Feral Information Systems Creation as Sensemaking

Houghton, Luke; Kerr, Donald

doi:10.3390/systems3040330

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of business knowledge in the IT organization [53,54] together with a lack of understanding due to insufficient communication [55] leads to unmet user needs [56][57][58]. Likewise, users are not sufficiently trained, for example, in operating the central system [59], and business processes are not sufficiently supported [22,60,61], for example, due to a high degree of process formalization with extensive documentation requirements even for small pilot projects [62,63]. Consequently, BUs make detrimental experiences with the IT organization over time [61,64], which leads to a low level of trust between BUs and the IT organization [41,65,66].…”

Section: M1 It Organization and Bu Non-alignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causing factors, outcomes, and governance of Shadow IT and business-managed IT: a systematic literature review

Klotz

Kopper

Westner

et al. 2022

IJISPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shadow IT and Business-managed IT describe the autonomous deployment/procurement or management of Information Technology (IT) instances, i.e., software, hardware, or IT services, by business entities. For Shadow IT, this happens covertly, i.e., without alignment with the IT organization; for Business-managed IT this happens overtly, i.e., in alignment with the IT organization or in a split responsibility model. We conduct a systematic literature review and structure the identified research themes in a framework of causing factors, outcomes, and governance. As causing factors, we identify enablers, motivators, and missing barriers. Outcomes can be benefits as well as risks/shortcomings of Shadow IT and Business-managed IT. Concerning governance, we distinguish two subcategories: general governance for Shadow IT and Business-managed IT and instance governance for overt Business-managed IT. Thus, a specific set of governance approaches exists for Business-managed IT that cannot be applied to Shadow IT due to its covert nature. Hence, we extend the existing conceptual understanding and allocate research themes to Shadow IT, Business-managed IT, or both concepts and particularly distinguish the governance of the two concepts. Besides, we find that governance themes have been the primary research focus since 2016, whereas older publications (until 2015) focused on causing factors.

show abstract

Section: M1 It Organization and Bu Non-alignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causing factors, outcomes, and governance of Shadow IT and business-managed IT: a systematic literature review

Klotz

Kopper

Westner

et al. 2022

IJISPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, FIS is applied as a general umbrella-term covering the more detailed divided definitions of Shadow systems and Workarounds, while in other cases a FIS is categorized alongside with these terms (Lund-Jensen, et al, 2016). A widely used definition is the one stated in the article (Houghton & Kerr, 2015), which includes a management perspective; "A FIS is a computerized information system, that is developed by individuals or groups of employees to help them with their work; it is not condoned by management nor is it part of the corporation's accepted information technology infrastructure." A broader definition is the one set by (Spierings, 2014), which defines the term FIS as "...any technological artefact (e.g., spreadsheets) that users employ instead of the mandated Enterprise System".…”

Section: Definition Of Fismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The articles groups as: 1) Why FISs emerge, 2) The positive and negative effect on a company caused by a FIS, 3) The IT-security risk caused by FIS, 4) Terminology of FISs, and 5) The identification of FIS. Spierings et al (2016) along with Houghton and Kerr (2015) aim for explanatory frameworks of emergence of FIS along the technical and managerial justification in this also involvement vs non-involvement from management and employees. Lund-Jensen et al (2016) and Urus et al (2011) is establishing a terminology and segmentation separating Feral Information Systems, Shadow Systems, and Workarounds.…”

Section: End-users Involvement In the Handling Of Fismentioning

confidence: 99%

End-User Involvement and Engagement in Feral Information Systems Governance: A Management Approach

2020

Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feral Information Systems (FIS) have for long been regarded as an organizational and technological phenomenon outside control of the management and representing a suboptimal opportunism of end-users. This paper investigates FIS as conversational and dyadic in management -end-users (employees) relations. The research question is how involvement and engagement in FIS is reflecting the completeness and insight of management in the operational organization. This paper is based on qualititative, interpretivistic and sociallyinspired case studies in Danish industry. The method is based on information systems research traditions. This study suggests a FIS Management framework to improve understanding of FIS as intermediator between (top) management, end-users (employees) and enterprise systems (ES). Using Business Process Lifecycle Management this paper develops a framework to clarify roles for transition between the feral and the enterprise level of technology emphasizing management responsibilities and shortcomings. Research, so far, has mainly focused on FIS from an artifactual or phenomenological viewpoint. This study's value is viewing FIS as driving factor in corporate management processes and intermediation in (mis)alignment between the management's understanding of technology and the end-users perception of technology. Feral (shadow) technologies are thus indicators for power-distance, employee autonomy and (dis)connect between top level management and the operational organization.

show abstract

“…If so, symbolic stories and personifications (such as the tripartite distinction of the soul) are converted into analogies. Subsequently, derived generalizations could be easily recalled from memory in the form of mental pictures, serving as an exemplary model for future storytelling, actions and sense-giving (Houghton and Kerr, 2015). Thus, Platonic philosophy provides a unified (generalized) view of all approaches to leading change, which can at any time become context specific.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading change and Plato

Georgiadis

Sarigiannidis

Theriou

2021

IJOTB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims at identifying critical components of leading change through relations of relevance with platonic philosophy. During this process, well-known aspects of change leadership are detected, but interpreted differently. Based on this relevance, a seven-stage tripartite model is proposed, in order to facilitate change implementation in the business world.Design/methodology/approachContemporary trends in leading change are reviewed and enriched with platonic insights. A synthetic analysis is attempted, in which philosopher stochasticity and discernment validates modern synergetic and anthropocentric approaches to the field of change leadership, featuring key behavioral and perceptual characteristics, emerging during change process.FindingsAs the process of change is highly dependent on human behavior, Plato grants an enriched approach of its origins and causal causes. Therefore, key change factors are not only discussed in the light of his worldview, but also upgraded through the distillation of applicable ideas, summarized in the proposed three phase model.Practical implicationsThe proposed tripartite model of leading change can function as a powerful guide of designing and successfully implement organizational change.Originality/valueThe screening of specific insights from platonic works in leading change conveys an alternative, more “poetic”, yet effectively flexible attitude endorsed and incorporated into a potentially applicable model.

show abstract

Feral Information Systems Creation as Sensemaking

Cited by 7 publications

References 36 publications

Causing factors, outcomes, and governance of Shadow IT and business-managed IT: a systematic literature review

Causing factors, outcomes, and governance of Shadow IT and business-managed IT: a systematic literature review

End-User Involvement and Engagement in Feral Information Systems Governance: A Management Approach

Leading change and Plato

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About