The financial crisis of 2007-2009 and the resultant pressures exerted on policymakers to prevent future crises have precipitated coordinated regulatory responses globally. A key focus of the new wave of regulation is to ensure the removal of practices now deemed problematic with new controls for conducting transactions and maintaining holdings. There is increasing pressure on organizations to retire manual processes and adopt core systems, such as Investment Management Systems (IMS). These systems facilitate trading and ensure transactions are compliant by transcribing regulatory requirements into automated rules and applying them to trades. The motivation of this study is to explore the extent to which such systems may enable the alteration of previously embedded practices. We researched implementations of an IMS at eight global financial organizations and found that overall the IMS encourages responsible trading through surveillance, monitoring and the automation of regulatory rules and that such systems are likely to become further embedded within financial organizations. We found evidence that some older practices persisted. Our study suggests that the institutionalization of technology-induced compliant behaviour is still uncertain.
BrymanA. (2008). Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
CFTC (2012). CFTC Orders barclays to pay $ 200 million penalty for attempted manipulation of and false reporting concerning LIBOR and euribor benchmark interest rates, [www document] http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6289-12. (accessed 4 November 2012).
CurrieW. (2004). The Organizing Vision of Application Service Provision: A process-oriented analysis, Information and Organization14(4): 237–267.
8.
CurrieW. (2008). Institutionalization of IT Compliance: A longitudinal study, in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Information Systems (Paris, France); Association of Information Systems Electronic Library. Paper 182.
9.
DacinT., and DacinP. (2008). Traditions as Institutionalized Practice: Implications for deinstitutionlization, in GreenwoodR., OliverC., SahlinK., and SuddabyR. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, London: Sage, pp. 327–351.
10.
DiMaggioP.J., and PowellW.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
11.
EdelmanL.B., UggenC., and ErlangerH.S. (1999). The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth, American Journal of Sociology105(2): 406–454.
12.
FlickU. (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
13.
FordC.L. (2008). New Governance, Compliance, and Principles-Based Securities Regulation, American Business Law Journal45(1): 1–160.
14.
FSA (2007). Financial services authority: Principles-based regulation focusing on the outcomes that matter, [www document] http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/principles.pdf (accessed 23 July 2012).
IT Governance Institute (2012). COBIT 5: A business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT, [www document] http://www.isaca.org/COBIT/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 15 October 2012).
17.
KvaleS., and BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18.
MahoneyJ., and ThelenK. (eds.) (2010). A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change, in:Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity; Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–37.
19.
MigneratM., and RivardS. (2009). Positioning the Institutional Perspective in Information Systems Research, Journal of Information Technology24(4): 369–391.
20.
MilesM.B., and HubermanA.M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
21.
OliverC. (1992). The Antecedents of Deinstitutionalization, Organization Studies13(4): 563–588.
ScottW.R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and interests, Los Angeles: Sage.
27.
SealeC. (1999). Quality in Qualitative Research, Qualitative Inquiry5(4): 465–478.
28.
SilvermanD. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction, London: Sage.
29.
StreeckW., and ThelenK. (2005). Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, in StreeckW., and ThelenK. (eds.) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–39.
TolbertP.S., and ZuckerL.G. (1996). The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory, in CleggS.R., HardyC., and NordW.R. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 175–190.
32.
TsatsouP., Elaluf-CalderwoodS., and LiebenauJ. (2009). Towards a Taxonomy for Regulatory Issues in a Digital Business Ecosystem in the EU, Journal of Information Technology25(3): 288–307.
33.
TurnerA. (2009). The Turner Review A Regulatory Response to the Global Banking Crisis, London: Financial Services Authority.
34.
TuttleB., and VanderveldeS.D. (2007). An Empirical Examination of CobiT as An Internal Control Framework for Information Technology, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems8(4): 240–263.
35.
WeerakkodyV., DwivediY.K., and IraniZ. (2009). The Diffusion and Use of Institutional Theory: A cross-disciplinary longitudinal literature survey, Journal of Information Technology24(4): 354–368.
36.
ZuckerL.G. (1987). Institutional Theories of Organization, Annual Review of Sociology13443–464.
