There is ample evidence of deviations between the actual and planned interaction structures between a firm's IT department and business units. Such deviations can hinder senior managers from governing their IT organizations effectively because they do not know how work really gets done. This paper develops an explanation for why actual structures differ from planned structures. Understanding this phenomenon is indispensable for managers to govern the real organization, to uphold compliance with important standards (e.g., ITIL, COBIT), to decide whether the formal or the actual organization is more effective, and, finally, to identify management actions that support the optimal structure. To develop this understanding, we analyze the interaction structures at the interface between firms’ business units and IT units in four rich cases, using data from 56 interviews and 47 questionnaires, and applying qualitative methods and social network analysis, which give us deep insights into planned and actual interaction among employees. We test two different explanations for deviations of actual from planned interaction structures and find that boundary-spanning theory provides the dominant explanation for such deviations: Inclined to span the business/IT boundary most effectively, the actors involved deviate from planned structures especially when other structures offer better boundary-spanning potential, which is influenced primarily by cross-domain knowledge. In addition, relationships also play an important role. On the positive side, relationships provide opportunities for such deviations, while on the negative side, a conflict-laden relationship might hinder deviations even if they were advantageous.
AgarwalR., and SambamurthyV. (2002). Principles and Models for Organizing the IT Function, MIS Quarterly Executive1(1): 1–16.
2.
AhujaG., SodaG., and ZaheerA. (2012). The Genesis and Dynamics of Organizational Networks, Organization Science23(2): 434–448.
3.
AlbrechtS.L., and GoldmanP. (1985). Men, Women, and Informal Organization in Manufacturing, Sociological Focus18(4): 279–288.
4.
AuerbachC.F., and SilversteinL.B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An introduction to coding and analyzing, New York, London: New York University Press.
5.
BassellierG., and BenbasatI. (2004). Business Competence of Information Technology Professionals: Conceptual development on IT-business partnerships, MIS Quarterly28(4): 673–694.
6.
BenbasatI., GoldsteinD., and MeadM. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly11(3): 369–386.
7.
BoutyI. (2000). Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges between R&D Researchers across Organizational Boundaries, Academy of Management Journal43(1): 50–65.
8.
BycioP., and AllenJ.S. (2004). A Critical Incidents Approach to Outcomes Assessment, Journal of Education for Business80(2): 86–92.
9.
CarlileP.R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development, Organization Science13(4): 442–455.
10.
ChanY.E. (2002). Why Haven't We Mastered Alignment? The importance of the informal organization structure, MIS Quarterly Executive1(2): 97–112.
11.
ChanY.E., and ReichB.H. (2007). IT Alignment: What have we learned?Journal of Information Technology22(4): 297–315.
12.
CobbA.T. (1980). Informal Influence in the Formal Organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers, Academy of Management Journal23(1): 155–161.
13.
CrossR.L., ParkerA., PrusakL., and BorgattiS.P. (2001). Knowing What We Know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks, Organizational Dynamics30(2): 100–120.
14.
CurtisB., KrasnerH., and IscoeN. (1988). A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems, Communications of the ACM31(11): 1268–1287.
15.
DahlM.S., and PedersenC.ø. (2004). Knowledge Flows through Informal Contacts in Industrial Clusters: Myth or reality?Research Policy33(10): 1673–1686.
16.
DubéL., and ParéG. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current practices, trends, and recommendations, MIS Quarterly27(4): 597–636.
17.
EisenhardtK.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
18.
EverettM.G., and BorgattiS.P. (1999). The Centrality of Groups and Classes, Journal of Mathematical Sociology23(3): 181–201.
19.
FarmerN. (2008). The Invisible Organization: How informal networks can lead organizational change, Farnham, England, Burlington, VT: Gower.
20.
FeenyD.F., and WillcocksL.P. (1998). Core IS Capabilities for Exploiting Information Technology, Sloan Management Review39(3): 9–21.
21.
FlanaganJ.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique, Psychological Bulletin51(4): 327–358.
22.
GassonS. (2006). A Genealogical Study of Boundary-Spanning IS Design, European Journal of Information Systems15(1): 26–41.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
25.
GranovetterM.S. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology91(3): 481–510.
26.
GulatiR., and PuranamP. (2009). Renewal Through Reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization, Organization Science20(2): 422–440.
ISACA (2012). CobiT 5. A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT.
29.
JohansonJ.-E. (2000). Formal Structure and Intra-Organisational Networks: An analysis in a combined social and health organisation in Finland, Scandinavian Journal of Management16(3): 249–267.
30.
JohnsonJ.D., DonohueW.A., AtkinC.K., and JohnsonS. (1994). Differences between Formal and Informal Communication Channels, Journal of Business Communication31(2): 111–122.
31.
KleinbaumA.M. (2012). Organizational Misfits and the Origins of Brokerage in Intrafirm Networks, Administrative Science Quarterly57(3): 407–452.
32.
KrackhardtD., and HansonJ.R. (1993). Informal Networks: The company behind the chart, Harvard Business Review71(4): 104–111.
33.
KraussR., and FussellS. (1990). Mutual Knowledge and Communicative Effectiveness, in GalegherJ., KrautR.E., and EgidoC. (eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 111–146.
34.
LeeA.S., and BaskervilleR. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research14(3): 221–243.
35.
LevinaN., and VaastE. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems, MIS Quarterly29(2): 335–363.
36.
LevinaN., and VaastE. (2006). Turning a Community into a Market: A practice perspective on information technology use in boundary spanning, Journal of Management Information Systems22(4): 13–37.
37.
MarkusM.L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation, Communications of the ACM26(6): 430–444.
38.
McConkieM.L., and BossR.W. (1986). Organizational Stories: One means of moving the informal organization during change efforts, Public Administration Quarterly10(2): 189–205.
39.
MeyerJ.W., and RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
40.
MintzbergH. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work, New York: Harper & Row.
41.
NahapietJ., and GhoshalS. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage, Academy of Management Review23(2): 242–266.
42.
NickersonJ., and ZengerT. (2002). Being Efficiently Fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice, Organization Science13(5): 547–566.
43.
NochurK., and AllenT.J. (1992). Do Nominated Boundary Spanners Become Effective Technological Gatekeepers?IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management39(3): 265–269.
44.
NonakaI. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science5(1): 14–37.
45.
OGC (2007). ITIL Service Operations, Norwich, UK: TSO (The Stationary Office).
46.
OrlikowskiW.J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing, Organization Science13(3): 249–273.
47.
PrestonD.S., and KarahannaE. (2009). Antecedents of IS Strategic Alignment: A nomological network, Information Systems Research20(2): 159–179.
48.
ReichB.H., and BenbasatI. (2000). Factors that Influence the Social Dimension of Alignment between Business and Information Technology Objectives, MIS Quarterly24(1): 81–113.
RemøeS.O. (1982). Informal Organization and Status Inequality: A sociological view of social relations in north sea oil production, Acta Sociologica25(1S): 15–24.
51.
ReynoldsT.J., and GutmanJ. (1988). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and Interpretation, Journal of Advertising Research28(1): 11–31.
52.
RockartJ.F., EarlM.J., and RossJ.W. (1996). Eight Imperatives for the New IT Organization, Sloan Management Review38(1): 43–55.
53.
RoethlisbergerF., and DicksonW. (1939). Management and the Worker: An account of a research program conducted by the western electric company, hawthorne works, Chicago, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
RuggG., and McGeorgeP. (1995). Laddering, Expert Systems12(4): 339–346.
55.
RuggG., EvaM., MahmoodA., RehmanN., AndrewsS., and DaviesS. (2002). Eliciting Information about Organizational Culture Via Laddering, Information Systems Journal12(3): 215–229.
56.
SaldañaJ. (2011). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
57.
SantarelliE., and SterlacchiniA. (1990). Innovation, Formal vs. Informal R&D, and Firm Size: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing firms, Small Business Economics2(3): 223–228.
58.
SchwarzA., and HirschheimR. (2003). An Extended Platform Logic Perspective of IT Governance: Managing perceptions and activities of IT, Journal of Strategic Information Systems12(2): 129–166.
59.
SchultzeU., and AvitalM. (2011). Designing Interviews to Generate Rich Data for Information Systems Research, Information and Organization21(1): 1–16.
60.
SeddonP.B., CalvertC., and YangS. (2010). A Multi-Project Model of Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits from Enterprise Systems, MIS Quarterly34(2): 305–328.
61.
SodaG., and ZaheerA. (2012). A Network Perspective on Organizational Architecture: Performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization, Strategic Management Journal33(6): 751–771.
62.
StarS.L., and GriesemerJ.R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39, Social Studies of Science19(3): 387–420.
63.
StraussG. (1962). Tactics of Lateral Relationship: The purchasing agent, Administrative Science Quarterly7(2): 161–186.
64.
TiwanaA., and KonsynskiB. (2010). Complementarities between Organizational IT Architecture and Governance Structure, Information Systems Research21(2): 288–304.
65.
TushmanM.L. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process, Administrative Science Quarterly22(4): 587–605.
66.
UzziB. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly42(1): 35–67.
67.
UzziB. (1999). Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing, American Sociological Review64(4): 481–505.
68.
UzziB., and GillespieJ. (2002). Knowledge Spillover in Corporate Financing Networks: Embeddedness and the firm's debt performance, Strategic Management Journal23(7): 595–618.
69.
WassermanS., and FaustK. (2007). Social Network Analysis: Methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
