Current Challenges and Opportunities for Systems Management and Development
Introduction
Information Systems Management (ISM) entails using information technology to support the core functions and activities of an organization. ISM thus refers to the primary integration of computers and related technology in the day to day functionalities of enterprises, private and public organizations. Information system management is essential for planning, structuring, together with direction and control of functions required in an organization so as to achieve an effective IS for both its domestic and international needs.
In the increasingly competitive business environment, organizations are faced with a myriad of challenges relating to systems management and development. IS departments currently face strategy and management challenges which stem from the rapidly changing location of major IT infrastructure such as cloud computing, virtualization; the organizational function of IS (e.g. offshoring, outsourcing, nearshoring, crowdsourcing); and IS capabilities (e.g. collaborative innovation, boundary spanning, value co-creation). Furthermore, the increasingly pervasive trends in digitalization as well as technological convergence have posed complexity and newer dimensions to business strategies, processes and managerial decisions.
On the other hand, there exist a host of opportunities for IS departments which can be achieved through following a well-defined methodology. This entails determining and structuring requirements, project planning and implementation, testing, and maintenance.
Agile Development
The current dynamic business climate requires consistent adaptations of structures, policies, and strategies to comply with the new environment. The current traditional information system development and management methodologies lack flexibility required to dynamically adjust to the process (Shore & Warden, 2007, p.245). While the contemporary methodologies such as Object-oriented and life-cycle-based structured approaches offer a viable method of developing information systems, agile development methodologies (also called lightweight methodologies), provide extra capability in addressing the limitations the traditional plan-drive methodologies (Madeyski, L., 2009, p. 114).
The agile approach is comparatively a more general philosophy of development compared to traditional methodologies (Rosenberg, 2010, p. 45). The philosophy includes several principles captured in the Agile Manifesto, where the significance of the agile values are stressed as follows:
1. More value is placed on individuals and interactions than on processes and tools.
2. More value is placed on working software than on comprehensive documentation.
3. More value is placed on customer collaboration than on contract negotiation.
4. More value is placed on responding to change than on following a plan.
The concept of agile development is founded in the definition of the project, “Agile software development is based on fundamental changes to what we considered essential to software development ten years ago” (Bekker and Vermeeren, 1996, p. 115). The diagram below represents the fundamentals of agile development.
(Stober & Hansmann 2009, 174).
Opportunities/Benefits of Agile Development
Agile development approaches help an organization to produce first delivery in a matter of weeks, achieve fast win together with rapid feedback, to produce new simple solutions, so that there is little to change and the changes are easier, to realize improved continuous design quality, making the subsequent iteration more less costly to implement, and undertake earlier, less expensive tests for any defects in the system (Stair et al 2009, p. 500). The primary principles of agile approaches include an unforgiving straightforwardness of working code, and focuses on building teamwork where individuals work together with genuine goodwill. Agile development methods have characteristic common sense methods such as less documentation needed, people matter, and communication plays a crucial role (Stober & Hansmann, 2009, p. 212). Agile development therefore promotes adaptive planning, a time-framed iterative approach, evolutionary development & delivery, besides encouraging rapid flexible response to change (Stair et al 2009, p. 500).
In general, agile development improves efficiency by bringing about superior capabilities in a range of areas such as:
• Control: agile development makes available accurate, actionable information that allows for rapid decision making at all levels of the organization (Rosenberg 2010, p. 146). It thus produces superior control of organizational activities.
• Transparency – the agile methodologies enables team members to figure out the relevant information to their individual task, as well other information they may want to access.
• Risk management – the agile approach allows for speedy detection of any suboptimal performance along with identification of causes, which in turn allows for prompt action to be taken in order to contain the risk and execute contingency plans (Stair & Reynolds, 2009, p. 241).
• Distributed workload – agile approaches allows for easier distribution of workload optimally between the central office and the field. In addition, the in-house team gets improved capability to handle a multitude of tasks that were traditionally at high cost, and completing the tasks much faster.
• Waste and rework minimization – given that agile development emphasizes on identifying problems and their cause much quickly, the management is able to eliminate the issues causing errors, and minimizing recurrences as opposed to tolerating errors and fixing them at a later date (Rosenberg 2010, p. 146).
Challenges/Problems of Agile Development
Given that most IS Departments are deeply steeped in the contemporary systems development methodologies, adopting the new agile methodologies poses a number of challenges. In order to adequately adopt agile development methodologies, the IS department would have to undertake phenomenal complex organizational changes which would be attained through mere replacement of the current tools and technologies with new ones (Grant et al, 2010, p. 301). Such changes would involve elements of the organization such as structure, organizational culture, together with management practices. This implies that the significant differences between traditional methodologies and new agile methodologies requires the organization to rethink its goals, reconfigure its managerial, human, and technology aspects so to be successful in implementing agile methodologies. In general, therefore, agile development has significant organizational, management, process, technological, and people issues.
a) Management & organizational issues – Organizational culture bears immense impact on the social structure of an IT organization, which consequently affects the behavior and actions of its members. Organizational culture significantly influences the decision-making processes, innovative practices, problem-solving strategies, information filtering, planning and control procedures, social relationships and negotiations within the organization (Ariav, 1992, p. 85). This translates that it is particularly difficult to change the culture and mindsets of people, something that renders transition to agile methodologies rather challenging. An organizational culture that encourages such shift must be flexible and responsive enough to take advantages of synergy (Barlow, 1990, p. 8).
Traditional development approaches make use of much documentation for information storage and management. Conversely, agile methodologies favor lean thinking and reducing overhead, especially documentation (Beyer & Holzblatt, 1997, p. 115). The bulk of the knowledge in agile development is largely tacit and found in the heads of development team members. This implies that there is much reliance on the development teams, creating a power shift from the management or leadership to the development team. Such state of affairs often does ogre well in many organizations (Bhimani, 2006, p. 72).
Furthermore, the fact that agile development depends greatly on teamwork, instead of individual role assignment identified with traditional development, makes it more challenging to adopt. The adoption of the new information management system requires teams to put in more effort in implementing it. During the developmental phase, the teams often get stressed from increased responsibilities that result in change burnout (Boivie et al, 2003, p. 631). While it is implementing the managing approach in phases may help in reducing or avoiding team burnout, the undertaking is often expensive and less efficient in terms of productivity.
b) People-related issues – Agile development has high requirements for a cooperative process having excellent communication and collaboration among the team members. This presents a problem for people who are used to solitary activities or working with homogeneous groups of designers and analysts (Boivie et al, 2006, p. 627). Such individuals would find it particularly challenging to engage in pair programming as well as collaborative decision making. Similarly, agile development has special demands on staffing and staff morale. It is often difficult to get enough personnel with the knowhow on software development considering that agile development is a recent concept. Further, it is highly likely to create a new culture of elitism inside the systems development team that would in turn deal a blow to the moral of non-agile developers (Borgholm & Madsen, 1999, p. 94).
Pluralist decision making is also a problematic area in the agile environment. It often takes much time, effort, and patience for an organization to realize a culture of respect and trust among its staff to enable collaborative decision making. Similarly, agile development strategy entails much communication between the organization and consumer (Boynton, 2004, p. 357). Maintaining constant communication for the entire long implementation period often proves challenging and reduces the acceptability of the agile development strategy. As such, successful agile development depends on finding collaborative, authorized, representative, committed, and knowledgeable customers who would actively participate in the entire development process (Bruggeman, 2004, p. 168).
c) Process-related issues – the agile development approach entails the challenging problem of changing practices and attitudes from process-centric to people-centered. Agile methodologies depend on planning, or speculation with the belief that everything is uncertain, to guide speedy development of the relatively flexible and adaptive systems (Catarci et al, 2002, p. 133). A great barrier to transition s the needed change in process model from the traditional lifecycle model to the new feature-based development that uses evolutionary along with iterative development. Such significant changes require major alteration to communication channels, work procedures, problem-solving strategies, tools and techniques, along with roles of people (Chenhall, 2003, p. 148).
Another challenge that development manager would encounter is selecting the most appropriate method from a range of agile methodologies that are currently on offer. Although all agile methods subscribe to the same tenets spelled out in the agile manifesto, they differ in team size, duration of individual iterative cycle, code ownership, emphasis placed on upstream and downstream activities, as well as the procedures for immediate feedback and change (Clegg et al, 1997, p. 863).
d) Technological issues – the current technology of a organization greatly affects its efforts to shift to agile methodologies. This means that companies that rely entirely on mainframe technologies would find it exceptionally challenging to adopt agile methods as compare to organizations that employ OO development methodologies. As such, companies planning to migrate to agile techniques must heavily invest in tools that would support and facilitate fast iterative development, configuration management, and other agile methodologies (Constantine, 2002, p. 8). In addition, people must be extensively trained on the use of the new information software. Managing of software systems has also incredible amounts of risks. Agile development has its own range of risks that compromise the productivity of the organization. The implementation process calls for adoption of risk management techniques against any threats or risks to the performance of the organization (Damodaran, 1996, p. 369).
Quality control is another challenge associated with agile development, especially where teams are involved. The quality control process and the manner in which it suits the software development process largely determines the quality of the end product and usually impact the production schedule, the project budget, the scoped of delivered functionality, thus impacting the client business opportunities (Dechow & Mouritsen, 2005, p. 727). Teams that are expected to meet high level of quality often face varied challenges associated with the adoption of the new program. This often translates that customers may encounter a change in the quality of the overall products and services, which may result in unhappy customers or loss or clients altogether. The implementation of the agile development system in information system places increased constant pressure and stress on employees who strive to improve and maintain high quality standards (Dechow et al, 2007, p. 55).
The planning and testing phases of the agile system implementation present certain challenges to an organization. The planning process entails setting timelines and targets to be fulfilled in transitioning into new unfamiliar territories, which in itself is challenging for an organization (Deschoolmeester & Braet, 2004, p. 146). Successful implementation requires that the team goes through a testing period, where performance of the agile development system is analyzed. This testing phase is quite intensive because it requires double checking of the processes, responsibilities, results and related production necessities (Efendi et al, 2006, p. 121). The period is characteristically labor-intensive and often means additional expenses to the firm.
Cloud Computing
Cloud Computing is defined as “a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing services e.g. networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction” (NIST, 2012, p.1). Cloud Computing entails hardware and systems software, together with application are provided as services over the Internet (Antonopoulos & Gilam, 2010, p.3). The typical attributes of Cloud Computing are: (1) On-demand self-service; (2) broad network access; (3) resource pooling; (4) rapid elasticity (scalability); (5) measured service. Cloud Computing has three service major models, namely: (1) Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS); Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS); Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS) (Elder, 2003, p. 12). Cloud Computing has key enabling technologies which include: fast wide-area networks; powerful, less expensive server computers; and super-performance virtualization for the commodity hardware.
Benefits of Cloud Computing
The Cloud Computing model provides an opportunity for great reduction of costs as well as increased IT agility. Embracing Cloud Computing means that an organization is undertaking asset-lite strategies which serve to eliminate fixed costs through outsourcing to external specialized firms (Fitzgerald, 1998, p. 324). Adoption of Cloud Computing services has the impact of dramatically speeding up the introduction of new relevant technologies within the firm and enables IT to be more effective in supporting the activities of the organization (Graham, 2004, p. 346).
Cloud Computing also brings about empowerment to the workforce and customers who are the end-users of computing resources. The provisioning of the resources are placed in the control of the end-users, and not under the traditional centralized IT service. Furthermore, Cloud Computing is an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables computers with cloud software in the same manner the user interface that enables interaction between people and computers (Granlund & Mouritsen, 2003, p. 80).
Cloud Computing model significantly reduces cost of operations for an organization. In particular, capital expenditure is able to be converted into operational expenditure in the public cloud delivery model. This has the advantage of reducing barriers to entry because the hosting infrastructure is offered by a third-party, ruling out the need to purchase them for either one-time or infrequent computing tasks (Grudin, 1991, p. 65). In addition, the model has the advantage of multi-tenancy which enables sharing of both costs and resources across a very large pool of user. This allows for centralization of infrastructure in specific locations having lower costs. Further, users are saved from the need to engineers for higher load levels because the peak-load capacity is increased through multi-tenancy (Gulliksen et al, 2006, p. 569). There is also improved utilization and efficiency for systems that are often underutilized.
There is also greater reliability of Cloud Computing model where multiple redundant sites are utilized. This makes the model highly suitable for not only business continuity but also disaster recovery (Gulliksen et al, p. 404). In the Cloud Computing environment, performance is constantly monitored while loosely coupled architectures constructed via web services which is the service interface. Maintenance of the Cloud Computing application is comparatively easier given that they do not require installation of every user’s computer and access is possible from different locations (Hagel &Brown, 2001, p. 110). The security of cloud computing is usually as good as and in some instances, better than other contemporary systems, because the providers devote their resources to dealing with security issues that are expensive to customers.
Cloud Computing also provides significant location and device independence which enables to access the systems through a web browser without the limitations of either location (off-site infrastructure) or device such as personal computer and mobile phone (Jacobson et al, 1999, p. 124). Similarly, virtualization technology enables servers and storage devices to be promptly shared and increase utilization. This is especially the case because application can be migrated easily from one physical server to another.
Nonetheless, there are a number of concerns that relate to Cloud Computing. Success with the Cloud service is dependent on having clarity on the reason for adopting it. Its successful implementation to realize targeted benefits necessitates a detailed strategy and clear implementation plans (Keen, 1993, p. 451).
Challenges to Cloud Computing
Though Cloud Computing services are relatively easier to use and less expensive in comparison to traditional in-house IT services, they bring about added complexity to the operations of established organizations venturing into the evolving cloud computing market (Larman, 2004, p. 342). This is especially because Cloud Computing introduces new, multilayered revenue streams with characteristic complex uncertain security, portability, privacy, tax, compliance and control implications for both users and providers alike.
Adoption of Cloud Computing often results in corporate culture shock. This is because organizations often have developed the belief that “we can do it better ourselves.” It is often a big shift for IT managers to detach themselves from the existing technical implementation and focus on differentiate value-add for the firm (Leavitt, 1965, p. 178). It is particularly challenging for the IT managers to switch from their traditional role as in-house provider of services to manager of external service providers. Similarly, Cloud computing is a new concept that requires users obtaining new information, techniques and strategies of using the resource. The users of cloud computing need more guidance on the working of the system, as from the description it provides different platforms of operation (Orlikowski, 1991, p. 32). Requiring guidance in cloud computing is justifiable in the concept that a user of SaaS, IaaS or PaaS, has different requirements to meet to effectively use the cloud computing ideology. The guidance is necessitated by the lack of expertise and knowledge on the providers and users terminals. The guidance relates to issues of application, purchases, IT resource assessing and management, with government also playing a role in the management concept (Peper et al, 1990, p. 146).
There is also the feeling of loss of control among cloud users who now cannot manage their IT environment directly as they control IT infrastructure via their interaction with the cloud service providers as well as service level agreements (Poltrock & Grudin, 1994, p. 61). This calls for skills that IT organizations are yet to have, something that necessitates reinventing themselves prior to making shift to Cloud Computing.
Information security is a major concern for users of Cloud Computing. There is much concern over lack of security for the stored personal information on cloud. The complexity of security increases as data is distributed over wider areas or large number of devices in multi-tenant systems that are shared by lots of unrelated users (Prahalad & Krishnan, 2002, p. 27). In addition, accessibility of the user to security audit logs is often difficult if not impossible. This is why an increasing number of user are favoring private cloud installations so as they can have control over the infrastructure and avert loss of control of their information security.
In the same light, Cloud Computing poses privacy concerns. This is because Cloud Computing complicates how the CSPs safeguard the personal information of their customers, employees, and business partners, so as to meet the legal and ethical requirements relating to privacy regulations (Truex et al, 2000, p. 65).
There are also regulatory compliance concerns relating to Cloud Computing. Given that cloud services are typically provided by virtualization of both hardware and software which could be located anywhere in the world, there are questions about exactly whose regulatory compliance rules are to be adhered to (UStudy, 2010, p. 82). Similarly, there exist few standards to simplify the interoperability between cloud services and enterprise systems and cloud providers. The lack of standards has the potential of posing obstacles to recovery of data, be it for the purpose of shifting from one cloud service provide to another or for legal discovery.
Lastly, the nature of cloud computing is dependent on the supply and demand forces of the market. A challenge in the system is the procurement of services as the market demand or consumption changes. The service offered in cloud computing is hard to define and regulate since the demand by the market defines what the service provider is expected to provide to the users (Borgholm, and Madsen 1999, p. 101). Fluctuations in the cloud computing market is a challenge to both the clients and service providers due to issues of competition, competitive advantage, reliability, quality and other business defined operation parameters. Due to such issues the concept of cloud computing requires various planning and implementation structures that shall aid in management, regulation and control over the technology (Boivie, Gulliksen and Goransson, 2006, p. 623).
Green Computing
Green computing is a concept developed that focuses on the idea of effectively using computing resources, while observing minimal impact on the environmental, maximizing the viability of the venture economically while encompassing the responsibility social duties (Beck, 2000, p. 123). The idea of green computing is based on the requirement of improving the efficiency as well as the life of the products used in computing. Green computing involves minimizing the amount of energy dissipated during the use of computing resources (Chenhall 2003, p. 121).
Green computing implementation may be implemented after an analysis of the benefits to the organizations. The Dematel technique involves numerical calculations that result to graphical theory that facilitate arranging and deciphering of problems with visual aid. Therefore, segregating several principles into a cause and effect cluster that increases the competency of contributory associations is used to draw network diagrams such as diagraphs used to exhibit direct associations of systems and their sub counterparts. This technique involves four stages of quantitative evaluation based on a specific criterion. The steps begin by determining a standard matrix, which is used to determine a standardized preliminary direct connective matrix that is eventually used to determine a total connective matrix that determines a verging numerical finally used in drawing the network diagram specifically showing connectivity in a network relationship map (NRM) (Borgholm, and Madsen 1999, p. 96).
Determining a standard matrix is the first stage that involves numerical calculation of a number of experts who have an opinion on a specific criterion. The number of experts (N) give an opinion on how a specific criterion affects another one specifically criterion a and b respectively. This evaluation is represented by Hab with each opinion given a rank from 0-4 whose numbers symbolize a null opinion, low opinion, medium opinion, high opinion and excellent opinion respectively. The standard matrix symbolized by yxy= S is then computed with the following formula [Hab]yxy=1/N ∑Nk=1[xkab] yxy, which is also referred to as the preliminary direct connective matrix that shows an impact of one criterion on the other. The second stage involves determining the standardized preliminary direct connective matrix C using the following formula E= max (max1≤a≤y∑b=1Hab, max1≤b≤y∑a=1Hab) that is used in the next formula, C=S/E. E determines the computation of rows a and b of matrix S therefore symbolizing the total impact of criterion a with the other criterion and vice versa with criterion b on a (Catarci, Matarazzo and Raiss, 2002, p. 125).
The third stage involves computing the a total connective matrix M of the initial yxy by the following formula max1≤a≤y ∑yb-1Hab, with M=[mab] and a,b=1,2……., which finally develops a new formula M=C+C2+Ct=C(1+ C+C2+….+Ct-1)=C|(1+ C+C2+….+Ct-1)(1-C)|(1-C)-1=C(1-C)-1, as t ∞ and |(1+ C+C2+….+Ct-1)(1-C)|= (1-C)m. Finally, the rows and columns are defined in terms of o and l vectors that are used to compute the sum of the total connective matrix developing the following formulas o=[o a] yx1=(∑yb=1 mab) yx1 and l=[l b]’ yx1=(∑ya=1 mab)’yx1. This rows and columns lead to the equalization between a=b therefore determining the sum (oa+lb) giving an indicator that symbolizes the impact specified and expected by criterion (Schoonhoven 1981). The difference that is (oa-lb) provides a net impact of a on the application tested. The following correlations are therefore formed from (oa-lb) where if positive and negative cause them to be a net specified and expected respectively (Alter 1976.)
The fourth stage that involves determining a verging numerical, z elaborates the organizational association among the criteria above therefore managing the convolution of the application (Credit risk assessment) by sorting negligible impact in matrix M (Damodaran, 1996, p. 370). The criteria whose impact on matrix M is greater than the verging numerical should be used on the network relationship map according to expert opinions. The final verging numerical is finally chosen and used on the map (Mockler 2003).
Conclusion
Success in business environment today heavily depends on maximizing technology and internet to fit in the competitive needs of supplier, other business partners and customer in the global marketplace. Information systems and their technologies have to be properly managed to support the organizational strategies, business operational and processes, culture and structure of a business enterprise. This is because computer-based information systems, are operated, designed, and used by staff in the variety of business settings and environments, even if they heavily depend on information technologies. It is therefore necessary for a company to fully access the risk factors and benefits that result from adopting newer information system management approaches such as agile development, cloud computing and green computing. Generally, the benefits outweigh the costs.
References:
Alter, S.L. 1976. ‘How effective managers use information systems,’ Harvard Business Review, 54 (6): pp. 97-104.
Ameels, A., Bruggeman, W., and Scheipers, G. 2002, ‘Value based management: An integrated approach to value creation – A literature review,
Applegate, L.M., Cash, J.I., and Quinn Mills, D. 1988, ‘Information technology and tomorrow’s manager,’ Harvard Business Review, 66 (6): 128-136.
Ariav, G., 1992, ‘Information systems for managerial planning and control: A conceptual examination of their temporal structure.’ Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2), 77-98.
Barlow, J., 1990, ‘Putting Information Systems Planning Methodologies Into Perspective,’ Journal of Systems Management, July, 1990, pp. 6-9.
Beck, K. 2000, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, Addison-Wesley.
Bekker, M.M., and Vermeeren, A.P.O.S. 1996, An analysis of user interface design projects: information sources and constraints in design. Interacting with Computers 8 (1), 112–116.
Beyer, H. and Holzblatt, K. 1997, Contextual design: A customer-centered approach to systems designs. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Bhimani, A., 2006, ‘Management accounting and digitization, in Bhimani,’ A. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Management Accounting (p. 69-93), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boivie, I., Aborg, C., Persson, J., and Lofberg, M., 2003, Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interacting with Computers, 15, 623–639.
Boivie, I., Gulliksen, J., and Goransson, B., 2006, The lonesome cowboy: A study of the usability designer role in systems development. Interacting with Computers, 18, 601–634.
Borgholm, T., Madsen, K.H., 1999, Cooperative usability practices. Communications of the ACM, 42 (5), 91–97.
Boynton, P. 2004, Selecting, Designing, and Developing your Questionnaire, BMJ publications, pp.328-396.
Bruggeman, W., 2004. Integrated performance measurement through effective management control. In Verweire, K. (ed.), Integrated Performance Management: A Guide to Strategy Implementation (p. 151-173). London: Sage.
Catarci, T., Matarazzo, G., and Raiss, G., 2002, Driving usability into the public administration: the Italian experience. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57, pp. 121–138.
Chenhall, R.H. 2003, Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28: 127-168.
Clegg, C., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., and Tomlinson, C., 1997, Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors. Ergonomics, 40 (9), 851–871.
Constantine, L.L. 2002, Process Agility and Software Usability: Toward Lightweight Usage-Centered Design. Information Age, (August-September), 1-10.
Damodaran, L. 1996, User involvement in the systems designs process—a practical guide for users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15 (16), 363–377.
Dechow, N. and Mouritsen, J. 2005, Enterprise resource planning systems, management control, and the quest for integration, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30 (7/8): 691-733.
Dechow, N., Granlund, M., and Mouritsen, J. 2007a, Management control of the complex organization: Relationships between management accounting and information technology, in Hopwood, A., Shields, M., and Chapman, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Management Accounting Research (p. 625-640), Oxford: Elsevier.
Dechow, N., Granlund, M., and Mouritsen, J. 2007b, Interactions between modern information technology and management control, in Hopper, T., Northcott, D., and Scapens, R. (eds.), Issues in Management Accounting (p. 45-64), Harlow, Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Deschoolmeester, D. and Braet, O. 2004, Strategic information systems alignment, in Verweire, K. (ed.), Integrated Performance Management: A Guide to Strategy Implementation (p. 135-151), London: Sage.
Dewar, R. & Werbel, J., 1979. Contingency and Universalistic Predictions of the Employee and Conflict Satisfaction, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 426-448.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. 2008, Management Research, 3rd ed., SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
Efendi, J., Mulig, E.V., and Smith, L.M. 2006, Information technology and systems research published in major accounting academic and professional journals, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 3: 117-128.
Eisenhardt, K. 1985, Control: Organizational and economic approaches, Management Science, 31 (2): 134-149.
Elder, H. 2003, Advanced process control: Opportunities, benefits, and barriers, Computing and Control Engineering, 14(5): 10-15
Eriksson, P & Kovalainen, A. 2008, Qualitative Methods in Business Research, 1st edn., Sage publications, London.
Fitzgerald, B. 1998, An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information & Management, 34, 317-328.
Forgang, W.G. 2004. Strategy-Specific Decision-Making: A Guide for Executing Competitive Strategy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., and Sheth, A. 1995, An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure, Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3 (2): 119-153.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. 2002. Research Methods for Managers. London: Paul Chapman.
Graham, P. 2004, ‘Monopoly, Monophony, and the Value of Culture in a Digital Age: An Axiology of two multimedia Resource Repositories,’ Canada research chairs program.
Granlund, M. and Malmi, T. 2002, Moderate impact of ERPS on management accounting: A lag or permanent outcome? Management Accounting Research, 13 (3): 299-321.
Granlund, M. and Mouritsen, J. 2003, Problematizing the relationship between management control and information technology, European Accounting Review, 12 (1): 77-83.
Grudin, J., 1991, Interactive systems: bridging the gaps between developers and users. IEEE Computer, 24 (4), 59–69.
Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., and Goransson, B. 2006, Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interacting with Computers, 18, 568-600.
Gulliksen, J., Goransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., and Cajander, A., 2003, Key principles for user centred systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, Special Section on Designing IT for Healthy Work, 22 (6), 397–409.
Hagel, J. and Brown, J.S. 2001, Your next IT strategy, Harvard Business Review, 79 (9): 105-113.
Halliburton 2010, Financial Reports; available at <http://ir.halliburton.com> (Retrieved on 13th September, 2011)
Hatch, K. 2006, organizational Theory, Oxford: oxford university press.
Hawkins, D. 2005, Introduction to the management control process, Harvard Business School Note 105-040.
Heerkens, G. 2001. Project Management. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Hsieh, H-F. and Shannon, S. E. 2005, Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9): 1277-88.
Hutchings, A.F., and Knox, S.T., 1995, Creating products Customer Demand. Communications of the ACM, 38 (5), 72–80.
Innes, J., & Mitchell, G., 1990. Management in Accounting, Management Accounting Research pp.3-19.
Jacka, M. and Keller, P. 2009, Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer Satisfaction, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jacobson, I., Booch, G., and Rumbaugh, R., 1999, The Unified Software Development Process. Reading, Addison Wesley.
Johnson, H.T. 1992. Relevance Regained: From Top-down Control to Bottom-up Empowerment. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Keen, P. 1993, Information Technology and the Measurement Difference: A Fusion Map, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1.
Kontzer, T. 2005 “Merger on the Fly,” Information Week, February 27th
Krauss, S.E. 2005. Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10 (4): 758-770.
Kullvén, H. and Mattsson, J. 1994, a management control model based on the customer service process, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5 (3): 14-25.
Kumar, R. 2005, ‘Research Methodology-a step-by-step guide for Beginners,’ 2 edn., Singapore, Person Education.
Kvale, S. 1996, Interviews: introduction to Qualitative research Interviews, California: Sage publications, London.
Langfield-Smith, K. 2006, Understanding management control systems and strategy, in Bhimani, A. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Management Accounting (p. 244-266), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larman, C., 2004. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide, Addison-Wesley. Microsoft 2004. Microsoft Solutions Framework.
Larman, C., and Basili, V. R. 2003, Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History. IEEE Computer 36 (6), 47-56. 16
Leavitt, H. J. 1965, Applying organizational change in industry: Structural, technological, and humanistic approaches, in March, J.G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lowe, E. A. 1971, On the idea of a management control system: Integrating accounting and management control, Journal of Management Studies, 8: 1-12.
Mak, Y.T., 1989. Contingency Fit, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, pp. 273-300.
Management: a report from the round table discussion held on March 25th 2009. London: Available at: www.bcipartnership.com/campaigns.html [Accessed 12th September 2011].
Merchant, K., 1985. Organizational Controls, the Organizations and the Society pp.67-85.
Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Rise & Fall of Strategic Planning, The Free Press, New York, NY
Mitroff, I. and Anagnos, G. 2000. Managing Crises Before they Happen: What Every Executive and Manager Needs to Know about Crisis Management. Saranac Lake, NY: AMACOM.
Mockler, R. 2003, A Look at the Management Control Process, Michigan: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Moore, P. 2008. The Role of Risk Managers and Continuity Planning. North Carolina
Moores, K., & Duncan K., 1989 Reconciliation of the Market Competition Relations pp. 67-80.
Mouritsen, J. 2005, Beyond accounting change: design and mobilization of management control systems, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 1 (1): 97-113.
Nelson, E. G., & Machin, J. L. 1976, October. Management control: Systems thinking applied to the development of a framework for empirical studies. Journal of Management Studies, 13(3), 274-287. New York, NY.
Nielsen, J., 1993, Usability Engineering. Boston, MA, Academic Press.
Orlikowski, W.J. 1991, Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory implications of information technology, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 1 (1): 9-42
Overby, S. (2006). “How to Save an Airline,” CIO Magazine, February 15th
Peper, G., MacIntyre, C. and Keenan, J. 1990, Hypertext: a new approach for implementing an expert system, Expert Systems for Information Management, 3 (2): 143-49.
Performance. New York: Free Press
Pettigrew, A., 1990. Longitudinal Practice and Theory, Organization Science pp 267-292.
Poltrock, S., and Grudin, J., 1994, Organizational obstacles to interface design and development: two participant—observer studies. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 1 (1), 52–80.
Prahalad, C.K. and Krishnan, M.S. 2002, The dynamic synchronization of strategy and information technology, Sloan Management Review, 43 (4): 24-33.
Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T. 2001, What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category, Management Accounting Research, 12 (4): 403-435.
Rajan, M. V. 1992, Autumn. Management control systems and the implementation of strategies. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(2), 227-248.
Reeves, T. K. and Woodward, J. “The Study of Managerial Control,” in Woodward, J. (Ed.), Industrial Organisation: Behaviour and Control, London: Oxford University Press, 1970 p. 38.
Scapens, R. and Jazayeri, M. 2003, ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunities or impacts? A research note, European Accounting Review, 12 (1): 201-233.
Schoonhoven, C.,1981, Contingency Theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.349-377.
Sommerville, I., 2001, Software Engineering. Harlow, Pearson Education.
Stapleton, J., 2003. DSDM: Business Focused Development. Harlow, Addison-Wesley.
Sutton, S.G. 2005, The role of AIS research in guiding practice, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 6 (1): 1-4.
Sutton, S.G. 2006, Enterprise systems and the re-shaping of accounting systems: a call for research, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 7 (1): 1-6.
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. 1998, Reflections on the use of qualitative methods, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Approach (p. 1-9), London: Sage Publications.
Tague, N. 2004, The Quality Toolbox, New Jersey, ASQ Quality Press.
Truex, D., Baskerville, R. and Travis, J. 2000, Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Systems 10: 53-79
UStudy, 2010, Information Technology Selection of Decisions, Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2), 77-98.
Wood, S., 1979. Contingency in Organization, The Journal of Management Studies pp.334-54.
