Information Elaboration and Coopetition: Participation in the Replacement of Legacy Systems

Abstract

Legacy information system (LIS) replacement projects are increasingly complex. Consequently, they require cooperation to integrate different functional knowledge to support organizational business processes. However, cooperation on crossfunctional LIS replacement project teams face inherent competition for scarce resources and conflicting functional interests. The common assertion is to reduce or eliminate this competition. We suggest that the potential benefits of competition complement the known benefits of cooperation. Thus, this study explores the extent to which different configurations of simultaneous competition and cooperation (i.e., coopetition) enhance decision-making processes in the context of LIS replacement. Information elaboration theory guides decision-making in the coopetition-performance relationship. We propose a model that relates different patterns of coopetition, based on a two continua approach, to three information elaboration techniques and their impact on system design quality. We test the model using a survey administered to 161 pairs of matched IT executives and managerial leaders knowledgeable about LIS replacement. Analysis indicates that cooperation-centric coopetition (strong cooperation with some competition) best enhances decision-making processes and improves system design quality.

The Entwinement of Project and Information Technology Research Editorial

“…Even before the popularity of agile approaches, wisdom and research indicated that user participation in IT projects is essential for success (Jiang et al, 2002; Liu et al, 2010). Participation ranges from simple tasks such as user reviews up to equal responsibilities (Hsu et al, 2010; Shim et al, 2010; Tsai et al, 2022b). Securing participation can prove more difficult than realizing the benefits of participation.…”

Interteam Learning in Multiteam New Product Development Programs

“…In MTS, teams often learn from failure when resolving cognitive conflicts (Gu et al, 2013; Madsen & Desai, 2010; Wilhelm et al, 2019). However, in an MTS, skill-based differences can make it challenging to resolve conflicts cooperatively, especially when untested knowledge is being challenged (Firth et al, 2015; Shuffler & Carter, 2018; Tsai et al, 2022b; Zaccaro et al, 2012). Observing others’ failures can lead to new insights, but only if a team operates within formalized routines (Bresman, 2010; Gu et al, 2013; Wilhelm et al, 2019).…”