A fundamental problem in many disciplines is the classification of objects in a domain of interest into a taxonomy. Developing a taxonomy, however, is a complex process that has not been adequately addressed in the information systems (IS) literature. The purpose of this paper is to present a method for taxonomy development that can be used in IS. First, this paper demonstrates through a comprehensive literature survey that taxonomy development in IS has largely been ad hoc. Then the paper defines the problem of taxonomy development. Next, the paper presents a method for taxonomy development that is based on taxonomy development literature in other disciplines and shows that the method has certain desirable qualities. Finally, the paper demonstrates the efficacy of the method by developing a taxonomy in a domain in IS.

T hough information technology (IT) transformation programs are gaining in importance, we know little about the nature of the challenges involved in such programs and how to manage them. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted a multiyear case study of a large IT transformation program in a major commercial bank, during which we encountered the interrelated themes of paradoxes and ambidexterity. Grounded in our case, we construct a substantive theory of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs that identifies and explains the paradoxes that managers need to resolve in IT transformation programs. The ambidexterity areas we identified are (1) IT portfolio decisions (i.e., IT efficiency versus IT innovation), (2) IT platform design (i.e., IT standardization versus IT differentiation), (3) IT architecture change (i.e., IT integration versus IT replacement), (4) IT program planning (i.e., IT program agility versus IT project stability), (5) IT program governance (i.e., IT program control versus IT project autonomy), and (6) IT program delivery (i.e., IT program coordination versus IT project isolation). What weaves these six areas together is the combined need for IT managers to employ ambidextrous resolution strategies to ensure short-term IT contributions and continuous progress of IT projects while simultaneously working toward IT transformation program success as a foundation for IT-enabled business transformation. However, in addition to this commonality, we find that the nature of paradoxical tensions differs across the six areas and requires slightly different management strategies for paradox resolution. Ambidexterity areas (1), (2), and (3) are associated with IT transformation strategizing and, in addition to balancing short-and long-term goals, require the mutual accommodation and blending of business and IT interests in the spirit of IT-business partnering to achieve IT-enabled business change and IT-based competitiveness. Ambidexterity areas (4), (5), and (6) are associated with IT program and project execution and, in addition to balancing short-and long-term requirements, require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing "local" needs at the IT project level and "global" needs at the IT program level.

No abstract

No abstract

Taxonomies are classification systems that help researchers conceptualize phenomena based on their dimensions and characteristics. To address the problem of ‘ad-hoc’ taxonomy building, Nickerson et al. (2013) proposed a rigorous taxonomy development method for information systems researchers. Eight years on, however, the status quo of taxonomy research shows that the application of this method lacks consistency and transparency and that further guidance on taxonomy evaluation is needed. To fill these gaps, this study (1) advances existing methodological guidance and (2) extends this guidance with regards to taxonomy evaluation. Informed by insights gained from an analysis of 164 taxonomy articles published in information systems outlets, this study presents an extended taxonomy design process together with 26 operational taxonomy design recommendations. Representing an update for taxonomy designers, it contributes to the prescriptive knowledge on taxonomy design and seeks to augment both rigorous taxonomy building and evaluation.