the relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of systems development...

Iivari & Huisman/Organizational Culture & Deployment of SDMs

MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1 pp. 35-58/March 2007 35

RESEARCH NOTE

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREAND THE DEPLOYMENT OF SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENTMETHODOLOGIES1

By: Juhani IivariDepartment of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluP.O. Box 300090014 Oulun [email protected]

Magda HuismanSchool of Computer, Statistical and Mathematical

SciencesNorth-West University, Potchefstroom CampusPrivate Bag X6001Potchefstroom 2531SOUTH [email protected]

Abstract

This exploratory study analyzes the relationship betweenorganizational culture and the deployment of systems devel-opment methodologies. Organizational culture is interpretedin terms of the competing values model and deployment asperceptions of the support, use, and impact of systems devel-opment methodologies. The results show that the deploymentof methodologies by IS developers is primarily associated

1Ritu Agarwal was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Gert-Jan deVreede was the associate editor. Roberto Evaristo and Nancy Russo servedas reviewers. The third reviewer chose to remain anonymous.

with a hierarchical culture that is oriented toward security,order, and routinization. IT managers’ critical attitudes ofthe deployment of methodologies in organizations with astrong rational culture (focusing on productivity, efficiency,and goal achievement) is also worth noting. Based on itsempirical findings, the paper proposes a theoretical model toexplain the impact of organizational culture on the deploy-ment of systems development methodologies.

Keywords: Systems development, software engineering,systems development methodology, organizational culture,competing values model, information systems developers,information technology managers

Introduction

Modern societies are increasingly dependent on software andinformation systems. The recent CHAOS report2 estimatesthat total spending on systems development in 2004 was $255billion in the United States alone. Although the pessimisticviews of a continued software crisis and the high failure rateof systems development are exaggerated (Glass 2000),systems development continues to be challenging. Problemsregarding the cost, timeliness, and quality of software pro-ducts still exist.

There have been several attempts to tackle these problems.The Information Systems and Software Engineering com-munities have witnessed a continuous stream of new systems

2The Standish Group, available at http://www.standishgroup.com/.


36 MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1/March 2007

development approaches, methods, techniques, processmodels, and related tools, even though their practical useful-ness—of methods in particular—has been questioned (e.g. ,Baskerville et al. 1992; Fitzgerald 1996). It is our contentionthat systems development methods are significant for researchand practice. They are repositories of codified knowledge onhow to develop information systems and software artefacts(Fitzgerald 1998). They attempt to answer the centralquestion of our discipline: How do we best design IT artifactsand information systems to increase their compatibility,usefulness, and ease of use (Benbasat and Zmud 2003)?

Systems development is weakly addressed in the top ISjournals (Vessey et al. 2002). Until recently, there has notbeen much research into actual use of systems developmentmethods (Wynekoop and Russo 1997). Most earlier studiesare descriptive (e.g., Chatzoglou and Macaulay 1996; Hardyet al. 1995) and do not attempt to explain the use and benefitsof methods. It is only very recently that more explanatorystudies have appeared (Hardgrave and Johnson 2003; Khalifaand Verner 2000; Riemenschneider et al. 2002). Althoughthese studies analyze acceptance at the individual level, theyclearly show that the deployment of systems developmentmethods is a collective phenomenon.3 Much of the existingcriticism of systems development methods is also based oncase studies (Kautz et al. 2004; Nandhakumar and Avison1999; Wastell 1996) and therefore is not necessarilygeneralizable. Even though existing studies suggest quiteconsistently that many organizations claim not to use anymethods (e.g., Chatzoglou and Macaulay 1996; Hardy et al.1995), at least not rigorously or in their entirety (Bansler andBødker 1993; Fitzgerald 1998; Kautz et al. 2004), ourunderstanding of the contingencies under which methods areaccepted is very limited.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationshipbetween organizational culture and the deployment of systemsdevelopment methodologies. Organizational culture may beone reason for the weak acceptance of methodologies.Although its significance as a source of organizational inertiais well known (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Schein 1985),the relationship between organizational culture and thedeployment of systems development methodologies isunexplored territory (Leidner and Kayworth 2006).

In view of the state of existing research, this paper is anexploratory, theory-building exercise. Methodologically, it isa quantitative survey. As we will argue later, there are nophilosophical (Chalmers 1999) or methodological (Dubin1978; Wallace 1983) reasons for preferring qualitative toquantitative research in theory building. Our question is, doesorganizational culture, when applied to IT departments, haveany relationship to the deployment of systems developmentmethodologies? Deployment here refers to perceived supportfor systems development provided by methodologies, theactual use of methodologies, and the perceived impact of theiruse on the quality of the system developed and the produc-tivity of the development process. We will answer this ques-tion by developing a survey instrument based on the extantliterature on organizational culture and SDM deployment.After reporting on the survey, we will analyze the relationshipbetween organizational culture and SDM deployment. Basedon insights from the empirical analysis, we will then proceedto building a theoretical model to explain the influence oforganizational culture on SDM deployment.

Organizational Culture, the CompetingValues Framework, and the Deploymentof Systems Development Methodologies

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture (OC) can be construed to cover almosteverything in an organization: basic assumptions and beliefs,values, models of behavior, rituals, practices, symbols,heroes, artefacts, and technology (Gagliardi 1986; Hofstedeet al. 1990; Schein 1985). Therefore it is understandable thatit has several interpretations (Allaire and Firsirotu 1984;Czarniawska-Joerges 1992; Leidner and Kayworth 2006;Smircich 1983). Despite the differences, there seems to be anagreement that OC includes several levels with a varyingdegree of awareness on the part of the culture-bearers(Hofstede et al. 1990; Schein 1985). Schein, for example,suggests that the deepest level consists of patterns of basicassumptions that the organizational members take for grantedwithout being aware of them. At the surface level there areartefacts such as the visible and audible patterns of theculture. The intermediate level covers values and beliefs,concerning what ought to be done. This paper focuses on thisintermediate level of values, applying the competing valuesmodel (CVM) (Denison and Spreitzer 1991; Quinn andKimberly 1984; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983) as a theoreticalmodel of OC.

3In addition to perceived usefulness and compatibility, Riemenschneider etal. (2002) found subjective norm and voluntariness to be significantpredictors of the intention to use a method. Hardgrave and Johnson (2003)report organizational usefulness, but not personal usefulness, as a significantpredictor of the intention to use object-oriented methods. They also foundsubjective norm to be a significant predictor of organizational usefulness, butnot of the intention to use.


MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1/March 2007 37

Internalfocus

Externalfocus

Change

Stability

Groupculture

Hierarchicalculture

Developmentalculture

Rationalculture

Internalfocus

Externalfocus

Change

Stability

Groupculture

Hierarchicalculture


Rationalculture

Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework for Organizational Culture

The major reasons for the selection of the CVM is that, as aquantitative model of OC, it is compatible with the surveyresearch method selected for this study, it is well reported inthe literature, and it has fairly short, validated measurementinstruments for OC (e.g., Denison and Spreitzer 1991).Furthermore, to our knowledge there are not many alternativequantitative models of OC, the Organizational CultureInventory (Cooke and Rousseau 1988) and the model ofHofstede et al. (1990) being notable alternatives. These twoalternatives were far too complex, however, for the purposesof the present paper, both including more than 100 itemsrequired to measure culture.

The CVM focuses on values as core constituents of OC. It isbased on two distinctions: change versus stability and inter-nal focus versus external focus (Figure 1). Change empha-sizes flexibility and spontaneity, whereas stability focuses oncontrol, continuity, and order. Internal focus underlines inte-gration and maintenance of the socio-technical system,whereas external focus emphasizes competition and inter-action with the organizational environment (Denison andSpreitzer 1991). The opposite ends of these dimensionsimpose competing and conflicting demands on the organiza-tion.

Based on the two dimensions, one can distinguish four typesof culture. The group culture (change and internal focus) isprimarily concerned with human relations and flexibility.Belonging, trust, and participation are its core values. Effec-tiveness criteria include the development of human potentialand member commitment. The developmental culture(change and external focus) is future-oriented, consideringwhat might be. The effectiveness criteria emphasize growth,resource acquisition, creativity, and adaptation to the external

environment. The rational culture (stability and externalfocus) is achievement-oriented, focusing on productivity,efficiency, and goal achievement. The hierarchical culture(stability and internal focus) is oriented toward security,order, and routinization. It emphasizes control, stability andefficiency through the following of regulations. Each of thecultural types has its polar opposite (Denison and Spreitzer1991). A group OC, which emphasizes flexibility and inter-nal focus, is contrasted with a rational OC, the latter stressingcontrol and external focus. A developmental OC, which ischaracterized by flexibility and external focus, is opposed bya hierarchical OC, which emphasizes control and internalfocus.

The four are ideal types in the sense that an organization isunlikely to reflect only one type (Denison and Spreitzer1991). CVM stresses a reasonable balance between the oppo-site orientations, although some cultural types may be moredominant than others. This imposes paradoxical requirementsfor effective organizations (Cameron 1986).

Large organizations tend to develop a number of subcultures(Gregory 1983; Smircich 1983) instead of a single homo-geneous culture. Recognizing this plurality, this paper appliesCVM to IT departments, since they can be expected to bemost closely associated with the behavior of IS developersand the deployment of SDMs.

Deployment of Systems DevelopmentMethodologies

The usage of systems development methodologies (SDMs) isa versatile concept. One reason is the ambiguity related to the



Table 1. Deployment of Systems Development MethodologiesAspect Dimension

Methodology support 1. Perceived SDM support as production technology2. Perceived SDM support as control technology3. Perceived methodology support as cognitive & cooperation technology

Methodology use 4. Maximum intensity of SDM use (vertical use)5. SDM use across the organization (horizontal use)

Methodology impact 6. Perceived impact on the quality of developed systems7. Perceived impact on the productivity and quality of the development process

term methodology. This paper uses the term to cover thetotality of systems development approaches (such as thestructured approach, information modeling approach, object-oriented approach, socio-technical design approach, etc.),process models (such as the linear life-cycle, prototyping,evolutionary development, and spiral models), specificmethods (e.g., Yourdon’s structured analysis, IE, NIAM,OMT, UML, ETHICS) and specific techniques in an organi-zation. There are two reasons for this broad interpretation ofan SDM. First, we wish to point out that the question is notonly about the specific methods and techniques, but aboutmore general approaches and process models. We contendsystems developers may apply a methodology by followingthe goals, fundamental concepts, guiding principles, and prin-ciples of the systems development process of a specificsystems development approach (Iivari et al. 1998) such asobject orientation without strictly adhering to any specificmethods. The second reason is related to the second sourceof ambiguity, the difficulty of defining and measuring SDMusage. Referring to Iivari and Maansaari (1998), one candistinguish explicit and implicit SDM use. Explicit use refersto consulting the method (documentation), while implicit userefers to the use of method knowledge after it has beenlearned and internalized, possibly years later. In an extremecase, implicit use may be an unconscious process in whichmethod knowledge is intertwined with practical experience.Our broad interpretation of an SDM attempts to capture notonly explicit SDM use, but also implicit use.

Because of the difficulty of defining and measuring SDMusage, we will focus more broadly on SDM deployment,comprising methodology support, methodology use, andmethodology impact (Table 1). The dimensions of metho-dology support are adapted from Henderson and Cooprider(1990), who identify three functional dimensions of ISplanning and design aids such as SDMs: production tech-nology, coordination technology, and organizational tech-nology. They define the functionality of productiontechnology as having a direct impact on “the capacity of

individual(s) to generate planning or design decisions andsubsequent artifacts or products” (p. 232). Coordinationtechnology comprises control functionality and cooperativefunctionality. Control functionality “enables the user to planfor and enforce rules, policies or priorities that will govern orrestrict the activities of team members during the planningand design process” (p. 236), while cooperative functionalityenables the user “to exchange information with anotherindividual(s) for the purpose of influencing (affecting) theconcept, process and product of the planning/design team”(p. 236).4

The two dimensions of methodology use are fromMcChesney and Glass (1993). Vertical use in an organiza-tion describes the intensity of method usage, while horizontaluse describes the percentage of IS developers and projectsusing the methodology knowledge. The final two dimensionsare adopted from Iivari (1996).

Organizational Culture and SystemsDevelopment Methodologies

Organizational culture forms the context in which systemsdevelopment takes place. We formulated our question in the“Introduction” as follows:

4We omit here organizational technology, consisting of two additionalfunctionalities: support functionality, “to help an individual user understandand use a planning and design aid effectively,” and infrastructure, definedas “standards that enable portability of skills, knowledge, procedures, ormethods across planning or design processes.” The support functionalitycan be interpreted as a meta-functionality in the sense that it supports theutilization of all the basic functionalities. One of the findings of theHenderson and Cooprider (1990) study was that support functionality wasdifficult for respondents to differentiate clearly (p. 244). The infrastructurecomponent resulted from feedback during the study and its differentiationwas not tested empirically. We see infrastructure functionalities such asstandards as supporting cooperation.



RQ: Does organizational culture, when applied to ITdepartments, have any relationship with the deploy-ment of systems development methodologies?

Despite the dearth of previous research into the problem,there are good a priori reasons to believe in a relationshipbetween OC and the deployment of SDMs. Applying Schein(1985), Kekäle (1998) interprets OC as unconsciouscollective beliefs and assumptions that steer the values andthrough them the artefacts and actions of the organization,including the collective reactions as to whether a newapproach or artefact is good or bad. This implies a conjec-ture that OC influences the collective reactions as to whetherSDMs are considered good or bad, and consequently theirdeployment. The significance of OC as a source of organi-zational inertia is also well known (Cameron and Freeman1991; Schein 1985), and there has been some interest in itsinfluence on the acceptance of IT adoption, diffusion, anduse (Leidner and Kayworth 2006). Applying CVM speci-fically, Cooper (1994) proposed that different informationsystems support alternative values, and that when an IS con-flicts with the values of OC, implementation of the systemwill be resisted. Expanding CVM to comprise ethical cul-ture, Ruppel and Harrington (2001) found that intranetimplementation is facilitated by a culture that emphasizestrust and concern for other people (ethical culture), flexibilityand innovation (developmental culture), policies, procedures,and information management (hierarchical culture).

We are not prepared to put forward any a priori hypothesesabout the relationship between organizational culture andSDM deployment for three reasons. The first reason is therichness of the concept of organizational culture, comprisingsymbols, heroes, rituals, values, and practices. Therefore,SDMs and their use can be conceived to be part of OC, asrituals (Robey and Markus 1984) that serve as a socialdefense against the anxieties and uncertainties of systemsdevelopment rather than as an efficient and effective meansof developing systems (Wastell 1996). Since OC and SDMsare not necessarily conceptually distinct, the suggestion thatOC influences SDM deployment becomes problematic. Toavoid this overlap, the paper selected CVM, which focusesonly on values in an organizational culture.

The second reason is that one can also conjecture that SDMsinclude certain cultural assumptions, and when these assump-tions are incongruent with OC in an organization, SDMdeployment is impeded. To our knowledge there is noprevious research in this area, but Ngwenyama and Nielsen(2003) applied CVM to the analysis of the culturalassumptions of the capability in maturity model (CMM)literature and concluded that the design ideal of CMM

reflects the rational culture, but becomes more hierarchical athigher levels of maturity. In view of the close affinitybetween CMM and SDMs, there are good reasons to believethat the latter may include certain cultural assumptions aswell.

The third reason is that CVM suggests that the effectivenessof an organization imposes paradoxical requirements in orderto balance opposite cultural orientations. This implies thatthe assumed relationship between OC and SDM deploymentmay be either reinforcing or complementary. The formermeans that an SDM reinforces the existing OC and the latterthat it complements it in some way. To exemplify theformer, organizations with a hierarchical OC may use SDMsas a means of imposing security, order, and routinization. Onthe other hand, one can conceive that organizations with adevelopmental OC, for example, may also perceive SDMs asa means of imposing the necessary security, order, androutinization.

Overall, this paper takes the view that the relationshipbetween OC and SDM deployment is interactive and mutu-ally constitutive, but the details of this relationship are stillopen. The purpose is to analyze this relationship using anexploratory research approach. Based on this exploratoryanalysis, the paper proposes a theoretical model with asso-ciated propositions and hypotheses that allow us to explainthe findings.

Research Design

When analyzing the relationship between the OCs of ITdepartments and SDM deployment, we focus on the culturalperceptions of one occupational community (Van Maanenand Barley 1984), IS developers. The reason for focusing onthe cultural perceptions of IS developers rather than of ITmanagers is to avoid associating culture with the ITmanagers’ view of the desirable culture to be imposed on theIT department. IT managers’ views of OC may represent anorganizational ideology that they exercise in their normativecontrol over IS developers (Kunda 1992). This ideology maydiffer radically from the OC perceived by IS developers. Inthe case of SDM deployment, we decided to study both ISdevelopers’ and IT managers’ perceptions. One reason forthis is the possible common method bias brought by aresearch design in which the same respondents (i.e., ISdevelopers) assess both OC and SDM deployment. Ourresearch design allows intergroup analysis in which OC isassessed by IS developers and deployment by IT managers.One should note, however, that the purpose of this study is



Table 2. Response Rate of Survey

Number Distributed

Number Returned

ResponseRate (%)

Organizations 213 80 37.6

IS developers 893 234 26.2

IT managers 213 73 34.3

Table 3. Profiles of Responding Organizations Based on the IT Manager Data (N = 73)

n % n %

Business area Organization size

Administrative services 3 4.1 1-50 employees 5 6.8

Finance/Banking/Insurance 11 15.1 51-200 employees 8 11.0

Software house/Software consulting 5 6.8 More than 200 employees 60 82.2

Manufacturing 24 32.9 IT Department Size

Retail/Wholesale 7 9.6 1–5 employees 17 23.3

Education 21 28.8 6–20 employees 23 31.5

Other 2 2.7 20–50 employees 12 16.4

More than 50 employees 21 28.8

not a systematic comparison of IT managers’ and ISdevelopers’ perceptions (some of these have been reported inHuisman and Iivari 2006).

The Survey

This study is part of a larger survey of systems SDM use inSouth Africa, conducted in 1999. The 1999 IT Users Hand-book5 was used and the 443 listed organizations werecontacted via telephone to determine if they were willing toparticipate in the study. In all, 213 organizations agreed totake part. A package of questionnaires was sent to a contactperson in each organization, who distributed it. This packageconsisted of one questionnaire to be answered by the ITmanager and a number of questionnaires to be answered byindividual IS developers in the organization. The number ofIS developer questionnaires was determined for each organi-zation during the telephone contacts. The response rate isgiven in Table 2. Completed IT manager questionnaires werereceived from 73 organizations and completed IS developer

questionnaires from 234 developers from 71 organizations.The total number of organizations was 80 and the number ofresponses from organizations with both IS developer and ITmanager responses was 64. The distribution of IS developerresponses per organization was skewed, so that only onedeveloper questionnaire was received from 30.9 percent of theorganizations, whereas 25.0 percent of the organizationsreturned five developer questionnaires. The maximum num-ber of questionnaires returned by one organization was 11.

The profiles of the participating organizations and individualIS developers are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Due toproblems with the mailing service in South Africa, it was notpossible to analyze nonresponse bias based on a comparisonof the latest replies, because one cannot be sure that thereplies that arrived latest were written latest.6 However, whenwe compared the sectoral composition of businesses in SouthAfrica (ABSA Group 2000) at the time of the survey with thesectoral composition of business areas in our sample (Table 3)using the z-test for differences between two proportions, nosignificant differences were found.

5The most comprehensive reference guide to the IT industry in South Africa,The 1999 IT Users Handbook is published by Computing S.A., TML TradePublishing, PO Box 182, Pinegowrie 2123, South Africa.

6Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain the envelopes with the date ofmailing.



Table 4. Profiles of Responding IS Developers (N = 234)n % n %

Education Systems analyst 24 10.3Senior certificate (high school) 39 16.7 Analyst/Programmer 93 39.7Certificate or diploma 79 33.8 Programmer 36 15.4University or technical degree 75 32.1 Other 29 12.4Honors or Master’s degree 36 15.4 Missing 3 1.3Ph.D. degree 0 0.0 Experience in Systems DevelopmentOther 3 1.3 None 4 1.7Missing 2 0.9 Less than 1 year 14 6.0Title 1–2 years 21 9.0IT manager 11 4.7 3–5 years 51 21.8Project manager 25 10.7 5–10 years 53 22.6Team leader 13 5.6 More than 10 years 89 38.0

Measurement

The appropriateness and validity of the questionnaires weretested in two stages. First, six lecturers from the ComputerScience and Information Systems Department at the Potchef-stroom University for CHE tested the questionnaires. Aftersome changes, they were pilot tested in practice at the ITdepartment of an organization in Gauteng. The relevant partof the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

All of the questions except those on OC and horizontal SDMuse were addressed to both IS developers and IT managers.For the reasons explained above, only the IS developers wereasked about OC and only the IT managers about horizontalSDM use.

All of the measurement instruments, except that for OC, werespecifically developed for the present study. Organizationalculture was measured using the instrument suggested byYeung et al. (1991). At the individual level, the scores foreach of the culture orientations were computed as averages ofthe items included in the measure, and the cultural orientationat the organizational level was obtained as the average of theindividual scores. Accordingly, even though the IT managerswere not questioned about OC, the organizational culture ofthe IT departments they were heading was measured using theIS developer data.

The details of the analysis of the measurement instruments arereported in Appendix B. The reliabilities of measures weretested using Cronbach’s alpha, leading to the removal of afew items from the measurement instruments. Factor analyses

of the measures for the seven dimensions of SDM deploymentled to eleven factors. Factor analysis of perceived SDM sup-port as production technology identified three factors: sup-port for organizational alignment, support for technicaldesign, and support for verification and validation. Factoranalysis of perceived SDM support as cognitive and coopera-tion technology gave two factors: support for the commonconception of systems development practice and support forthe evaluation of systems development practice. Factoranalysis of perceived SDM impact on the quality and pro-ductivity of the development process led to two factors:productivity effects and morale and quality effects, goalachievement, and reputation.

Data Analysis

The data analysis was performed using Statistica (version 5)software. Indices for the four organizational culture types foreach organization were calculated as averages of thedevelopers’ perceptions regarding the culture of that organi-zation. For all other variables, individual developer andmanager responses were aggregated separately to theorganizational level by calculating the aggregated responsesas means of the individual responses.

Notes on Exploratory Surveys as a ResearchMethod for Theory Building

Because of the lack of previous research in this area, thephenomenon of the relationship between OC and SDM de-



ployment is poorly understood. There is no a priori theory toexplain the phenomenon.7 Consequently, this paper is of thetheory-creating rather than theory-testing. Even thoughtheory-creating research is sometimes associated with quali-tative and interpretive research methods rather than withquantitative ones (Järvinen 2001), we do not see any philo-sophical (Chalmers 1999) or methodological (Dubin 1978;Wallace 1983) reasons why this should be so. Instead, we seethe relationship between the purpose of a piece of research(exploratory/theory-creating versus confirmatory/theory-testing) and its methods as orthogonal. Qualitative researchmethods can also be used to test theories, as pointed out byLee (1989), and quantitative research methods can be used toinspire theory building. Appendix C includes our argumen-tation of this point.

This paper employs a survey as its research method in anattempt to create new theory. Based on survey data on thedeployment of SDMs in South Africa, the paper proposes atheoretical model that allows interpretation of the empiricalfindings. The present study can be interpreted as anexploratory survey (Malhotra and Grover 1998). Even thoughPinsonneault and Kraemer (1993) evaluate, based on ananalysis of 122 surveys published by IS scholars between1980 and 1990, that exploratory and descriptive surveys havebeen of moderate or poor quality, we do not interpret them asclaiming that this is necessarily so because of inherentweaknesses of exploratory and descriptive surveys. Ratherthe question is about poor research design, samplingprocedures, and data collection. Malhotra and Grover (1998)suggest 17 criteria for an ideal survey. The present paperclearly violates two of these (Criterion 10: Are pilot dataused for purifying measures or are existing, validatedmeasures adapted? Criterion 11: Are confirmatory methodsused?). Two criteria (Criterion 6: Is content validityassessed? Criterion 9: Is construct validity assessed?) areonly partially addressed.8 In principle, these shortcomings inmeasurement could dilute the empirical findings of the presentstudy. However, our results are not based on single mea-surements, but more holistic patterns and puzzles discernablein the empirical findings. Therefore, we see them asindicative enough to justify the theory-building exercise thatwill be reported later.

Results

To test the effect of individual culture orientations, regressionanalysis was used, considering each of the seven dimensions(with eleven factors) of SDM deployment as the dependentvariable and the four indicators of organizational culture asthe independent variables. The details of the regressionanalyses are reported in Appendix D and the results aresummarized in Table 5, which lists the significant and almostsignificant regression coefficients identified (+ for positiveand – for negative, p # 0.05, and (+) and (-) for almostsignificant, p # 0.10).9

One striking finding in Table 5 is the positive relationshipbetween the hierarchical culture orientation and SDM deploy-ment in the case of IS developers: the more hierarchical aculture is perceived to be, the more support SDMs areperceived to provide and the more they are used. Thedevelopmental culture is also found to have a positive asso-ciation with SDM deployment, but not systematically so. Ofparticular interest, the more rational the cultural orientation,the more critical IT managers seem to be with regard to SDMsupport and impact. This is intriguing, since Huisman andIivari (2006) found IT managers to have more positiveperceptions of SDM deployment than IS developers.

Regression analysis using a more comprehensive model,including the four cultural orientations, business area, ITdepartment size, maturity of the IT department, innovationcharacteristics (relative advantage, complexity, compatibility,voluntariness), and percentage of time spent on new develop-ment, gave quite consistent results. The rational culturalorientation was negatively associated with deployment andthe hierarchical cultural orientation positively associated withit (Huisman 2000).10 The developmental cultural orientationdid not exhibit any significant association with SDM deploy-ment in this more extensive analysis.

If we look at Table 5 with reference to the three aspects ofSDM deployment, we can observe a decrease in the signi-ficance of the relationship between OC and SDM deploymentin the case of IS developers from left to right. When we focuson the hierarchical cultural orientation only, the positive rela-tionship is the most consistent in the case of perceived support

7By theory, we mean “an ordered set of assertions about a generic behavioror structure assumed to hold throughout a significantly broad range ofspecific instances” (Weick 1989).

8In the case of Criterion 6, only organizational culture is measured using anexisting instrument. The other measures for the present study were developedbased on the literature. Referring to Criterion 9, construct validity is assessedusing only factor analysis for each construct separately.

9The number of + and – signs shows how many times a significant betacoefficient is found when the overall measures of the dependent variables arenot included (e.g., in the last column of Table 5).

10Note, however, that the sample size in this more extensive regressionanalysis was quite low relative to the number of predictor variables, onlyabout five times the number of independent variables.



Table 5. Summary of the Results of the Regression Analyses

Support asproductiontechnology

(3)

Support ascontrol

technology(1)

Support ascognitive &

coordinationtechnology

(2)

Vertical andhorizontalSDM use

(2)

Impact on thequality of the

systemsdeveloped

(1)

Impact on thequality and pro-ductivity of the

systems develop-ment process

(2)

Group cultureorientation

Developmentalculture orientation

De: +(+)Ma: (+)

Hierarchicalculture orientation

De: +Ma: +(+)

De: + De: (+) De: (+)

Rational cultureorientation Ma: (-) Ma: (-) Ma: (-) Ma: (-)(-)

De = IS developers; Ma = IT managers

for systems development (two significant coefficients and onealmost significant out of the six possibilities). There is onealmost significant relationship in the case of SDM use (out oftwo possibilities) and none in the case SDM impact (out ofthree possibilities). This order, that SDM support perceptionsare most affected by OC, then SDM use, and SDM impactleast, is quite natural if one conceives an order of causality inwhich perceived SDM support influences SDM use and SDMuse affects SDM impacts.

On the other hand, the IT managers’ perceptions in the caseof the rational cultural orientation behaved in just the oppositemanner. IT managers are most consistently critical of theSDM impact (two almost significant relationships out of threepossibilities), especially regarding the quality and produc-tivity of the systems development process. There is onealmost significant relationship in the case of SDM use (out oftwo possibilities) and two almost significant relationships inthe case of SDM support for systems development (out of sixpossibilities).

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

How can we explain the findings presented above? Let usstart with the observation that the more hierarchical a culturewas, the higher SDM deployment was reported by ISdevelopers. One possibility is that SDM use is mandatory in

the organization, and that its IS developers take this mandatemore seriously than those in organizations with a lesshierarchical culture. A second option is that SDMs as normsystems (Lyytinen 1986) are part of the social norms of theorganization and the hierarchical culture affects the degree towhich these norms are followed. Even though these twopossibilities may explain the relationship between thehierarchical cultural orientation and SDM deployment, theydo not easily explain why the same positive relationship wasnot discovered in the case of IT managers. It is also difficultto see how the mandatory nature of SDMs and social normscould explain IT managers’ critical attitudes in organizationswith a strong rational culture. In the IT managers’ case, theexpected outcomes related to SDM deployment provide amore natural explanation. The above considerations lead usto suggest the model in Figure 2 to explain our findings.11

The model of Figure 2 makes a distinction between propo-sitions and hypotheses based on their generality. Propositionsare more general, whereas hypotheses are more bounded intime and space. We claim that the boundaries of the domain(Bacharach 1989; Dubin 1978) are very essential, especiallywhen the conjectures concern human artefacts such as SDMs.Even though influenced by Dubin (1978) and Bacharach(1989), our use of the terms proposition and hypothesis differs

11The dotted arrow in Figure 2 describes the feedback from SDM deploy-ment. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss it in detail.



SDM Deployment

Relative emphasis placed on alter-native values by an actor group

Beliefs in SDM support for

alternative values by an actor group

P5

P6H6a, H6b

P7

SDM use

Perceived SDM support for systems

development

P1, H1

Mandatorinessof SDM use

P3, H3

P4, H4

Organizationalculture

orientations

Social normsconcerning SDM useP2

PerceivedSDM impact

SDM Deployment

Relative emphasis placed on alter-native values by an actor group

Beliefs in SDM support for

alternative values by an actor group

P5

P6H6a, H6b

P7

SDM useSDM use


development


development

P1, H1



P3, H3

P4, H4

Organizationalculture

orientations

Social normsconcerning SDM use

Social normsconcerning SDM useP2

PerceivedSDM impact

Figure 2. The Theoretical Model

from theirs.12 For them, propositions exist between theore-tical constructs and hypotheses between operational variables.Let us discuss the propositions and hypotheses of Figure 2 inmore detail (Table 6).

SDM use in an organization may be more or less mandatory.The word mandatoriness in Figure 2 is used consciously incontrast to voluntariness, in an attempt to capture the extentto which the desired behavior (SDM use in the present case)is made mandatory in the organization, whereas voluntariness(Moore and Benbasat 1991) is a more subjective view of theextent to which SDM use is perceived as voluntary.

The hierarchical culture assumes that an individual willcomply with organizational mandates (Quinn and Kimberly1984). Therefore, Hypotheses H1 suggests that the strengthof the hierarchical culture affects the extent to which manda-tory SDMs are used. It is beyond the scope of the presentpaper to analyze in details how mandatoriness may affect

SDM deployment. One could conjecture, however, that itaffects the perceived voluntariness, which affects therelationship. Hypothesis H1 is in line with the significance ofcentralization and formalization in the implementation ofinnovations (Zaltman et al. 1973). Understandably, there isno prior research on the relationship between mandatorinessand SDM deployment. There are only a few studies on theimpact of voluntariness on the acceptance of SDMs andrelated software process innovations (Green et al. 2004; Iivari1996; Huisman 2000; Riemenschneider et al. 2002), and all ofthese report a significant negative relationship. HypothesisH1 claims that this is especially so in organizations with astrong hierarchical culture.13

12Based on Dubin (1978), it would be more appropriate to talk about laws ofinteraction and propositions in Figure 2. We are hesitant, however, to talkabout laws in the context of behavioral sciences.

13According to Huisman’s (2000) data at the organizational level, the corre-lation between the organizational average of voluntariness and horizontalmethodology use was -0.32 (p # 0.05) in organizations with the hierarchicalculture orientation # 3 (n = 45) and -0.65 (p # 0.01) in organizations with thehierarchical culture orientation > 3 (n = 15). The corresponding correlationsin the case of vertical methodology use were -0.38 (p # 0.01) and -0.45 (p #0.10). At the individual level, the correlation between voluntariness andvertical methodology use was -0.14 (p # 0.10) in organizations with the lowhierarchical culture orientation (n = 139) and -0.29 (p # 0.05) inorganizations with the high hierarchical culture orientation (n = 39).



Table 6. Propositions and HypothesesPropositions Hypotheses

P1 Organizational culture orientations affect the extentto which mandatoriness of SDM use influencesactual SDM use.

H1 The hierarchical cultural orientation affects positively theextent to which mandatoriness of SDM use influencesactual SDM use.

P2 Organizational culture orientations affect the extentto which SDMs are made mandatory.

P3 Organizational culture orientations affect the extentto which social norms concerning SDM useinfluence actual SDM use.

H3 The hierarchical cultural orientation affects positively theextent to which social norms concerning SDM useinfluence actual SDM use.

P4 Organizational culture orientations affect socialnorms related to SDM use.

H4 The hierarchical cultural orientation increases the numberof social norms related to SDM use.

P5 Organizational culture orientations affect the relativeemphasis put on alternative values.

P6 Organizational culture orientations affect the beliefsin SDM support for alternative values.

H6a The rational cultural orientation has a negative impact on ITmanagers’ beliefs in traditional SDM support forproductivity, efficiency and goal achievement.

H6b The hierarchical cultural orientation has a positive impacton IS developers’ beliefs in traditional SDM support forcontrol, stability and efficiency through followingregulations.

P7 The relative emphasis placed on alternative valuesby an actor group and its beliefs in SDM support foralternative values have an interactive relationshipwith the deployment of an SDM.

We do not propose any specific hypotheses corresponding toProposition P2, but it can be conjectured that the desiredbehavior more easily becomes mandatory in organizationswith a strong hierarchical culture and less so in organizationswith a strong development culture, for example. Buenger etal. (1996) provide partial evidence for Proposition P2,reporting that the hierarchical cultural orientation (internalprocess value) was associated with vertical coordination. Onthe other hand, less mandatory action may be effective in astrong hierarchical culture, because the desired behavior willbe implemented better (Hypothesis H1). Dysfunctions instrong mandatory action may also differ depending on theorganizational culture.14

Referring to Proposition P3 and Hypothesis H3, the hier-archical culture emphasizes control, stability, and efficiency

through following regulations and is oriented toward security,order, and routinization (Denison and Spreitzer 1991). SDMsare regulative norm systems (Lyytinen 1986). It is thereforelikely that that following regulations, including SDMs, will bea natural form of behavior in organizations with a strong hier-archical culture and can take place without paying consciousattention to the underlying values of that culture (seeProposition P5 below).

Hypothesis H3 is in line with the significance of formalizationin the implementation of innovations (Zaltman et al. 1973).It also covers the significance of subjective norms (Fishbeinand Ajzen 1975) as determinants of SDM deployment. H3 ismore general, however, also covering situations in whichfollowing regulations or norms (such as the standard SDMs inthe organization) is so natural that the members of the culturedo not perceive that this is a question of social pressure toperform or not perform the particular type of behavior.Riemenschneider et al. (2002) and Hardgrave and Johnson(2003) have examined the significance of subjective norms asa predictor of the intention to use a method, the formerreporting a subjective norm to be a significant predictor of

14In Huisman’s (2000) data, the mean for voluntariness in organizations withlow hierarchical culture orientation was 3.33 and in organizations with highhierarchical culture orientation it was 2.57. The difference is statisticallysignificant (p # 0.01).



such an intention and the latter a significant predictor oforganizational usefulness, but not of an intention to use themethod. One explanation for this inconsistency in theirfindings could be that the two studies did not take theorganizational culture into account. Hypothesis H3 suggeststhat a hierarchical culture may accentuate the significance ofsubjective norms as determinants of behavior.

In the context of Proposition P4, our hypothesis is thatorganizations with a strong hierarchical culture develop moresocial norms related to SDM deployment, including SDMsthemselves (Hypothesis H4). The close positive correlationbetween the hierarchical cultural orientation and formalizationreported by Zammuto and Krakower (1991) supports thehypothesis.

As argued above, we do not see that propositions P1 throughP4 with their related hypotheses are effective in explainingthe critical attitude of IT managers toward SDM deploymentin organizations with a strong developmental culture. Toexplain this, we introduce values and actors’ beliefs into theSDM support for alternative values in Figure 2. According toSchein (1985), values and beliefs are central constituents ofOC. The beliefs in Figure 2 are more specific, however,focusing on SDM support for alternative values. The modelresembles the way in which attitudes are defined in the theoryof reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), in that therelative emphasis on alternative values corresponds to an indi-vidual’s evaluation of the consequences of his/her behaviorand beliefs in SDM support for such alternative values.Differing from TRA, our emphasis on alternative values andbeliefs in Figure 2 is more social, both being influenced byculture (Proposition P5 and Proposition P6).

According to CVM, the four culture orientations (hierarchical,rational, developmental, and group culture orientations)influence the relative emphasis placed on alternative valuesby different actor groups (for example, emphasis placed onproductivity and efficiency by IT managers versus ISdevelopers). Proposition P5 allows for the fact that not allactor groups (e.g., IT managers and IS developers in our case)necessarily emphasize the alternative values equally, eventhough they may share the same organizational subculture.Despite the difference in the absolute emphasis on differentvalues, P5 assumes that the direction of the influence of theculture will be consistent between the groups: the strongerthe cultural orientation, the stronger the emphasis on thevalues of that orientation in each actor group.

At the same time, the cultural orientations may also have animpact on the actor groups’ beliefs in the SDM support foralternative values (Proposition P6). A striking empiricalfinding in the present study is the negative association

between the rational cultural orientation and SDM deploy-ment in the case of IT managers’ perceptions, but not in thecase of IS developers’ perceptions (see Table 5). Based onthis finding, we propose Hypothesis H6a (Table 6).

Figure 2 suggests two potential explanations for the differencebetween IT managers and IS developers in the case of arational culture. First, IS developers do not emphasize pro-ductivity, efficiency, and goal achievement as values to thesame extent as do IT managers. Second, IS developers do notview the current SDM support for these values as negativelyas do IT managers. Both of these explanations seemplausible. It may also be that the strong emphasis on pro-ductivity and efficiency leads to a focus on short-run impacts,whereas the benefits of SDMs accrue more slowly (seeFichman and Kemerer 1993). In an extreme case, it may bea question of IT managers’ disappointment with SDMs whenprojects start to fall behind schedules. It is well known thatSDMs are not very helpful in resolving these crisis situations,and that in these situations projects easily fall into a chaoticad hoc style of systems development without any SDMs(Humphrey 1989). The critical attitude of IT managerstoward SDMs in rationally oriented organizations seeminglycontradicts the finding of Ngwenyama and Nielsen (2003)that the design ideal of CMM reflects a rational culture. Itmay be that SDMs differ from CMM in their cultural assump-tions. On the other hand, it may also be that the underlyingcultural assumptions of CMM, if evaluated by practitioners,would differ from the design ideals espoused in the CMMliterature.

A second striking empirical finding of the present paper is thepositive relationship between the hierarchical cultural orienta-tion and SDM deployment in the case of IS developers, butnot in the case of IT managers (Table 5). Based on thisempirical finding, we suggest Hypothesis H6b. Comparedwith Hypotheses H1, H3, and H4, this provides a comple-mentary explanation (or possibly an alternative one) for thepositive relation between the hierarchical cultural orientationand SDM deployment. One explanation for H6b is thatSDMs are essentially norm systems (Lyytinen 1986), andfollowing SDM regulations may be perceived as a means ofsupporting control, stability, and efficiency. As norm sys-tems, SDMs may be perceived by IS developers to be part andparcel of the hierarchical culture. This is in line withNgwenyama and Nielsen, who found that software processimprovement models such as CMM reflect the hierarchicalculture, especially at higher maturity levels. On the otherhand, 92 percent of the responding companies in the presentstudy were at the lowest maturity level (Huisman 2000). Anexplanation for this potential inconsistency may be that SDMsalso reflect the hierarchical culture at the lower maturitylevels when assessed by practitioners.



Based on Figure 2, one can identify two explanations for thedifference between IS developers and IT managers in the caseof a hierarchical culture. First, IT managers do not emphasizecontrol, stability, and efficiency through following regulationsas values to the same extent as do IS developers. Second, ITmangers do not believe that the current SDMs support thesevalues to the same extent as do IS developers. Although thisis an empirical question, we conjecture that the latter explana-tion is more plausible.

We have limited Hypotheses H6a and H6b spatially andtemporarily to concern traditional SDMs. Our empiricalmaterial was dominated by the classical structured andinformation modeling approaches (Huisman 2000), whereasmore modern approaches such as object-orientation and agilemethods were not well represented. Only rapid applicationdevelopment represented the lighter and less bureaucraticways of developing systems. A potential research question iswhether Hypotheses H6a and H6b can be generalized to coverthese more recent SDMs.

It is conjectured in Figure 2 that the relative emphasis placedon alternative values by actor groups and their beliefs in SDMsupport for these alternative values influence SDM deploy-ment in an interactive manner (Proposition 7). This impliesthat if an actor group (IT managers, for example) placesstrong emphasis on certain values (e.g., productivity andefficiency) and see SDMs as supporting these values, thispromotes methodology deployment. If, on the other hand,they see that SDMs support these negatively, this will have anegative influence on methodology deployment.

Practical Implications

What are the practical implications of the results? At ageneral level, this paper makes the people engaged indeveloping SDMs and introducing them in practice moreaware of the influence of OC on SDM deployment, andculturally more sensitive. It helps diagnose and understandcultural milieus and the chances of SDMs being deployed inorganizations with different cultures. The hierarchical cultureseems to be the most benign environment for SDM deploy-ment, whereas the rational culture is the most hostile, and thedevelopmental culture and group culture are neutral.

The model recognizes that different actor groups may differin their reactions to SDMs, even though sharing the same OC.This finding is line with von Meier (1999), who found thatdifferent occupational subcultures (engineers versus opera-tors) had conflicting assessments of the proposed technologiesand as a consequence experienced resistance to adopting the

technology. Our finding is stronger, however, in the sensethat the IS developers and IT managers worked in the samedepartments. The model helps anticipate the likely reactionsof different actor groups that affect SDM deployment. If anactor group believes that a methodology effectively supportsvalues that are significant to it, the group is likely to befavorably disposed to high SDM deployment. On the otherhand, if an actor group does not believe that an SDM supportsvalues that are significant to it, the group will be indifferentwith regard to SDM deployment, and if an actor groupbelieves that an SDM supports the values negatively, thegroup will be likely to oppose SDM deployment.

It is obvious that IS developers are vital for effective SDMdeployment. The present empirical findings suggest that thechances of SDMs being deployed are higher in organizationswith a strong hierarchical cultural orientation than in organi-zations with a weaker hierarchical culture. A strong hier-archical culture in itself may facilitate SDM deployment(Hypotheses H1 through H4), but a weak hierarchical culturewill pose a considerable challenge for SDM introduction.One option in this case is to emphasize SDM support for thedominant cultural orientation of the organization whenintroducing an SDM. For example, in an organization with adominant developmental cultural orientation, one mayemphasize support for creativity and adaptation to the externalenvironment. If the SDM to be introduced does not supportthese directly, it may be deliberately engineered to includesuch features. A second option is to introduce an SDM as aneffective means of making the less creative aspects of systemsdevelopment work more orderly and routine, thus freeingsystems developers’ time for more creative work.

Another point is that the adoption of an SDM may lead to amore hierarchical culture, since SDMs may be perceived asmanifestations of such a culture. It is well-known from con-tingency theory that a hierarchical culture has drawbacks,especially in an uncertain and dynamic environment (Burnsand Stalker 1961). If an organization does not wish to movein that direction, it should pay special attention to means ofavoiding the hierarchical flavor of SDMs when introducingthem. One possibility is to engineer a SDM that is lessbureaucratic by introducing it as a general approach (Iivari etal. 1998) rather than as a complicated conglomerate of numer-ous techniques with massive documentation. A general ap-proach that emphasizes goals, guiding principles, fundamentalconcepts, and principles of the design process may also makean SDM more useful, as concluded by Fitzgerald (1997, p.207): “the multiplicity of manuals which accompany manymethodologies and prescribe in a very detailed fashion theexact manner in which development should take place is notsuited to the actual needs of developers in practice.”



The finding that IT managers were very critical of SDMdeployment in rationally oriented organizations represents aconsiderable challenge to the introduction of SDMs in suchorganizations. Management support is one of the factors thatare most consistently reported as facilitating IS implemen-tation (Ginzberg 1981), while Roberts et al. (1998) list a lackof management commitment as one of the biggest obstaclesto implementing an SDM. Humphrey (1989) claims that allmajor changes to the software processes, such as SPI initia-tives, must start at the top: managers must set the priorities,furnish the resources, and provide continued support. It isunclear whether IT managers’ criticality is because of theinherent weakness of SDMs in terms of their productivity andefficiency benefits, low demonstrability of these benefits,managers’ impatience in these organizations, or due to someother reason. It is obvious that it is extremely difficult todemonstrate the contribution of SDMs to productivity andefficiency, and it may be for this reason that IT managers inorganizations with a rationally oriented culture take a morecritical attitude toward SDMs.

One should obviously pay special attention to the introductionstrategy in these rationally oriented organizations, and to therole of IT managers in this process. First, one should attemptto convince IT managers of the benefits of SDMs in terms oftheir impact on productivity, efficiency, and goal achieve-ment, especially in the longer run. This is not an easy task.A second option is to customize an SDM meticulously to fitthe special needs of the adopting organization. One should becareful, however, when a project encounters a crisis to makesure that this is a question of conscious, deliberate localcustomization rather than simply of sloppy adherence to theSDM (Humphrey 1989). A third solution is to introducechanges incrementally (Tolvanen 1998) so that the complexityof the new methodology increment is reduced and its trial-ability and demonstrability increased. This can be expectedto facilitate organizational learning with regard to the impactof SDMs and more rational decision-making concerning theiradoption.

Conclusions

The present study has its limitations. The findings are basedon data from one country, South Africa. We could havelimited the propositions and hypotheses to concern thatcountry alone, but we do not see any specific reason for doingso.15 It is an open question whether our findings can be

generalized to other countries. Therefore, an interestingresearch opportunity to replicate comparable studies in othercountries exists. We also analyzed SDMs as a homogeneousphenomenon. One might question whether there may bedifferences in IT managers’ and IS developers’ perceptions ofthe support provided by alternative SDMs and of their impact.There is a need for continued research in which the variety ofSDMs is better represented.

Based on the empirical findings, the paper proposed atheoretical model (Figure 2) to explain the observations. Themodel is clearly testable, parsimonious, and general(Eisenhardt 1989), and there is a clear need to test it as awhole. The model itself raises several interesting researchquestions. First, how is the influence of a hierarchical culturemediated to SDM deployment, that is, to what extent does thistake place through mandates and social norms and to whatextent through the values of the hierarchical culture andbeliefs in SDM support for these values. Second, the criticalattitude of IT managers in organizations with a dominantrational culture is a challenge. There is obviously a distinctneed for additional research into the reasons underlying thisattitude. Third, it would be interesting to investigate whetherthe different aspects and dimensions of SDM deploymentbehave differently in the model. A fourth topic would be tostudy to what extent the findings can be generalized to otherIS process innovations.

The present paper analyzed OC by applying a specific quanti-tative model, CVM. Quantitative research into OC representsonly a minority view, however, as the majority of the researchis qualitative/idiographic. Alternative research methods,especially in the spirit of multiparadigm (Lewis and Grimes1999) and multimethod research (Mingers 2001), might alsohelp us to understand the phenomenon more deeply. Theseresearch avenues lie beyond the scope of the present paper,however.

The paper demonstrates how an exploratory survey (Malhotraand Grover 1998) can be used to build an empirically inspiredtheory. Even though this is not new, theory-creating explora-tory surveys have been seriously neglected in IS research.We hope that this study will spark greater use of this researchmethod in the future.

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to Ritu Agarwal, the senior editor,for her support and guidance during the long review process, and tothe anonymous reviewers for pushing us to theorize over the puzzlesof our empirical findings.

15One should also note that most empirical articles in top-ranked IS journalsare based on data from one country (the United States).



References

Absa Group Economic Research. Sectoral Prospects for the SouthAfrican Economy 2000-2005, Johannesburg, South Africa, June2000

Allaire, Y., and Firsirotu, M. E. “Theories of OrganizationalCulture,” Organization Studies (5:3), 1984, pp. 193-226.

Bacharach, S. B. “Organizational Theories: Some Criteria forEvaluation,” Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp.496-515.

Bansler, J., and Bødker, K. “A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis:Design in Organizational Context,” ACM Transactions onInformation Systems (11:2), 1993, pp. 165-193.

Baskerville, R., Travis, J., and Truex, D. “Systems WithoutMethod: The Impact of New Technologies on Information Sys-tems Development Projects,” in The Impact of ComputerSupported Technologies on Information Systems Development, K.E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 241-269.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. “The Case ResearchStrategy in Studies of Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly(11:3), 1987, pp. 369-388.

Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “The Identity Crisis Within theDiscipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s CoreProperties,” MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 183-194.

Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., and Austin, J. “CompetingValues in Organizations: Contextual Influences and StructuralConsequences,” Organization Science (7:5), 1996, pp. 557-576.

Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Innovation,Tavistock, London, 1961.

Cameron, K. S. “Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflictin Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness,” ManagementScience (32:5), 1986, pp. 539-553.

Cameron, K. S., and Freeman, S. J. “Cultural Congruence, Strength,and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness,” in Research inOrganizational Change and Development, Volume 5, R. W.Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (eds), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich,CT, 1991, pp. 23-58.

Chalmers, A. F. What Is this Thing Called Science? (3rd ed.), OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham, 1999.

Chatzoglou, P. D., and Macaullay, L. A. “Requirements Captureand IS Methodologies,” Information Systems Journal (6), 1996,pp. 209-225.

Cooke, R. A., and Rousseau, D. M. “Behavioral Norms and Expec-tations: A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of Organiza-tional Culture,” Group & Organization Studies (13:3), 1988, pp.245-273.

Cooper, R. B. “The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implemen-tation,” Information & Management (27:1), 1994, pp. 17-31.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. Exploring Complex Organizations: ACultural Perspective, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA,1992.

Denison, D. R., and Spreitzer, G. M. “Organizational Culture andOrganizational Development: A Competing Values Approach,”

in Research in Organizational Change and Development,Volume 5, R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (eds), JAI PressInc, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 1-21.

Dubin, R. Theory Building (2nd ed.), The Free Press, New York,1989.

Eisenhardt, K. “Building Theories from Case Study Research,”Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp. 532-550.

Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. “Adoption of Software Engi-neering Process Innovations: The Case of Object-Orientation,”Sloan Management Review (34:2), 1993, pp. 7-22.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior:An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA, 1975.

Fitzgerald, B. “An Empirical Investigation into the Adoption ofSystems Development Methodologies,” Information & Manage-ment (34:6), 1998, pp. 317-328.

Fitzgerald, B. “Formalized Systems Development Methodologies:A Critical Perspective,” Information Systems Journal (6:1), pp.3-23, 1996.

Fitzgerald, B. “The Use of Systems Development Methodologies inPractice: A Field Study,” Information Systems Journal (7:3), 3,1997, pp. 201-212.

Gagliardi, P. “The Creation and Change of Organizational Cultures:A Conceptual Framework,” Organization Studies (7:2), 1986, pp.117-134.

Ginzberg, M. J. “Key Recurrent Issues in the MIS ImplementationProcess,” MIS Quarterly (5:2), 1981, pp. 47-59.

Glass, R. L. “Talk About a Software Crisis — Not!,” The Journalof Systems and Software (55), 2000, pp. 1-2.

Green, G. C., Collins, R. W., and Hevner, A. R. “Perceived Controland Diffusion of Software Process Innovations,” Journal of HighTechnology Management Research (15:1), 2004, pp. 123-144.

Gregory, K. L. “Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures andCulture Conflicts in Organizations,” Administrative ScienceQuarterly (28:3), 1983, pp. 359-376.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C.Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan, NewYork, 1992.

Hardgrave, B. C., and Johnson, R. A. “Toward an Information Sys-tems Development Acceptance Model: The Case of Object-Oriented Systems Development,” IEEE Transactions on Engi-neering Management (50:3), 2003, pp. 322-336.

Hardy, C. J., Thompson J. B., and Edwards H. M. “The Use,Limitations and Customization of Structured Systems Develop-ment Methods in the United Kingdom,” Information andSoftware Technology (37:9), 1995, pp.467-477.

Henderson, J. C., and Cooprider, J. G. “Dimensions of I/S Planningand Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology,”Information Systems Research (1:3), 1990, pp. 227-254.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., and Sanders, G.“Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quanti-tative Study Across Twenty Cases,” Administrative ScienceQuarterly (35:2), 1990 pp. 286-316.



Huisman, H. M. The Deployment of Systems Development Methodo-logies: A South African Experience, unpublished Ph.D disser-tation, Potchefstroom University for CHE, Potchefstroom, SouthAfrica, 2000.

Huisman, M., and Iivari, J. “Deployment of Systems DevelopmentMethodologies: Perceptual Congruence Between IS Managersand Systems Developers,” Information & Management (43:1),2006, pp. 29-49.

Humphrey, W. S. Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.

Iivari, J. “Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?,” Communications ofthe ACM (39:10), 1996, pp. 94-103.

Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., and Klein. H. K. “A ParadigmaticAnalysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Ap-proaches and Methodologies,” Information Systems Research(9:2), 1998, pp. 164-193.

Iivari, J., and Maansaari, J. “The Usage of Systems DevelopmentMethods: Are We Stuck to Old Practices?,” Information andSoftware Technology (40:9), 1998, pp. 501-510.

ISO. Information Technology – Software Product Evaluation –Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use, ISO/IECDIS 9126, International Organization for Standardization,Geneva, Switzerland, 1990.

Järvinen, P. On Research Methods, Opinpajan kirja, Tampere,Finland, 2001.

Kautz, K., Hansen, B., and Jacobsen, D. “The Utilization ofInformation Systems Development Methodologies in Practice,Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications (6:4),2004, pp. 1-20.

Kekäle, T. The Effects of Organizational Culture on Successes andFailures in Implementation of Some Total Quality ManagementApproaches, Towards a Theory of Selecting a CulturallyMatching Quality Approach, Acta Wasaensia, No. 65, IndustrialManagement 1, Universitas Wasaensis, Vaasa, Finland, 1998.

Khalifa, M., and Verner, J. M. “Drivers for Software DevelopmentMethod Usage,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management(47:2), 2000, pp. 360-369.

Kunda, G. Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation,Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1992.

Langley, A. “Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data,”Academy of Management Journal (24:4), 1999, pp. 691-710.

Lee, A. “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies,” MISQuarterly (13:1), 1989, pp. 33-50.

Leidner, D. E., and Kayworth, T. “Review: A Review of Culture inInformation Systems Research: Toward a Theory of InformationTechnology Culture Conflict,” MIS Quarterly (30:2), 2006, pp.357-399.

Lewis, M. W., and Grimes, A. J. “Metatriangulation: BuildingTheory from Multiple Paradigms,” Academy of ManagementReview (24:4), 1999, pp. 672-690.

Lilliefors, H. “On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normalitywith Mean and Variance Unknown,” Journal of the AmericanStatistical Association (62:318), 1967, pp. 399-402.

Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Development as Social Action:Framework and Critical Implications, Jyväskylä Studies inComputer Science, Economics and Statistics, No. 8, Jyväskylänyliopisto, Jyväskylä, Finland, 1986.

Malhotra, M. K., and Grover, V. “An Assessment of SurveyResearch in POM: From Constructs to Theory,” Journal ofOperations Management (16:4), 1998, pp. 407-425.

McChesney, I. R., and Glass, D. “Post-Implementation Manage-ment of CASE Methodology,” European Journal of InformationSystems (2:3), 1993, pp. 201-209.

Mingers, J. “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a PluralistMethodology,” Information Systems Research (12:3), 2001, pp.240-259.

Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. “Development of an Instrument toMeasure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information TechnologyInnovation,” Information Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp.192-222.

Nandhakumar, J., and Avison, D. E. “The Fiction of Methodo-logical Development: A Field Study of Information SystemsDevelopment,” Information Technology & People (12:2), 1999,pp. 176-191.

Ngwenyama, O., and Nielsen, P. A. “Competing Values in Soft-ware Process Improvement: An Assumption Analysis of CMMfrom an Organizational Culture Perspective,” IEEE Transactionson Engineering Management (50:1), 2003, pp. 100-112.

Pinsonneault, A., and Kraemer, K. L. “Survey Research Methodo-logy in Management Information Systems: An Assessment,”Journal of Management Information Systems (10:2), 1993, pp.75-106.

Quinn, R. E., and Kimberly, J. R. “Paradox, Planning, andPerseverance: Guidelines for Managerial Practice,” in NewFutures: The Challenge of Managing Organizational Transi-tions, J. R. Kimberly and R. E. Quinn (eds.), Dow Jones-Irwin,Homewood, IL, 1984, pp. 295-313.

Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. “A Spatial Model of EffectivenessCriteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organiza-tional Analysis,” Management Science (29:3), 1983, pp. 363-377.

Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., and Davis, F. D.“Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies:A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models,” IEEE Transactionson Software Engineering (28:12), 2002, pp. 1135-1145.

Roberts, R. K. Jr., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., and Rainer, R. K.“Factors That Impact Implementing a Systems DevelopmentMethodology,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering(24:8), 1998, pp. 640-649.

Robey, D., and Markus, M. L. “Ritual in Information SystemDesign,” MIS Quarterly (8:1), 1984, pp. 5-15.

Ruppel, C. P., and Harrington, S. J. “Sharing Knowledge ThroughIntranets: A Study of Organizational Culture and Intranet Imple-mentation,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication(44:1), 2001, pp. 37-52.

Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, 1985.



Smircich, L. “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis,”Administrative Science Quarterly (28:3), 1983, pp. 339-358.

Tolvanen, J.-P. Incremental Method Engineering with ModelingTools, Ph.D. dissertation, Jyväskylä Studies in Computer Science,Economics and Statistics, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Jyväskylä,Finland, 1998.

Van Maanen, J., and Barley, S. R. “Occupational Communities:Culture and Control in Organizations, in Research in Organi-zational Behavior, Volume 6, B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings(eds.), JAI Press, Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1984, p. 287-365.

Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., and Glass, R. “Research in InformationSystems: An Empirical Study of Diversity in the Discipline andits Journals, Journal of Management Information Systems (19:2),2002, pp. 129-174.

Von Meier, A. “Occupational Cultures as a Challenge to Techno-logical Innovations,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-agement (46:1), 1999, pp. 101-114.

Wallace, W.L. Principles of Scientific Sociology, Aldine PublishingCompany, New York, 1983.

Wastell, D. G. “The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a SocialDefense,” Information Systems Journal (6:1), 1996, pp. 25-40.

Weick, K. E. “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination,”Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp. 516-531.

Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. “Studying System DevelopmentMethodologies: An Examination of Research Methods,” Infor-mation Systems Journal (7:1), 1997, pp. 47-65.

Yeung, A. K. O., Brockbank, J. W., and Ulrich, D. O. “Organi-zational Culture and Human Resource Practices: An EmpiricalAssessment,” in Research In Organizational Change andDevelopment, Volume 5, R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore(eds.), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 59-81

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J. Innovations andOrganizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1973.

Zammuto, R. F., and Krakower, J. Y. “Quantitative and QualitativeStudies of Organizational Culture,” in Research In Organiza-tional Change and Development, Volume 5, R. W. Woodmanand W. A. Pasmore (eds.), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1991,pp. 83-114.

About the Authors

Juhani Iivari is a professor of Information Systems at the Univer-sity of Oulu, Finland, and the Scientific Head of the INFWESTPostgraduate Education Program of six Finnish universities in thearea of in information systems. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D.degrees from the University of Oulu. Juhani is the national repre-sentative for Finland in the International Federation of InformationProcessing’s Technical Committee 8 (Information Systems). Hisresearch has broadly focused on theoretical foundations of informa-tion systems, information systems development methodologies andapproaches, acceptance of information systems, quality of informa-tion systems, and the relationship between information systems andknowledge work. Juhani serves on the editorial boards of sevenjournals. He has published in journals such as Australian Journalof Information Systems, Behavior and Information Technology,Communications of the ACM, Data Base, European Journal ofInformation Systems, Information & Management, Information andSoftware Technology, Information Systems, Information SystemsJournal, Information Systems Research, Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, Journal of Organizational Computing andElectronic Commerce, MIS Quarterly, Omega, and ScandinavianJournal of Information Systems.

Magda Huisman is a senior lecturer of Computer Science andInformation Systems at the North-West University (PotchefstroomCampus) where she teaches software engineering, managementinformation systems, and decision support systems. She receivedher Ph.D degree in Computer Science and Information Systems atthe Potchefstroom University for CHE in 2001. Magda is activelyinvolved in research projects regarding systems developmentmethodologies. Her research has appeared in journals such as Infor-mation & Management and she has presented papers at internationalconferences in China, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, and Latvia.Her current research interests are in systems developmentmethodologies and the diffusion of information technologies.


16Items followed by an asterisk (*) were dropped during reliability analysis.


Appendix A

The Relevant Part of the Questionnaire16

Section 1: Organizational Culture

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)

1.1) The IS department I work in is a very personal place. It is like an extended family and people seem to share a lot of themselves.1.2) The IS department I work in is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.1.3) The IS department I work in is a very formal and structured place. People pay attention to bureaucratic procedures to get things

done.*1.4) The IS department I work in is a very production-oriented place. People are concerned with getting the job done and are not very

personally involved.*1.5) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is loyalty and tradition. Commitment to the IS department I work in runs

high.1.6) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on

being first with products and services.1.7) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is formal rules and policies. Following rules and maintaining a smooth-

running institution are important.1.8) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is an emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment. A production and

achievement orientation is commonly shared.1.9) The IS department I work in emphasizes human resources. High morale is important.1.10) The IS department I work in emphasizes growth through acquiring new resources. Acquiring new products/services to meet new

challenges is important.1.11) The IS department I work in emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficient, smooth operations are important.1.12) The IS department I work in, emphasizes competitive actions, outcomes and achievement. Accomplishing measurable goals is

important.

Section 2: Systems Development Methodology

For the purpose of this questionnaire, a systems development methodology is defined as a combination of the following:• systems development approach/approaches • systems development process model/ models • systems development technique/techniques • systems development method/methods, commercial or in-house

which is used to develop systems in your IS department.

Please describe the systems development methodology in use in your IS department by answering questions 1 through 7.

1. To what extent is your IS department using the following standard (commercial) systems development methods at present? You maymark more than one item (1 = nominally, 5 = intensively)

1.1) STRADIS (Structured Analysis, Design and Implementation of Information Systems)1.2) YSM (Yourdon Systems Method)1.3) IE (Information Engineering)1.4) SSADM (Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method)

. . . .



1.26) MOSES1.27) UML (Unified Modeling Language)1.28) Objectory1.29) Booch1.30) Other, please specify

2. Please specify the systems development methods that were developed in-house by your IS department, and indicate to what extent yourIS department is using it at present (1 = nominally, 5 = intensively)

2.1)2.2)2.3)2.4)

3. What is the proportion of projects that are developed in your IS department by applying systems development methodology knowledge?

None 11 – 25 % 226 – 50 % 351 – 75 % 4Over 75 % 5

4. What is the proportion of people in your IS department who apply systems development methodology knowledge?

None 11 – 25 % 226 – 50 % 351 – 75 % 4Over 75 % 5

5. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)

5.1) Our systems development methodology helps to align the system to be developed with the business. 5.2) Our systems development methodology helps to capture requirements for the system to be developed. 5.3) Our systems development methodology helps to design the architecture of the system to be developed. 5.4) Our systems development methodology helps in system design. 5.5) Our systems development methodology helps in implementing developed systems. 5.6) Our systems development methodology helps in reviewing developed systems. 5.7) Our systems development methodology helps in testing developed systems. 5.8) Our systems development methodology helps to reuse earlier requirements, designs and code during systems development.5.9) Our systems development methodology helps to involve end-users in systems development projects. 5.10) Our systems development methodology helps to build management commitment in our systems development projects. 5.11) Our systems development methodology helps to get the systems accepted.


6.1) Our systems development methodology helps to decompose the system to be developed into workable parts. 6.2) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the size of the system to be developed. 6.3) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the time and effort required for the development of a planned system.6.4) Our systems development methodology helps to plan systems development projects. 6.5) Our systems development methodology helps in defining useful milestones for our systems development projects. 6.6) Our systems development methodology helps to organize systems development projects. 6.7) Our systems development methodology helps to keep our systems development projects under control. 6.8) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the project risks.6.9) Overall, our systems development methodology helps us to manage our systems development projects.


17In the case of reliabilities, the figure before the slash refers to the IS developer data and the figure after the slash to the IT manager data.

18Reliability analysis indicated that item 3 in the three-item measure of the hierarchical culture (items 3, 7, and 11) and item 4 of the measure for the rationalculture (items 4, 8, and 12) reduced the reliability substantially. Therefore these two items were deleted from the final instruments.


7. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)

7.1) Our systems development methodology defines our desired systems development practice.7.2) Our systems development methodology describes a sound way of developing systems. 7.3) Our systems development methodology forms a useful standard for our systems development. 7.4) Our systems development methodology reminds me about the activities/tasks of systems development. 7.5) Our systems development methodology provides a useful list of possible systems development activities. 7.6) Our systems development methodology provides useful guidelines for conducting systems development. 7.7) Our systems development methodology provides a useful tool-box of techniques to be applied. 7.8) Our systems development methodology defines an ideal process of systems development that is useful, even though it is not

followed in practice. 7.9) Without a systems development methodology one cannot estimate how systems development should be conducted. 7.10) Our systems development methodology allows us to learn from our systems development experience. 7.11) Without a systems development methodology it is impossible to evaluate our systems development practice.


8.1) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more functional systems. 8.2) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more reliable systems. 8.3) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more maintainable systems. 8.4) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more portable systems. 8.5) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more efficient systems. 8.6) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more usable systems. 8.7) Overall, our systems development methodology helps to develop better systems. 8.8) Overall, our systems development methodology helps to make users more satisfied with our systems.


9.1) Our systems development methodology helps to develop new applications faster.9.2) Our systems development methodology helps to im-prove the functionality of new applications. 9.3) Our systems development methodology helps to increase the productivity of the application developers.9.4) Our systems development methodology helps to de-crease the cost of systems development. 9.5) Our systems development methodology helps to im-prove the quality of the systems. 9.6) Our systems development methodology helps to decrease the cost of systems maintenance. 9.7) Our systems development methodology helps to improve the documentation of the systems. 9.8) Our systems development methodology improves the morale in our IS department.9.9) Our systems development methodology helps to achieve the goals of our IS department. 9.10) Our systems development methodology helps to improve our IS department’s reputation for excellent work.

Appendix B

Details of the Analysis of Measurement Instruments

Table B1 lists all of the constructs used with associated measurement instruments, factor structures and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities.17 Allthe measurement instruments, except that for OC, were specifically developed for the present study. Organizational culture was measured usingthe instrument suggested by Yeung et al. (1991).18 Vertical use was measured as the maximum intensity of organizational usage of 29 listed



Table B1. The Measurement Instruments with Associated Factor Structures and ReliabilitiesConstruct Questions in Appendix 1 Reliability

Organizational culture• group culture orientation• developmental culture orientation• hierarchical culture orientation• rational culture orientation

Section 1 – Question 1• items 1, 5, 9• items 2, 6, 10• items 7, 11• items 8, 12

0.68/–0.69/–0.63/–0.68/–

Vertical use Section 2 – Questions 1-2• 1 item –

Horizontal use Section 2 – Questions 3-4• 2 items –/0.89

Perceived SDM support as production technology• factor 1: Support for organizational alignment• factor 2: Support for technical design• factor 3: Support for verification and validation

Section 2 – Question 5• items 1, 2, 9-11• items 3, 4, 5, 8• items 6, 7

0.90/0.910.84/0.820.94/0.91

Perceived SDM support as control technology• one factor

Section 2 – Question 6• 9 items 0.94/0.92

Perceived SDM support as cognitive and cooperation technology• factor 1: Support for the common conception of systems development

practice• factor 2: Support for the evaluation of systems development practice

Section 2 – Question 7• items 1–8, 10

• items 9, 11

0.92/0.92

0.79/0.92Perceived SDM impact on the quality of the systems developed • one factor

Section 2 – Question 8• 8 items 0.95/0.93

Perceived SDM impact on the quality and productivity of thedevelopment process• factor 1: Productivity effects and morale• factor 2: Quality effects, goal achievement and reputation

Section 2 – Question 9

• items 1–4, 8• items 5, 6, 9, 10

0.89/0.900.94/0.92

methods, other possible standard (commercial) methods, and possible methods developed in-house. Horizontal use was measured using twoitems, the proportion of projects that are developed in the IT department by applying systems development knowledge, and the proportion ofpeople in the IT department that use SDM knowledge regularly.

The distinction between perceived SDM support as production technology, perceived SDM support as control technology, and perceived SDMsupport as cognitive and cooperation technology was adapted from Henderson and Cooprider (1990). The nature of the present survey did notallow their detailed questions to be used to measure the functionalities in question, and so a shorter version was adopted here. Perceived SDMsupport as production technology was measured using 11 items. Factor analysis using the developer data gave only one factor and that usingthe manager data three factors. The following analysis uses the more detailed factor structure. Perceived SDM support as control technologywas measured using nine items. Separate factor analyses based on the developer data and the manager data gave only one factor. PerceivedSDM support as cognitive and cooperation technology was measured using 11 items. The selection of items was inspired by Iivari andMaansaari (1998). Separate factor analyses based on the developer data and the manager data gave very similar factor structures, comprisingtwo factors: “support for the common conception of systems development practice” and “support for the evaluation of systems developmentpractice.”

Perceived SDM impact on the quality of the systems developed was measured using eight items adopted from the ISO 9126 standard (ISO 1990).Separate factor analyses based on both the developer data and the manager data gave only one factor. Perceived SDM impact on the qualityand productivity of the development process was measured using 10 items, but item 7 was deleted from the final instrument because it reducedthe reliability considerably. Factor analysis using the developer data gave only one factor, and factor analysis based on the manager data twofactors: “productivity effects and morale” and “quality effects, goal achievement, and reputation.” The following analyses use the moredetailed factor structure.



Appendix CTheory Building Versus Theory Testing Research and Research Methods

Theory-creating research is sometimes associated with qualitative and interpretive research methods and theory-testing research withquantitative research methods (e.g., Järvinen 2001). We see that this is based on misreading of the existing literature. Benbasat et al. (1987)concluded that case studies, as a research method, are particularly appropriate in situations in which research and theory are at their formativestages, and Eisenhardt (1989) suggests a detailed process for developing theory from case studies. However, according to our reading theirpoint is not that case studies, or qualitative/idiographic methods more generally, are the only research methods appropriate for “inductive,”empirically inspired theory creation. One reason is that no general statement can be inferred inductively, in the sense of strict induction, fromexisting empirical observations (Chalmers 1999). Theory creation always includes creative imagination (Weick 1989) that goes beyondempirical observations (Langley 1999).

The crucial question then becomes what sort of observations inspire this creative imagination. One could speculate that qualitative/idiographicresearch methods are better for this creative process, because of the richer data and more flexible data collection (Langley 1999), also allowingparadoxical evidence (Eisenhardt 1989). We are not aware, however, of any empirical evidence to show that qualitative/idiographic researchmethods have really been more effective than quantitative/nomothetic methods in producing empirical observations that inspire novel theories.One can attempt, of course, to assess the potential strengths and weaknesses of alternative research methods. Eisenhardt, for example, suggeststhree strengths of case studies: theory building from cases is likely to generate novel theory, the emergent theory is likely to be testable, andthe resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid. She also identifies two weaknesses: intensive use of empirical data can yield theory thatis excessively complex, and it can result in narrow, idiosyncratic theory.

Malhotra and Grover (1998) distinguish exploratory surveys (including descriptive surveys) and explanatory surveys, associating the formerwith hypothesis generation and the latter with hypothesis testing. If one applies the strengths and weaknesses of theory building from casestudies as suggested by Eisenhardt to exploratory surveys, one can expect the resultant theoretical model to be just as testable as theories derivedfrom case studies. Furthermore, they are likely to be more parsimonious and more general. We do not see any reason to doubt that a theoryinspired by quantitative observations is empirically any less valid than a theory inspired by qualitative data, even though theory creation in theformer case may be inspired more by empirical generalizations accomplished through sample summarization and parameter estimation (Wallace1983). In conclusion, we contend that no empirical research method should be excluded a priori as inappropriate for exploratory, theory-building research.

Appendix DThe Relationships Between Culture Orientations and the Deploymentof Systems Development Methodologies

Multiple regression analysis includes a number of assumptions (Hair et al. 1992). The linearity of the relationships was tested visually usingstandardized residual and partial regression plots. None of the variables violated this assumption. Homoscedasticity was tested visually usingthe standardized residual and observed values plots. None of the variables violated this assumption. The independence of the residuals wasassessed using the Durbin-Watson statistics, with the value 2 indicating that there is no autocorrelation. The values varied between 1.65 and2.06 in the case of the manager data, and between 1.67 and 2.13 in the case of the developers, with the exception of vertical use, which hada value of 1.42. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Lilliefors 1967). Violations weredetected (p < 0.05) in the regressions with vertical use as the dependent variable for both the manager and developer data. Multi-collinearitywas tested using the tolerance values. The lowest tolerance value was 0.43 in the case of the developer data and 0.40 in that of the managerdata. These values far exceeded the cutoff value of 0.10 suggested by Hair et al. (1992). Taken together, the specific assumptions of multipleregression analysis were reasonably well satisfied.

Tables D1 through D4 describe the results of the multiple regression analyses used to investigate the relationship between organizational cultureand SDM deployment. Table D1 shows the relationship between the cultural dimensions and factors of perceived SDM support as production



technology, Table D2 the relationship between the culture orientations and perceived SDM support as control and cognitive and cooperationtechnologies, Table D3 the relationship between the cultural dimensions and SDM use, and, finally, Table D4 the relationship between cultureorientations and perceived SDM impact on the quality of systems developed and the quality and productivity of the systems developmentprocess.

Table D1. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and Perceived SDM Support as ProductionTechnology

Support for OrganizationalAlignment

Support for TechnicalDesign

Support for Verification andValidation

ß ß ß

Group culture De: -0.02Ma: -0.21

De: 0.03Ma: -0.09

De: 0.00Ma: -0.19

Developmental culture De: 0.18Ma: 0.02

De: 0.33’Ma: 0.33

De: 0.39*Ma: 0.11

Hierarchical culture De: 0.17Ma: 0.26’

De: 0.07Ma: 0.20

De: 0.41**Ma: 0.32*

Rational culture De: 0.10Ma: -0.27

De: 0.05Ma: -0.35’

De: -0.15Ma: -0.13

R2

Adjusted R2

De: 0.12Ma: 0.18’

De: 0.06Ma: 0.10

De: 0.17*Ma: 0.09

De: 0.11Ma: 0.01

De: 0.29***Ma: 0.11

De: 0.24Ma: 0.03

‘p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001

Table D2. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and Perceived SDM Support as Control andCognitive and Cooperation Technologies

Support as ControlTechnology

Support for a CommonConception of SystemsDevelopment Practice

Support for the Evaluation ofSystems Development

Practice

ß ß ß

Group culture De: -0.13Ma: -0.19

De: 0.06Ma: -0.09

De: 0.16Ma: -0.14


De: 0.20Ma: -0.03

De: -0.01Ma: 0.33

De: -0.03Ma: 0.18

Hierarchical culture De: 0.36*Ma: 0.15

De: 0.28’Ma: 0.20

De: 0.13Ma: 0.22


De: 0.02Ma: -0.18’

De: 0.02Ma: -0.20

R2

Adjusted R2

De: 0.19*Ma: 0.09

De: 0.13Ma: 0.01

De: 0.09Ma: 0.07

De: 0.03Ma: 0.02

De: 0.05Ma: 0.15

De: -0.02Ma: -0.07

‘p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001



Table D3. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and SDM UseVertical SDM Use Horizontal SDM Use

ß ß

Group culture De: -0.24Ma: 0.14

De: -Ma: -0.06

Developmental culture De: -0.03Ma: 0.20

De: -Ma: 0.09

Hierarchical culture De: 0.25’Ma: 0.19

De: -Ma: 0.10

Rational culture De: -0.02Ma: -0.34’

De: -Ma: -0.21

R2

Adjusted R2

De: 0.12’Ma: 0.07

De: 0.06Ma: 0.00

De: -Ma: 0.04

De: -Ma: -0.04

‘p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001

Table D4. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and the Perceived Impact of SDM onthe Quality of the Systems Developed and the Quality and Productivity of the SystemsDevelopment Process

Impact on the Qualityof the Systems

DevelopedProductivity Effects

and Morale

Quality Effects, GoalAchievement and

Reputation

ß ß ß

Group culture De: 0.07Ma: -0.07

De: 0.12Ma: -0.16

De: 0.13Ma: -0.10

Developmental culture De: 0.11Ma: 0.17

De: 0.25Ma: 0.41’

De: 0.04Ma: 0.19

Hierarchical culture De: 0.07Ma: 0.16

De: -0.04Ma: 0.10

De: 0.03Ma: 0.16


De: 0.09Ma: -0.34’

De: 0.20Ma: -0.39’

R2

Adjusted R2

De: 0.13’Ma: 0.06

De: 0.07Ma: -0.02

De: 0.15’Ma: 0.10

De: 0.09Ma: 0.02

De: 0.10Ma: 0.11

De: 0.04Ma: 0.03

‘p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001

the relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of systems development...

Documents