electronic markets.. MIS Quarterly, 18(3):
251.Ciborra, CU. 1983. Markets, bureaucracies and groups in the
information society: An institutional appraisal of the impacts of
information technology. Information economics and policy, 1:
145.Clemons, Eric K., & Hitt, Lorin M. 2004. Poaching and the
misappropriation of information: Transaction risks of information
exchange. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(2):
87-107.Clemons, Eric K., & Reddi, Sashidhar P. 1993. The impact
of information technology on the organization of economic activity:
The `move to the.. Journal of Management Information Systems,
10(2): 9.Clemons, Eric K., & Row, Michael C. 1992. Information
technology and industrial cooperation: The changing economics of
coordination and ownership. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 9(2): 9.Garicano, Luis, & Kaplan, Steven N. 2001. The
effects of business-to-business E-commerce on transaction costs.
Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(4): 463-485.Gennotte, Gerard,
& Jung, Alan. 1994. Investment strategies under transaction
costs: The finite horizon case. Management Science, 40(3):
385-404.Grover, Varun, & Cheon, Myun J. 1996.The effect of
service quality and partnership on the outsourcing of information
systems functions. Journal of Management Information Systems,
12(4): 89.Gurbaxani, Whang,. 1991. The impact of information
systems on organizations and markets. Communications of the ACM,
34(1): 59.Heiman, Bruce, & Nickerson, Jack A. 2002. Towards
reconciling transaction cost economics and the knowledge-based view
of the firm: The context of interfirm collaborations. International
Journal of the Economics of Business, 9(1): 97-116.Hitt, Lorin M.
1999. Information technology and firm boundaries: Evidence from
panel data. Information Systems Research, 10(2): 134-149.Kambil,
Ajit, & van Heck, Eric. 1998. Reengineering the dutch flower
auctions: A framework for analyzing exchange organizations.
Information Systems Research, 9(1): 1.Kauffman, Robert J., &
Mohtadi, Hamid. 2004. Proprietary and open systems adoption in
E-procurement: A risk-augmented transaction cost perspective.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1):
137-166.Kleindorfer, Paul R., & Wu, D. J. 2003. Integrating
long-and short-term contracting via business-to-business exchanges
for capital-intensive industries. Management Science, 49(11):
1597-1615.Kumar, Kuldeep, Van Dissel, Han G., & Bielli, Paola.
1998. The merchant of prato--revisited: Toward a third rationality
of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(2): 199-226.Lacity, Mary
C., & Willcocks, Leslie P. 1995. Interpreting information
technology sourcing decisions from a transaction cost perspective:
Findings and critique. Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies, 5(3-4): 203-244.Lee, HG Clark, TH. 1996. Impacts of
the electronic marketplace on transaction cost and market
structures. International journal of electronic commerce, 1(1):
127.Liang, Ting Huang, Jin. 1998. An empirical study on consumer
acceptance of products in electronic markets: A transaction cost...
Decision support systems, 24(1): 29.Lichtenstein, Yossi. 2004.
PUZZLES in software development contracting. Communications of the
ACM, 47(2): 61-65.Malone, Thomas Yates, Joanne Benjamin, Robert.
1987. ELECTRONIC MARKETS AND ELECTRONIC HIERARCHIES. Communications
of the ACM, 30(6): 484.Monteverde, Kirk. 1995. Technical dialog as
an incentive for vertical integration in the semiconductor
industry. Management Science, 41(10): 1624.Mosakowski, Elaine.
1991. Organizational boundaries and economic performance: An
empirical study of entrepreneurial computer firms. Strategic
Management Journal, 12(2): 115-133.Ngwenyama, K, Ojelanki, Bryson,
& Noel. 1999. Making the information systems outsourcing
decision: A transaction cost approach to analyzing outsourcing
decision problems. European Journal of Operational Research,
115(2): 351.Novak, Sharon, & Eppinger, Steven D. 2001. Sourcing
by design: Product complexity and the supply chain. Management
Science, 47(1): 189.Qu, Zhonghua, & Brocklehurst, Michael.
2003. What will it take for china to become a competitive force in
offshore outsourcing? an analysis of the role of transaction costs
in supplier selection. Journal of Information Technology
(Routledge, Ltd.), 18(1): 53.Saarinen, Timo, & Vepsalainen, Ari
P. J. 1994.Procurement strategies for information systems. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 11(2): 187.Shane, Scott. 2002.
Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management
Science, 48(1): 122-137.Silverman, Brian S. 1999. Technological
resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an
integration of.. Management Science, 45(8): 1109.Subramani, Mani.
2004.How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in
supply chain relationships?[1]. MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 45-73.Teo,
Thompson S. H., & Yu, Yuanyou. 2005. Online buying behavior: A
transaction cost economics perspective. Omega, 33(5): 451-465.Wang,
Eric T. G. 2002. Transaction attributes and software outsourcing
success: An empirical investigation of transaction cost theory.
Information Systems Journal, 12(2): 153-181.Wareham, Jonathan.
2003. Information assets in interorganizational governance:
Exploring the property rights perspective. IEEE transactions on
engineering management, 50(3): 337.Welty, Bill Becerra-Fernandez,
Irma. 2001. MANAGING TRUST AND COMMITMENT IN COLLABORATIVE SUPPLY
CHAIN RELATIONSHIPS. Communications of the ACM, 44(6): 67.Yannis
Bakos, J. (., & Kemerer, Chris F. (. 1992. Recent applications
of economic theory in information technology research. Decision
Support Systems, 8(5): 365-386.Young-Ybarra, Candace, &
Wiersema, Margarethe. 1999. Strategic flexibility in information
technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics
and social exchange theory. Organization Science: A Journal of the
Institute of Management Sciences, 10(4): 439.Zaheer, Akbar, &
Venkatraman, N. 1994. Determinants of electronic integration in the
insurance industry: An empirical test. Management Science, 40(5):
549-566.Ziedonis, Rosemarie H. 2004. Don 't fence me in: Fragmented
markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of
firms. Management Science, 50(6): 804-820.Links from this theory to
other theoriesAgency theory,Resource dependency theory,
Organizational governanceExternal
linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost, Wikipedia entry
on TCEhttp://www.encycogov.com/B11TransactionCostEconomics.asp, An
introduction about TCE together with some useful linksOriginal
Contributor(s)Hamid Akbari
