Distributed IT championing: A process theory

Abstract

Championing is key to the success of an IT implementation. Recently, changes in the nature of technologies used in organizational contexts and changing organizational structures call for a renewed focus on IT championing in order to explain its distributed nature. Following an analytic induction approach and drawing from semi-structured interviews with 37 practitioners (physicians, residents, nurses, IT staff and administrators) in three healthcare-related settings, the study conceptualizes distributed IT championing as a process constituted of multiple individuals’ behaviors, unfolding over time, that proactively go beyond formal job requirements in support of an IT implementation. While multiple individuals may enact similar championing behaviors, the data indicates that multiple individuals may also enact distinct, yet complementary, championing behaviors over the course of the IT implementation. Overall, distributed IT championing evolves through cycles of distinct stages of bridging-in, bonding, and bridging-out, with each stage being shaped by different dimensions of social capital. Also, IT artifacts that are particularly generative appear more conducive to distributed IT championing than closed ones. This paper contributes to extant literature on IT championing by developing a process model of distributed IT championing in the context of an IT implementation.

Promoting Digital Innovation and Transformation : Innovation Champions in the Digital Age

“…Thus, extant IS literature defines IT championing as "being proactive in promoting and supporting innovative IT utilization" (Lin et al, 2014, p.2). Prior research has emphasized the significant role of champions for IT implementation of predominantly externally developed or acquired technology and in influencing users' technology beliefs and adoption decisions (e.g., Dong et al, 2007;Lee & Shim, 2007;Negoita et al, 2022;Tona et al, 2016).…”

“…The results of this analysis of innovation champions' structural and relational embeddedness, as presented by extant literature, are depicted on the right side of Table 10. From an network-actor perspective, digital technology has led to a significant shift for actors championing digital innovation: an emphasis on teams of innovation actors driving and co-championing innovation (e.g., Klerkx , characterized by the formation of loose networks or communities of innovation actors (Negoita et al, 2022), raises questions about suitable coordination mechanisms and the dynamics in network organizations.…”

“…The champions concept has been explored in the discipline in the last thirty years, since the research article by . However, the focus was to a great extent on champions of IT implementation (e.g., Negoita et al, 2022;Tona et al, 2016), but not the innovation process of digital or information technology. Additionally, Paper VII builds a comprehensive understanding of executive champions in IS by analyzing and reviewing the literature on the newly emerging role of the CDO and the established CIO, who can both take over the role of innovation champions.…”

“…Therefore, groups of champions have been characterized as rapidly changing and iteratively developing units . As a result of the distributed nature of championing, the social interaction between the different individuals collectively performing champion behaviors and leveraging distinct elements of social capital has moved to the foreground (Negoita et al, 2022;. Moreover, van Laere and Aggestam (2016) emphasize the need to hire innovation champions with complementary skills and to establish organizational structures enabling collaboration.…”

“…Yet, this shift away from individuals' outstanding and heroic roles in championing innovation is new. Thus, when studying IT champions Negoita et al (2022) focus on the championing behavior and the process of championing, but pay less attention to the role profile of the individual champion. Moreover, championing behavior within the group is considered to "form a meaningful whole" (van Laere & Aggestam, 2016, p.53).…”