Horizontal Mechanisms under Differing IS Organization Contexts

Abstract

Abstract:Horizontal mechanisms are structural overlays (such as roles and groups) and nonstructural devices (such as physical co-location) that are designed to facilitate cross-unit collaboration. The objective of this study is to increase our cumulative knowledge about what top-down mechanisms are being used to promote the coordination of IS activities across corporate/division boundaries. Propositions about how mechanism usage differs under Centralized versus Federal IS organization contexts are developed based on a synthesis of prior organization science and empirical IS literature. Multiple methods are used to collect data from IS and non-IS senior managers from two case sites with theoretically different IS coordination needs. As predicted, multiple types of structural and non-structural mechanisms were implemented for business-IS coordination in the company with a Centralized IS context, and for corporate IS-decentralized IS coordination in the company with a Federal IS context. An unexpected finding was that mechanisms for both of these kinds of IS coordination were valued at each case site. The prediction that a formal group mechanism would be perceived as more effective for achieving cross-unit coordination than an integrator role mechanism was not supported. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for research and practice.

Managing coordination in multiteam systems: integrating micro and macro perspectives

“…The OB perspective discussed above examines how compositional characteristics (such as IFD) shape horizontal coordination and aspirational behavior in an emergent, bottom-up manner. In contrast, the OT perspective focuses on formal, top-down mechanisms (e.g., Brown, 1999;Galbraith, 1994;Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). This latter perspective has identified integration teams, in particular, as crucial for multiteam systems (Browning, 1998;.…”

“…It is important to note, however, that integration teams typically cannot singlehandedly realize a multiteam system's operational tasks because they lack the time, manpower, and specialized expertise to substitute for component teams' efforts (Brown, 1999;Galbraith, 1994). Rather, integration teams' core responsibility is to utilize their unique, broad perspective to guide and support component teams' operational task accomplishment (Galbraith, 1994).…”

“…Unfortunately, however, multiteam systems' large-scale and dynamic nature often prevents component team members from being informed about all activities and coordination requirements in the system as a whole (Browning, 1998;. Integration teams are likely to play a critical role in addressing this issue, because their central location in the flow of work uniquely positions them to gain real-time, comprehensive information on the overall system (Brown, 1999;DeChurch & Marks, 2006;Galbraith, 1994) and to transfer such information to component teams through vertical coordinated action.…”

Structural Models that Manage IT Portfolio Affecting Business Value of Enterprise Architecture

“…However, prior studies that empirically examined the validity of these claims were limited in examining business value from a business point of view. While a significant volume of research has examined the influence of IT governance on the choice of a specific mode of IT governance [11], [13]- [15], most of research has just assessed which governance type should be fitted to organizations in order to achieve business objectives. The assumption underlying these studies is that organizational behaviors act in isolation in influencing the execution of IT governance on the basis of governance type.…”

“…Therefore, having appropriate governance mechanisms is crucial to facilitate the design of EA [12]. To address the horizontal integration and coordination within an enterprise, organizations must fundamentally address the issues related to IT governance [13], [14]. Prior research on IT governance has focused on centralization versus decentralization of IT decision making, but IT governance goes beyond this issue [14]- [16].…”