On the Road to Digital Transformation: A Literature Review of IT Program Management

Abstract

Program management continues to gain traction as an approach to managing the development and implementation of advanced information technology (IT). The guidance and structure provided by program principles and processes enhance an organization’s ability to achieve the benefits of a large-scale IT deployment. However, realizing the benefits of contemporary IT to support organizational strategy is proving problematic. In this study, we conduct a conceptual and critical review of the IT program management literature to determine the current research in achieving success and develop frameworks that encourage coordinated studies to address further benefits from IT programs with differing strategic purposes.

Keywords

IT program program management literature review digital transformation

Introduction

From the humble beginnings of computational and record-keeping support, information technology (IT) has grown into a major force, if not the major force, behind changing organizational strategy (Jedynak et al., 2021; Nadkarni & Prügl, 2021; Vial, 2019). IT-enabled strategy requires many projects to realize the benefits of implementing extraordinary change. Therefore, program management approaches are increasingly adopted by an organization to realize benefits from their IT investments (Gregory et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2018; Midler et al., 2019; Teubner, 2019). Still, IT programs tend to suffer from strategic misalignment, paradoxes, and conflicts among the different levels and stakeholders in an organization, hyperdynamic environments, simultaneous technology and business change, and complexities of multiteam systems (Cheng et al., 2020; Dingsøyr et al., 2018; Fernandez et al., 2022; Gregory et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2018; Teubner, 2019).

Early purposes of traditional program management dealt with limitations of individual project management such as a lack of project prioritization and a lack of recognizing dependencies among projects. Ferns (1991) defined a traditional program as “a group of projects that are managed in a coordinated way to gain benefits that would not be possible were the projects to be managed independently” and program management as the “coordinated support, planning, prioritization and monitoring of projects to meet changing business needs” (p. 149). Accordingly, IT program management focuses on coordinating a group of IT projects (e.g., functional IT/IS [information systems] implementation) and other supporting activities to deliver technological capabilities and further gain functional or business benefits or values from technology. However, unlike traditional program management, IT program management suffered a more complex nature by pushing changes in behavior and processes by adding complex technologies (Gregory et al., 2015; Markus, 2004; Teubner, 2019).

Program management evolved to become “structures and processes that are used to coordinate and direct multiple interrelated projects that together constitute an organization’s strategy” (Partington et al., 2005, p. 27). Further evolution of thought brought us to the level of organizational changes or business transformation to implement strategy (Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2008). IT program management then focused on implementing IT-enabled transformation or digital transformation via coordinating multiple interrelated IT or digitization projects (e.g., big data analysis platform development) to realize the strategic benefits of technology. Thus, IT program management integrates multiple IT/digitization projects to realize strategic benefits from emerging technology.

The ever-increasing intrusion of technologies into business processes, behaviors, and strategies continued to add to difficulties in achieving implementation success (Chang et al., 2014; Gregory et al., 2015; Teubner, 2018). Technochange became the watchword for IT intrusion, with complexities and disruptions that exceeded the ability of standard methodologies to succeed (Hanelt et al., 2021; Jedynak et al., 2021; Markus, 2004; Montealegre et al., 2019). The current trend of digital transformation (DT) continues the acceleration toward massive change that must be effectively managed from inception to completion (Vial, 2019; Yeow et al., 2018). IT program management is a necessary consideration for an organization to respond to the complex IT and DT intrusion for two reasons—integration and flexibility.

Intruding technologies must be implemented via IT programs to integrate the multiple IT components or modules that deliver capabilities and realize benefits (Teubner, 2019). For an IT-enabled transformation program, the object and outcome are what Gregory et al. (2015) call an IT platform, what Jiang et al. (2014) call an enterprise system, and what Teubner (2019) describes as IT-based infrastructure. Regardless of the name, they all contain multiple, heterogeneous IT components or IS modules, which couldn’t be individually developed to achieve the intended organizational benefits (Jiang et al., 2014). For example, an enterprise-wide system (ES) as the object of IT-enabled transformation will separate into multiple modules based on functions in the firm to support operational needs. The segmentation into modules by business function is a practical approach to delineate individual projects in an ES or infrastructure implementation (Chang et al., 2014; Teubner, 2019). The success of responding to new IT intrusion depends on the extent of program integration among its representative IT projects and the extent to which the IT program aligns with the organizational goals. Further, an IT program enables organizational flexibility in responding to intruding technologies (e.g., cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence [AI] Internet of Things [IoT], blockchain) (Ribbers & Schoo, 2002; Seddon et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2018).

Seeking guidance in the literature is problematic, since the IT program management literature suffers from ambiguous definitions and limited knowledge of program processes and structures where significant technology change is accompanied by major business change (Gregory et al., 2015; Hanelt et al., 2021; Teubner, 2019). Reported failures are attributed to many causes and include a limited understanding of the environment or organizational conditions (Martinsuo & Hoverfält, 2018; Mueller et al., 2019), improper identification of IT program characteristics (Gregory et al., 2015; Miterev et al., 2016; Shao, 2018), mismanagement of the organization-wide interdependencies (Hoegl & Weinkauf, 2005; Jiang et al., 2018; Parolia et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2020), and poor governance over the life of the program (Khan, 2014). Figure 1 highlights these collected issues (Jiang et al., 2018). Our goal for this study was to elaborate on this framework and address the following:

RQ1: Does the literature point to a standard definition of IT programs?

Figure 1.

Factor categories impacting IT program success.

RQ2: Is there a typology of IT programs that can advise approaches to management?

RQ3: What governance structure is suggested for IT program success?

RQ4: Which interdependencies within an IT program must be managed?

We deviate slightly from the traditional order of academic reports because the questions are more foundational. Developing a significant background section requires an interpretive approach to the literature first to define an IT-enabled program, then further develop frameworks for the remaining questions. Thus, we move first to a description of the methodology and then address the research questions.

Methodology

Researchers must choose the better literature review type for the research questions (Klein & Müller, 2020). This study aims to provide a broad perspective of IT-enabled programs, including a definition, a taxonomy of types, governance processes, and organizational interactions. We will consider empirical and conceptual articles as data sources. These goals and focus indicate a critical and conceptual review approach is appropriate (de Guinea & Paré, 2017). A conceptual and critical review approach does not require exhaustive coverage. Thus, we only focus on the literature in the project management and IT fields.

Initially running several queries against online databases using the terms information system or information technology along with project or program management, we identified the primary journals publishing IT program management research. These include three journals in the project management field (International Journal of Project Management [IJPM], Project Management Journal [PMJ], and International Journal of Managing Projects in Business [IJMPB]) and 12 journals in the IS field (MIS Quarterly [MISQ], Information Systems Research [ISR], the Journal of Management Information Systems [JMIS], the European Journal of Information Systems [EJIS], the Journal of the Association for Information Systems [JAIS], Information Systems Journal [ISJ], the Journal of Information Technology [JIT], the Journal of Strategic Information Systems [JSIS], Information & Management [IM], Journal of Systems and Software [JSS], Information and Software Technology [IST], and Information Systems Management [ISM]).

To maintain systematicity and transparency in this study, we adopted structured and inductive interpretation methods to search, screen, and analyze relevant literature (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). There are five steps in their guidelines: (1) define the scope of the review, (2) search the literature, (3) select the final sample, (4) analyze the corpus, and (5) present the findings. We outline the application of the first four steps in the following paragraphs and present the fifth step as our findings.

Using the 15 journals previously identified and the SCOPUS databases, we designed our final search criteria to contain the terms Information Technology (or digital or Information System* or enterprise system* or software development) and Program* (or complex project, or Multi* project, or Megaproject or Large project or strateg* project). This first-round search identified 7,690 papers. Given the term program widely refers to computer programs and studies focused on single project management, we read the abstract of all 7,690 to finalize our sample. Of all those, only 60 works remained as follows: IJPM (5), PMJ (7), IJMPB (3), MISQ (3), ISR (2), JMIS (3), EJIS (7), JAIS (4), ISJ (4), JIT (11), JSIS (3), IM (2), JSS (2), ISM (3) and IST (1). We downloaded full-text versions from the Science Direct, EBSCO, and AIS library databases to conduct further analysis.

Our analysis consisted of four iterative steps. First, for each work, we extracted multiple data points, such as any definition of an IT program or IT program management, to refine the research context (approaches, aims, IT, or business issues); the theoretical foundation, the research methods, specific IT program topics (context, constructs, relationships, boundaries); and the main findings. Second, we used semantic decomposition to develop the definitions of IT program and IT program management by systematically decomposing extant definitions into a series of constituting primitives and comparing those primitives across definitions to the typical components of IT program and IT program management. Third, we identified a typology based on a theoretical framework and the digital strategy literature to propose five types of IT program management and coded each source accordingly (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993).

Fourth, we used inductive interpretive methods borrowed from grounded theory to recognize the IT program management process framework that serves to direct governance. Specifically, we began with open coding by annotating sources based on the above data points and important arguments or findings. Then, we performed two rounds of axial coding to refine our coding scheme into a more manageable set of higher-order categories of relationships. Finally, we integrated these relationships using selective coding. The result of this process is a high-level framework that incorporates the findings from our analysis based on the coverage of the primary relationships within our sample. Last, we considered the importance of interdependencies, initially focusing on cross-project interdependence but extended here to include cross-level issues and interfaces.

Findings

Definitions of “IT Program” and “IT Program Management”

A definition binds the conditions of a phenomenon. Yet, definitions of program management continue to evolve as organizations move on to ever more complex requirements (Pellegrinelli, 2011). IT-enabled programs are even more recent phenomena in a context of rapid change and suffer from a lack of clarity and consensus on fundamental concepts (Pellegrinelli, 1997). It’s not surprising, then, that even more ambiguity surrounds the particular notion of an IT-enabled program. Therefore, we begin our analysis of the sampled literature by considering definitions of IT programs and management. In particular, we refer to the rules summarized by Vial (2019) and evaluate existing definitions against these recommendations. Within our sample, we found 16 unique definitions (Table 1). These definitions mainly focus on a particular IT context, but several commonalities exist. Likewise, most definitions are not canonical and formal but descriptive and rely on institutional sources. Still, we use the few canonical and formal definitions to provide a basis for development.

Table 1.

Existing Main Definitions on IT Program and IT Program Management

Definition	Sources	Comments
The delivery of IS projects also ought to be aligned with organizational strategy. IS projects of similar strategic focus are often monitored by way of collating them into IS programs.	(Erasmus & Marnewick, 2020, p. 724)	Not a canonical and formal definition
Demarcate IT programs from IT projects, with the latter having a piece of software or a single information system as an object and outcome. In contrast, the object of an IT program is what Ciborra (2001) described as IT-based infrastructure.	(Teubner, 2019, p. 43)	Lack of parsimony Unclear term: IT-based infrastructure Not a canonical and formal definition
A portfolio of projects, defining a set of related activities, both for the IT and the business side, that have defined goals and benefits and need to be controlled as a whole.	(Mueller et al., 2019, p. 611; Ribbers & Schoo, 2002, p. 45)	Not a canonical and formal definition
IT programs are commonly organized around enterprise system implementations with each module considered a separate project, large-scale software contracts with each primary deliverable a separate project, and major product lines of software providers with the satisfaction of each client’s requirements considered a separate project.	(Jiang et al., 2014, p. 81)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
New software product development (NSPD) in a distributed environment requires more cooperation and coordination of the interdependent tasks performed by each supplier’s project to ensure the tasks and goals assigned to each project meet their responsibilities.	(Jiang et al., 2018, p. 926)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
IT program constitutes a collection of individual projects with multiple interdependencies. Each has a common goal defined by organizational benefits, and these projects have an indispensable IT component among their cross-functional contexts.	(Jiang et al., 2018, p. 44)	Lack of parsimony
Large-scale agile development (program management) as agile development efforts with more than 10 teams, which have complex knowledge boundaries within the program due to many technical and business domains and the number of tasks and dependencies between tasks.	(Dingsøyr et al., 2018, p. 65)	Lack of parsimony; focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
IS program management delivers the required benefits from IS initiatives and investments.	(Marnewick, 2017, p. 168)	Conflation between the concept and its impacts
Several interrelated projects aim to improve the quality and responsiveness of local and national healthcare services by enabling all parts of the National Health Service (NHS) to communicate with each other efficiently, securely, and cost effectively. It will provide a crucial part of the infrastructure to support the national IM&T Strategy.	(Pouloudi et al., 2016, p. 158)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
The interdependencies across projects in extensive information technology (IT) implementations mean that the traditional boundaries of project management do not hold and that collaboration in the form of program management is essential to avoid conflict and eventual failure.	(Parolia et al., 2015, p. 30)	Not a canonical and formal definition
IT programs typically encompass a coordinated set of interrelated IT projects, each with unique requirements but competing for limited resources. IT transformation program management is defined as concerted IT-dependent strategic efforts to increase an organization’s ability to address its future business environment and compete more effectively with IT; one particular type of IT program that aims to achieve IT-based competitiveness by triggering IT-enabled change within the organization.	(Gregory et al., 2015, pp. 57–58)	A canonical and formal definition of IT programs; conflation between the concept and its impacts on IT program management
Information technology (IT) programs are collections of projects structured to meet goals established by top management regarding the use of technology. IT program management requires managing across teams to both overcome and capitalize on the interdependencies to deliver promised benefits.	(Jiang et al., 2014, pp. 80–81)	A canonical and formal definition of IT programs; conflation between the concept and its requirement of IT program management
Information technology (IT) programs are coordinated IT projects with a common business objective or underlying similar theme.	(Parolia et al., 2013, p. 3140)	A canonical and formal definition of IT programs
The focus of the program was firmly on managing the inter operational processes and data structures, leaving client organizations to deal with the rest through their respective development suppliers at a local level.	(Yu & Kittler, 2012, p. 745)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
Information system development (ISD) programs include infrastructure development segmented into components, user support for different applications, application development of complex systems, and management of a software product line for multiple clients.	(Parolia et al., 2011, p. 313)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
The ES program included four projects: a human resources project to implement the HR module of SAP, a finance project to implement the finance modules of SAP, a decision support project to implement an off-the-shelf decision support system, and an infrastructure project.	(Elbanna, 2010, p. 44)	Focusing on one specific IT program; not a canonical and formal definition
Process improvement (PI) programs: use IT to redesign the organizational processes and structures radically.	(Cunningham & Finnegan, 2004, p. 59)	Focusing on process improvement

We then applied semantic decomposition to systematically decompose extant definitions into a series of constituting primitives and compared those primitives across definitions to abstract out the typical components of IT program and IT program management using an inductive approach. For example, seven papers in our sample shared one common case of the development and implementation of an extensive private information systems network in the UK National Health Service (NHS), defined as a “major programme of several interrelated projects whose overall aim is to improve the quality and responsiveness of local and national health care services by enabling all parts of the National Health Service (NHS) to communicate with each other efficiently, securely, and cost effectively. It will provide a key part of the infrastructure to support the national IM&T Strategy” (Pouloudi et al., 2016, p. 158). In this definition, the “several interrelated projects” as one primitive was extracted and found comparable to “A portfolio of projects” (Mueller et al., 2019, p. 611), “a collection of individual projects with multiple interdependencies” (Jiang et al., 2018, p. 44), and “a coordinated set of interrelated IT projects” (Gregory et al., 2015, pp. 57–58). Two abstract properties or components of an IT program could be induced—Multiproject and relationship.

Repeating this approach, we identified five dominant properties for IT programs: (1) temporal organization, e.g., the life cycle of a program and the stages of IT; (2) technology-oriented, e.g., at least two projects on IT, developing IT, or impacting existing IT; (3) relationships among multiple projects, e.g., the interdependent relationship among the component projects; (4) IT-based values, e.g., the goal of the IT program; and (5) stakeholders, e.g., actors influencing the temporal organization or being influenced (see Figure 2 for derivation). We constructed a conceptual definition of an IT program with these properties as “a temporary organization for a set of related IT and supporting projects that deliver IT-based value for multiple stakeholders.”

Figure 2.

Arriving at the properties of an IT program.

Five properties for IT program management are identified as (1) the target, i.e., the unit of analysis or entity of the organization; (2) coverage, i.e., the scope of the changes taking place within the target organization; (3) functional means, i.e., how the technologies and target entity will operate together; (4) iterative processes, i.e., the IT program shuffles among different stages of a program life cycle or technology life cycle; and (5) IT-based value, i.e., the outcome of IT program management (see Figure 3 for derivation). Together, IT program management is defined as “the iterative processes to apply technology to act on the target organization for a set of related IT and supporting projects that deliver IT-based value for multiple stakeholders.”

Figure 3.

Arriving at the properties of IT program management.

Taxonomy of IT Programs

IT program management aims to fully realize potential IT-enabled values, which are determined by the function means between technology and the target organization. As such, the characteristics of IT-enabled programs are too numerous to consider and would include complexity, application, economic sector, duration, disruptions, risks, context, and industry as a minimum. Each program uniquely retains properties that will dictate the better processes and techniques to apply to assure successful completion (Pellegrinelli, 1997; Yu & Kittler, 2012). Therefore, we identify the major IT programs with the proposition that types may eventually yield generic advice. To that end, we adopt the lens of a strategic alignment model (SAM) that emphasizes the role of IT in supporting and shaping the business and advances the functional role of IT to a strategic role (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993; Yeow et al., 2018).

SAM considers four fundamental components—business strategy, IT strategy, organizational infrastructure and processes, and I/S infrastructure and processes—to realize the full value of IT (Gerow et al., 2014; Gerow et al., 2015). The alignment involves two types of strategic fit, respectively IT strategic fit (IT infrastructure and processes should support the IT strategy) and strategic business fit (organizational infrastructure and processes should support the business strategy), and two types of integration between business and IT, strategic integration, and operational integration. Strategic integration links IT and business strategy to respond to the external market environment. Operational integration links organizational infrastructure and processes to IS infrastructure and processes to respond to internal conflicts. Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) defined four cross-domain alignment relationships among the four components: strategy execution alignment, technology transformation alignment, competitive potential alignment, and service level alignment. These are mapped onto the two-dimensional SAM framework shown in Figure 4. The vertical axis represents strategic dominance (IT strategy at the bottom and business strategy at the top). The horizontal axis represents operational choices (the left for the organization and the right for IT). The figure shows the chain of influence for each type in the original SAM. Location on the grid dictates distinctions in approach, particularly along three components of SAM—scope, competencies, and governance—all of which affect team composition and leadership, communication structures, training, and monitoring and control.

Figure 4.

IT program typology.

Strategy execution alignment and technology transformation alignment are both characterized by having the business strategy as the driver. In strategy execution IT programs, the business strategy (BS) dictates the organizational infrastructure and processes (OIP), which in turn dictates the required IT infrastructure and processes (IIP). This perspective is perhaps the most common and widely understood as it corresponds to the classic hierarchical view of strategic management. In the sampled articles, enterprise and other complex systems implementation belong to this type of IT program (Table 2).

Table 2.

A Taxonomy of an IT Program

IT Program Types	Criteria/Characteristics	Sources
1. Strategy execution IT program	1. Business strategy as the drivers: new business strategy drives organizational infrastructure/processes redesign projects and IS infrastructure/processes redesign projects. 2. The current organization design needs to be changed because it will constrain the design of IS infrastructure and processes.	(Chang, 2017; Chang et al., 2019; Chang et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 2020; Chua et al., 2012; Cunningham & Finnegan, 2004; Elbanna, 2010, 2013; Farid & Waldorff, 2022; Gosain et al., 2005; Harkness et al., 1996; Jiang et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2019; Leonard & Higson, 2014; Mueller et al., 2019; Poltrock & Handel, 2010; Rose & Schlichter, 2013; Seddon et al., 2010; Teubner, 2019; Tsai et al., 2022; Willcocks & Smith, 1995; Yu & Kittler, 2012)
2. Technology transformation program	1. Business strategy as the driver: new business strategy determines IT strategy and corresponding IS infrastructure/processes redesign projects. 2. Not constrained by the current organization design.	(Denyer et al., 2011; Dingsøyr et al., 2018; Drummond, 1996; Fernandez et al., 2022; Goh & Arenas, 2020; Gregory et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2019; Teubner, 2019)
3. IT competitive potential program	IT strategy as the drivers: Using new IT strategy to change existing business strategy and further initiate projects to redesign the organizational infrastructure/processes and IT infrastructure/processes.	(Bos-de Vos et al., 2022; Brennan, 2007; Clegg & Shepherd, 2007; Currie, 2012; Currie & Guah, 2007; Eason, 2007; Markus, 2004; McGrath, 2002; Midler et al., 2019; Pouloudi et al., 2016; Sauer & Willcocks, 2007; Vega et al., 2008)
4. IT service program	IT strategy as the drivers: new IT strategy guides IS infrastructure and processes redesign and supporting organizational infrastructure/processes redesign.	(Jiang et al., 2018; Lei et al., 2022; Martinsuo, 2019; Parolia et al., 2015; Parolia et al., 2013; Parolia et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2022)
5. Digital transformation program	Digital business strategy as the driver to design, develop, and implement digital infrastructure and processes.	(Aaen et al., 2022; Montealegre et al., 2019; Schreieck et al., 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Wimelius et al., 2021)

Differently, technology transformation programs involve implementing the chosen business strategy through appropriate IT strategy (ITS), leading to the required IIP. This perspective is not constrained by the current organizational design but instead seeks to identify the best possible IT competencies through appropriate positioning in the IT marketplace. Here, the set of related IT projects aims to (re)design the IIP to support a new IT strategy (e.g., use new technologies, obtain new IT competencies, IT agility) to further contribute to the chosen business strategy. One representative example of this type of IT program is identified by Gregory et al. (2015), where a large international bank aims to obtain IT-enabled competitiveness (see Table 2 for other examples of IT-enabled technology transformation programs).

When management explores how IT might enable new or enhanced business strategies, the IT strategy drives competitive potential and service level alignment. Competitive potential exploits emerging IT capabilities to impact new products and services (business scope), influence the critical attributes of strategy (distinctive competencies), and develop new forms of relationship (business governance). Unlike the previous perspective that considers business strategy as a given, this perspective allows the modification of business strategy via emerging IT capabilities. Beginning with the three dimensions of IT strategy (IT scope, IT governance, and IT skills), this perspective seeks to identify the best strategic options for business strategy and the corresponding set of decisions about organizational infrastructure and processes. We name this IT program IT competitive potential program, where a set of related IT projects exploit emerging IT to create new products and services, then support projects to modify OIP to achieve new business strategic goals. One example of this type of IT program is the development and implementation program of an extensive private information systems network in the UK National Health Service (NHS) (Clegg & Shepherd, 2007). See Table 2 for other examples.

Differently, an IT service level program focuses on how to build an IT service organization. This focus requires understanding the external dimensions of IT strategy with the corresponding internal design of the IT infrastructure and processes. The IT strategy pursues the capacity to meet customer needs. The IT organization must deploy resources and be responsive to the growing and fast-changing demands of the end-user population. In the IT service program, this would be a set of related IT projects and supporting projects to design IIP and build the OIP in support of these activities. One representative example of this type of IT program covers the needs of an IT outsourcing agency (Parolia et al., 2015). Table 2 contains other sources.

Though effective in categorizing much of the research, technology has advanced since the proposal of SAM. Thus, not all papers coded neatly into the scheme of Types 1 through 4 in Table 2 (additionally, five review and curricula papers are not categorized). The deficiency lies in the isolation of business and IT strategy. The evolution of systems and strategy increasingly blur the two (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Yeow et al., 2018). Firms must pay more attention to the intertwined and impartible relationship between IT and business strategies. Bharadwaj et al. (2013) propose digital business strategy as a fusion between IT and business strategies. Thus, at the intersection, we add the digital transformation program. The organizational infrastructure and processes for this program type are transformed to support an organizational digital business strategy. For example, Aaen et al. (2022) describe a large-scale data analytics program in the Danish healthcare sector. The initial goals were increasingly stretched by reusing data collected in new contexts. SAP introduced an innovative platform to transform its product ecosystem (Schreieck et al., 2021, 2022a). The remaining papers coded into this DT extension. The category presents unique difficulties due to intermingling business and IT strategies since isolation is a simplifying factor in earlier types. This category appears as extensions in Figure 4 and Table 2.

The original IT programs derived from SAM focus on managing traditional information technologies and processes (e.g., design, development, implementation, deployment). However, DT program management also considers emerging computing, communication, and connectivity technologies and practices from a strategic and environmental perspective (Vial, 2019). Digital transformation program management must go beyond the parent organization to create a digital ecosystem (Schreieck et al., 2021, 2022a). IT program management focuses on managing IT and organizational business as two separate components, while DT program management fuses technology and organizational business to develop new digital business (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Yeow et al., 2018). DT program management has longer program cycles than IT program management because of increased complexity. DT program management focuses on new value propositions rather than enhancements to old values (Wessel et al., 2021).

IT Program Governance as Management Processes

Governance is the management and control of the program from the realization of need through final closure. Program governance includes procedures, processes, structure, roles, leadership, value systems, and policies subordinate to a comprehensive structure that encompasses the whole organization. Most papers in our review consider governance processes or activities scattered across the IT program’s life cycle, so we limit our analysis accordingly. A few exceptions defied our categorization, including descriptively different life cycles (Gregory et al., 2015), competence development (Parolia et al., 2011, 2013), and conflict management (Cheng et al., 2020).

Our framework (shown in Figure 5) includes four blocks: the external environment block, IT block, business block, and IT program block. We included IT and business as two important blocks to consider because of their role in determining which types of IT programs should be initiated. The external environment block (e.g., changes in market, economy, legislation, and society, which will result in changing IT or business of the organization) plays an important role in triggering the processes of IT program management and influencing the business strategy and technology strategy. As shown in Figure 5, the changes in the external environment may impact business strategy or IT strategy, which together trigger the IT program management processes entering the IT program block.

Figure 5.

Governance in the IT program life cycle.

We detail the IT program block with the four stages of program management processes generally accepted in the literature and practice, supported further by our analyses of abstracts, keywords, and textual descriptions of program stages in the 60 reviewed papers. Within each stage, we define various themes using the descriptive coding method to assign labels to summarize data in a word or short phrase (the topic of a passage of qualitative data) (Miles et al., 2014). For example, Pouloudi et al. (2016) emphasized paying attention to different stakeholders’ value propositions beginning with identifying and formulating the UK NHS N3 Network program. Drummond (1996) found acceptance of risk is ultimately determined by the balance of power between decision makers, which reflects the different stakeholders’ needs and expected benefits. Midler et al. (2019) emphasized vision communication with the stakeholders. Given these papers all mentioned analyzing stakeholders’ needs, benefits, and value propositions for effectively identifying and formulating the IT program, we label it as stakeholder analysis, one key theme of this stage. Surrounding the stages, however, are several additions drawn from the analysis. These are shown in Figure 5. Notably, sources identify preprogram recognition of changes or conflicts that trigger a new IT-enabled program (Mueller et al., 2019; Teubner, 2019). These changes might originate in the external environment, business, or information technology. The changes in the external environment impact business strategy and IT strategy, such that there is a conflict between them requiring a program for adjustment with projects from the business side and projects from the IT side.

Triggers of IT Programs

Although many triggers were discussed in the sources, we coded two key types (Table 3): (1) internal organizational conflicts between business and technology strategies and (2) external dynamics/changes. Internal conflicts between business and technology often arise from business changes (e.g., mergers, new markets). The change may not be supported by existing strategies or infrastructures (Goh & Arenas, 2020; Teubner, 2019). Thus, revised technologies are required to deal with the conflict. External dynamics/changes may be due to new regulations (Drummond, 1996; Teubner, 2019), politics (e.g., Drummond, 1996), market changes (e.g., Drummond, 1996; Yu & Kittler, 2012), and disruptive technologies (e.g., Midler et al., 2019; Montealegre et al., 2019). For example, the case of the autonomous car program in the work of Midler et al. (2019) was triggered by the rapid intrusion of new automatic driving techniques. For future study, we propose that a trigger uniquely identifies an appropriate type of program (as defined above) for an organization to pursue.

Table 3.

Triggers of the IT Program

Themes	Literature Support	Sources
Internal conflict between business and technology	1. Spin-off of a technology division as an independent subsidiary and a need to develop an IT-based infrastructure for the new subsidiary. 2. Setup of an IT-based infrastructure for a new offshore production plant. 3. Improve services at multiple fronts (economy, national security, healthcare, education, etc.) in the public sector through transformations.	(Goh & Arenas, 2020; Teubner, 2019)
	1. Consolidate more than 50 financial reporting systems into one integrated solution after a merger. 2. Merging the IT-based infrastructures of two newly acquired businesses.	(Mueller et al., 2019; Teubner, 2019)
	After the legal merger of previously independent companies, the new company consisted of two different organizational cultures with two different ERP systems still in place.
	Reduce costs and improve time to market by replacing idiosyncratic and ill-documented legacy applications and interfaces.
External dynamism	The rapid intrusion of new technologies and newcomers.	(Midler et al., 2019)
External dynamism	Critical events provide an impetus to reform, de-regulation in 1986, the stock market crash of 1987.	(Drummond, 1996)

Stage 1: Identifying and Formulating an IT Program

Two main themes in the literature for Stage 1 are strategic (value) decision management and stakeholder analysis (see Table 4). Strategic decision management requires a clear and definite choice for the IT program between different strategic values (e.g., IT-based capabilities) to respond to triggers by dealing with the ratio of benefits and costs among different choices and being based on the organizational readiness for different choices (Goh & Arenas, 2020; Martinsuo, 2019). The result of strategic decision management in this stage is often in the form of an IT program vision statement and program brief (Clegg & Shepherd, 2007; Drummond, 1996), which are submitted to the senior management or other potential sponsors for approval. Besides strategic decision management, stakeholder analysis in this stage is another vital activity because the feedback of important stakeholders and consideration of their expected needs, benefits, and value proposition at the beginning of the IT program will determine whether the IT program can obtain approval and also the potential resistance in the subsequent stages. For example, Tsai et al. (2022) found that goal ambiguity pushes diverse stakeholders to seek a joint account, aiding the approval process.

Table 4.

The Stages of an IT Program

	Governance Themes	Literature Support Examples	Sources
Stage 1: Identifying and formulating an IT program	Strategic decision management	Strategic value choice and program preparation plan on readiness	(Martinsuo, 2019)
		Different strategies for IT-enabled capabilities	(Goh & Arenas, 2020)
		Risk and power analysis to produce the program brief	(Drummond, 1996)
		Program vision statement	(Clegg & Shepherd, 2007)
	Stakeholder analysis	Stakeholders’ needs and expected benefits	(Drummond, 1996; Teubner, 2019)
		Communicate the vision to the stakeholders	(Midler et al., 2019)
		Stakeholders’ value proposition	(Pouloudi et al., 2016)
		Impact of stakeholders	(Mueller et al., 2019)

Stage 2: Defining and planning an IT program	Goal management	Program goal consensus and project goal consensus	(Teubner, 2019)
		Program goal specification	(Hatzakis et al., 2007)
		Conflicts or paradoxes between program-level/global goals/needs and project-level goals (local strategic goals/needs)	(Jiang et al., 2014)
	Projects dossier design	Exploratory and implementation projects under the denomination	(Midler et al., 2019)
		IT projects include software development projects, database projects, or hardware rollouts in combination with training or organizational change measures.	(Teubner, 2019)
		The program was divided into four main projects: (1) an Electronic Transfer of Prescriptions, (2) Picture Archiving Communications System, (3) a Care Records Service, and (4) the Choose and Book patient electronic appointments system.	(Currie, 2012)
		Common information system development programs include infrastructure development segmented into components, user support for different applications, complex systems application development, and software product line management for multiple clients.	(Parolia et al., 2011)
		A module in the enterprise system (ES) is considered as one IT project of the ES implementation program, e.g., an ERP module, an SCM module, a business intelligence module, or a CRM module.	(Jiang et al., 2019)
	Staffing and organizing	Top management involvement and active support	(Teubner, 2019)
		Ambidextrous program structures; program structure design based on program environment.	(Midler et al., 2019; Yu & Kittler, 2012)
		Formalization of roles and responsibilities	(Harkness et al., 1996)
		The appointment by the regional health authority of the members of the new senior management team marked an initial stage in attributing the identities proposed in the page report.	(McGrath, 2002)

Stage 3: Executing an IT program	Program monitoring and control	Risk and resistance management	(Currie, 2012; Denyer et al., 2011; Markus, 2004)
		Complexities, uncertainty, and all other types of issues to be dealt with	(Roberts et al., 2004; Sauer & Willcocks, 2007)
		Blueprint design as control and vision as control	(Teubner, 2019)
		Program organization and structure as governance mechanisms, including interdependence design	(Erasmus & Marnewick, 2020; Gosain et al., 2005; Parolia et al., 2011)
		Technologies for program governance	(Poltrock & Handel, 2010)
		Clan control	(Chua et al., 2012)
		Program (team) competencies based on human resources	(Montealegre et al., 2019; Parolia et al., 2013)
		Program integration, including cooperation and coordination	(Chang et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2020)
		The ambidexterity of the IT program	(Gregory et al., 2015)
		Resource monitoring among project managers	(Chang, 2017)
	Delivering the IT capabilities	In the case of IS programs, IT governance is an additional consideration that ensures projects deliver on the IS capabilities the organization requires.	(Erasmus & Marnewick, 2020)
		Different IT-enabled organizational capabilities for dealing with value-based trade-offs in public organizations	(Goh & Arenas, 2020)
		The ambidexterity to achieve both IT program coordination and IT project isolation	(Gregory et al., 2015)
	Realizing the IT values/ benefits	Manage the transition of deliverables of projects into the operations	(Seddon et al., 2010)
	Realizing the IT values/ benefits	Strategic alignment	(Leonard & Higson, 2014)
	Iterative processes	An iterative, incremental approach to implementing technochange with the combined IT project management plus organizational change activities can be a better strategy in many situations.	(Markus, 2004)
	Iterative processes	Managing the delivery and evolution of curricula to the stakeholders in the delivery process	(Hatzakis et al., 2007)

Stage 4: Closing an IT program	Reviewing program value/benefits realization	Whether the IT program achieves all IT-based benefits/values is aligned with the organizational strategic goal.	(Jiang et al., 2014)
Stage 4: Closing an IT program	Analyzing lessons learned	Review the lessons learned from a wide range of experience in previous closed IT programs to guide current IT program management.	(Clegg & Shepherd, 2007)

Stage 2: Defining and Planning an IT Program

If the identified IT program obtains approval from program sponsors, the next stage would be defining and planning an IT program. Three important governance themes have been proposed and carefully examined during this stage: goal management, project dossier design, and staffing and organization (see Stage 2 in Table 4). First, goal management includes setting the overall program goal and separating it into multiproject goals. During this stage, it’s suggested to achieve higher program goal specification (e.g., Chang et al., 2019) and reach a consensus among the program team members (e.g., Jiang et al., 2014), including program managers and project managers.

One key issue to be dealt with during the goal management process should be the conflicts and paradoxes between program-level goals/needs and project-level goals/needs. Integrative conflict resolution and program-project ambidexterity are suggested to deal with potential conflicts (Gregory et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2014). After setting the goal, the project dossier will be designed to achieve the program-level goal. There are different ways to establish a project dossier of different types of IT program management. For example, Midler et al. (2019) categorize the projects within the IT program into exploratory projects and implementation projects. Teubner (2019) summarized different IT projects within IT infrastructure programs. In addition, the joint projects dossier of the information system development program and enterprise system implementation program are examined (Jiang et al., 2019; Parolia et al., 2011).

The literature recognizes two types of projects or activities in the IT program, business projects based on the organizational infrastructure and processes and IT projects based on the IT infrastructure and processes, shown in Figure 5. After the project dossiers are designed to cover both, then the organization and structure of the IT program should be decided along with staffing arrangements. Important contingencies include program environment and program characteristics (Midler et al., 2019). For example, Yu and Kittler (2012) found that a decentralized structure supported by standard processes and data interfaces should be adopted to match the environment with low authority and homogeneity. After planning the program organization and structure, the staff arrangement plan will be made along with the formalization of roles and responsibilities (Harkness et al., 1996).

Stage 3: Executing an IT Program

The defined IT program and its plans direct the program execution. The main governance themes of executing an IT program include monitoring and controlling, delivering the IT capabilities, and realizing the IT-based benefits. In addition, governance in this stage is further identified as an iterative process (see Stage 3 in Table 4). Program monitoring and controlling in the executing stage receive wide attention. Many governance mechanisms are explored, including risk and resistance management, control with blueprint, vision, structure design, technologies, and clan control. The competition and coordination among projects within the IT program should be observed and carefully managed for program success (Chang, 2017; Chang et al., 2019).

Unique capabilities are raised for effective program governance (Gregory et al., 2015; Parolia et al., 2013). For example, Gregory et al. (2015) emphasize ambidexterity is required to achieve both IT program control (i.e., ensuring program-level alignment between IT project goals and solutions) and IT project autonomy (i.e., giving IT projects in the IT program sufficient leeway to address local requirements). Within an IT program, two or more IT projects are often initiated to deliver different IT components, which must be further integrated to deliver expected IT capabilities. Other capabilities are required to deliver expected IT services or products effectively. For example, Gregory et al. (2015) emphasize ambidexterity is required in the delivery stage to balance the IT program coordination (i.e., focus on synchronizing releases and ensuring continuous IT delivery) and IT project isolation (i.e., enabling delivery teams in IT projects to deliver components for releases).

Goh and Arenas (2020) identified four types of IT-enabled capabilities that help to deal with value-based trade-offs in public organizations. Delivered IT capabilities and other project deliverables must be further transited into the organizational operations to realize the IT-rooted values or benefits. Management of this transition may encounter resistance from organizational inertia (Seddon et al., 2010). Only by aligning deliverables with organizational functions and changing strategies will benefits be achieved (Leonard & Higson, 2014). Finally, it should be noted that no simple relationship exists between program execution processes to deliver the IT capabilities and realizing the IT-enabled benefits. Instead, iterative processes require continual monitoring and control to make project adjustments (additions, modifications, subtractions) until final delivery (Hatzakis et al., 2007; Markus, 2004).

Stage 4: Closing an IT Program

We found only a few sources discussing the closure stage of the IT program and fewer on its governance themes (Marnewick, 2017; Teubner, 2019). We emphasized two themes based on the sampled sources, reviewing program value/benefits realization and analyzing lessons learned. The critical point in closing an IT program is basing completion on a review of benefits realization that genuinely reflects the organization’s strategic goals (Jiang et al., 2014). Alternatively, programs may be terminated because the organizational strategy or environment changes resulted in diminished program benefits or needs. Regardless of the cause for termination, closure procedures should be implemented. Clegg and Shepherd (2007) provide an example to show how lessons learned from previously closed IT programs could guide a current IT program.

Potential Variations

Although the model in Figure 5 is broadly descriptive, organizations should consider IT program types in conducting effective governance. For example, digital business goals are hard to specify at the commencement of a program and tend to evolve throughout the program (Yeow et al., 2018). Under the major digital transformation changes, organizations face higher risks, a broader range of stakeholders, volatile staffing and resource requirements, and frequently evolving strategic plans. These dynamics of digital transformation programs make execution more iterative while continually seeking the opportunity to deliver more capabilities and realize more benefits. All of these come with the expense of more complex and evolving governance activities via monitoring and controlling. Existing findings that rely on stable goals may not apply (Chang et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2014), providing caution to practitioners and fodder for researchers.

Interdependencies

Difficulties and risks associated with program decision-making and goal attainment stem from complex interfaces and interdependencies with its environment, the parent organization, internal projects, and individual stakeholders (Jiang et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020; Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2009). The interfaces occur at different organizational levels and endure different perspectives about permanent concerns (the organization and external environments) and temporary organizations (programs and projects that expire after they achieve their goals) (Martinsuo & Hoverfält, 2018). These interfaces suggest that researchers must consider multilevel factors and issues influencing program success and remind us to go beyond strictly program-level research. The interdependencies and relations at the interface points are potentially problematic and complex. Our review suggests that current IT program management research primarily focuses on isolated program-level issues to explore program-level factors or governance of cross-project interdependencies (e.g., Chang, 2017) and multiteam system governance (Lei et al., 2022; Luciano et al., 2018). Still, a few studies approached interdependencies for the four interfaces leading to Figure 6.

Figure 6.

IT program interfaces.

Bos-de Vos et al. (2022) conducted a qualitative field study of an interorganizational program designed to help transform the Dutch healthcare system. They identified aligning contexts, prioritizing contexts, and adding contexts as three practices of context navigation to integrate the program into multiple parent organizations and address emerging incongruencies among contexts. Farid and Waldorff (2022) employ institutional logic to explore the change program–organizational context interface and investigate how program management actors navigate the interface to create value. They theorize navigation practices of problematizing, designing, and team building to resolve the tensions and facilitate program value creation. Aligning projects with the program under shared strategies while managing potential conflicts or paradoxes addresses the project-to-program interface (e.g., Gregory et al., 2015). Program-environment interdependency/interface has been emphasized to pay attention to match the program structure or management measures to the different program environments (Yu & Kittler, 2012). Finally, program-individual interdependencies play a role in considering the dynamics of stakeholders over time are managed by the program leaders (Pouloudi et al., 2016; Rose & Schlichter, 2013). Other sources are shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

Studies on the Interdependency or Interfaces of IT Programs

Interfaces	Topics/Themes	Sources
Program-Organization	Integrating the program into multiple parent organizations; managing multiple projects in a supplier network; boundary activities; integration mechanisms	(Bos-de Vos et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2018; Fernandez et al., 2022)
Program-Project	Aligning projects into the program; conflicts or paradoxes between project and program	(Erasmus & Marnewick, 2020; Gregory et al., 2015)
Program-Environment	Matching the program structure and management measures with the environment	(Currie, 2012; Currie & Guah, 2007; Denyer et al., 2011; Yu & Kittler, 2012)
Program-Individual	Stakeholder changes and impact over the program life cycle; matching program manager’s leadership competence with the program characteristic	(Pouloudi et al., 2016; Rose & Schlichter, 2013)

Similar to the governance framework, we should expect variations across IT program types, although all IT programs must effectively manage the above four interdependencies or interfaces. For example, strategy execution IT and technology transformation programs are driven by the business strategy, so their four interfaces may be more internal than those for IT competitive potential and IT service programs that pursue more external opportunities related to IT advances. DT programs will add complexity requiring an extensive study of each interface.

More advanced digital transformation programs stem from complex interfaces and interdependencies with the environment, parent organization, internal projects, and personnel. First, the digital business strategy and digital infrastructure and processes emphasize the fusion between digital technology and business. Thus, business and technology issues interweave at each of the four interfaces. Digital transformation programs require more flexibility to respond to a dynamic digital business strategy, requiring enhanced interface management. Agility must be maintained at the interfaces to realize the dynamic strategic goals over lengthy intervals typical of a digital transformation.

Conclusion

This study aims to deal with problems related to the ambiguity of IT program definition, limited understanding of the relationship between the environment or organizational conditions and IT program characteristics, management of the organization-wide interdependencies, and governance over the life of the program to move ahead in achieving IT program success. Adopting a conceptual and critical review of the IT program management literature, we propose a common working definition of IT program (management) in response to the first research question. Consideration of the 60 identified papers leads to a categorization of five IT program types, each of which shows unique goals and strategies. The framework identifies distinctions that bind discussions of practice and research and addresses research question 2. The third question leads us to describe a generic life cycle to position governance. In this instance, the generalized framework derives from practice considerations evident in the body of research and is most subject to variation and segmentation for study. Life cycles are ubiquitous in systems studies providing a common understanding for research and practice, though the segmentation and components may vary widely. The fourth question raises the many interfaces or interdependencies an IT program endures. Though few articles address the interfaces, stakeholder groups surface as targets of interest that create interfaces to be managed. Each framework illustrates a rich opportunity for study in achieving successful IT programs. Thus, this report provides a unified definition of an IT program and its management for future research consistency and extrapolates SAM as a useful framework for contextualizing a study.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Wu would like to acknowledge the partial grants support by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M711771) and the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (72032006, 71731009, 71722014, 72061127002) to the research, as well as the support from Shenzhen National Applied Mathematics Center (NCAMS) and Shenzhen Research Base in Arts & Social Sciences (RBASS).

ORCID iDs

Xiaosong (Jason) Wu

Gary Klein

Author Biographies

Xiaosong (Jason) Wu is an Associate Distinguished Research Fellow at Bay Area International Business School, Beijing Normal University. His research interests focus on complex IT/IS project management and IT-enabled or digital transformation program management. His work has been published in the International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Information & Management, International Journal of Information Management, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Information Systems Management, and Journal of Management Science and Engineering. He can be contacted at xiaosongw@outlook.com

Gary Klein recently retired as the Couger Professor of Information Systems with the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. His research and teaching interests include project management and mathematical modeling with more than 250 academic publications in these areas. Dr. Klein served on numerous editorial boards, was a recent co-editor-in-chief of Project Management Journal, and a founding co-editor-in-chief of Technology Transfer and Society and Organizational Cybersecurity Journal. He can be contacted at gklein@uccs.edu

James J. Jiang is a Distinguished Professor at the College of Management, National Taiwan University (NTU). Prior to joining NTU, he was a Distinguished Professor of Information Systems at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, and a Research Professor of Information Systems at the University of Central Florida. His primary research interests are information systems and technology project and program management. Professor Jiang served as senior editor of Journal of Association of Information Systems and MIS Quarterly and associate editor of Information & Management. He is the current editor-in-chief of Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems. He can be contacted at jjjiang@ntu.edu.tw

References

Aaen

Nielsen

J. A.

Carugati

. (2022). The dark side of data ecosystems: A longitudinal study of the DAMD project. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 288–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1947753

Bharadwaj

El Sawy

O. A.

Pavlou

P. A.

Venkatraman

. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482. 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3

Bos-de Vos, M., Deken, F., & Kleinsmann, M. (2022). Navigating multiple contexts to integrate system transformation programs. International Journal of Project Management, 40(3), 290–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.03.003

Brennan

. (2007). The biggest computer programme in the world ever! How’s it going? Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000104

Chang

J. Y

. (2017). Mutual monitoring of resources in an enterprise systems program. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800107

Chang

J. Y. T.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Wang

E. T. G

. (2014). Do too many goals impede a program? A case study of enterprise system implementation with multiple interdependent projects. Information & Management, 51(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.004

Chang

J. Y. T.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Wang

E. T. G

. (2019). Enterprise system programs: Goal setting and cooperation in the integration team. Information & Management, 56(6), 103137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.12.005

Cheng

F.-F.

C.-S.

Chang

J. Y. T

. (2020). Interproject conflict management through cooperation in an enterprise system implementation program. Project Management Journal, 51(6), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820949058

Chua

C. E. H.

Lim

W.-K.

Soh

Sia

S. K

. (2012). Enacting clan control in complex IT projects: A social capital perspective. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 577–600. DOI:10.2307/41703468

10.

Clegg

Shepherd

. (2007). The biggest computer programme in the world… ever!’: Time for a change in mindset? Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 212–221. 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000103

11.

Cunningham

Finnegan

. (2004). Process improvement (PI) programs and information systems: A cross-case analysis of impact. Journal of Information Technology, 19(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000003

12.

Currie

W. L

. (2012). Institutional isomorphism and change: The national programme for IT—10 years on. Journal of Information Technology, 27(3), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.18

13.

Currie

W. L.

Guah

M. W

. (2007). Conflicting institutional logics: A national programme for IT in the organisational field of healthcare. Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000102

14.

de Guinea

A. O.

Paré

. (2017). What literature review type should I conduct? In The Routledge companion to management information systems (1st ed., pp. 73–82). Routledge.

15.

Denyer

Kutsch

Lee-Kelley

Hall

. (2011). Exploring reliability in information systems programmes. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.002

16.

Dingsøyr

Moe

N. B.

Seim

E. A

. (2018). Coordinating knowledge work in multiteam programs: Findings from a large-scale agile development program. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818798980

17.

Drummond

. (1996). The politics of risk: Trials and tribulations of the Taurus project. Journal of Information Technology, 11(4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/026839629601100408

18.

Eason

. (2007). Local sociotechnical system development in the NHS National Programme for Information Technology. Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000101

19.

Elbanna

. (2010). Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2010.02.005

20.

Elbanna

. (2013). Top management support in multiple-project environments: An in-practice view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.16

21.

Erasmus

Marnewick

. (2020). An IT governance framework for IS portfolio management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(3),721–742. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2020-0110

22.

Farid

Waldorff

S. B

. (2022). Navigating tensions to create value: An institutional logics perspective on the change program and its organizational context. Project Management Journal, 53(6), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728221111321

23.

Fernandez

Klein

Jiang

Khan

R. M

. (2022). Integration networks in IT-enabled transformation programs. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15(6), 913–937. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2021-0183

24.

Ferns

D. C

. (1991). Developments in programme management. International Journal of Project Management, 9(3), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(91)90039-X

25.

Gerow

J. E.

Grover

Thatcher

Roth

P. L

. (2014). Looking toward the future of IT–business strategic alignment through the past. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1159–1186. DOI:10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.4.10

26.

Gerow

J. E.

Thatcher

J. B.

Grover

. (2015). Six types of IT-business strategic alignment: An investigation of the constructs and their measurement. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(5), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.6

27.

Goh

J. M.

Arenas

A. E

. (2020). IT value creation in the public sector: How IT-enabled capabilities mitigate tradeoffs in public organisations. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1708821

28.

Gosain

Lee

Kim

. (2005). The management of cross-functional inter-dependencies in ERP implementations: Emergent coordination patterns. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000549

29.

Gregory

R. W.

Keil

Muntermann

Mähring

. (2015). Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0554

30.

Hanelt

Bohnsack

Marz

Antunes Marante

. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies. 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639

31.

Harkness

W. L.

Kettinger

W. J.

Segars

A. H

. (1996). Sustaining process improvement and innovation in the information services function: Lessons learned at the Bose Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 20(3), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/249661

32.

Hatzakis

Lycett

Serrano

. (2007). A programme management approach for ensuring curriculum coherence in IS (higher) education. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(5), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000707

33.

Henderson

J. C.

Venkatraman

. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4–16. DOI:10.1147/SJ.1999.5387096

34.

Hoegl

Weinkauf

. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team projects: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1287–1308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00542.x

35.

Jedynak

Czakon

Kuźniarska

Mania

. (2021). Digital transformation of organizations: What do we know and where to go next? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(3), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2020-0336

36.

Jiang

J. J.

Chang

J. Y. T.

Chen

H.-G.

Wang

E. T G.

Klein

. (2014). Achieving IT program goals with integrative conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222310104

37.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Chang

J. Y. T

. (2019). Teamwork behaviors in implementing enterprise systems with multiple projects: Results from Chinese firms. Journal of Systems and Software, 157, 110392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110392

38.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Fernandez

W. D

. (2018). From project management to program management: An invitation to investigate programs where IT plays a significant role. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(1), 40–57. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol19/iss1/1

39.

Jiang

Klein

Huang

Liu

. (2020). Special issue: Contemporary mega-project and program management. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 5(3), 147–149. DOI:10.1016/j.jmse.2020.09.001

40.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Tsai

J. C.-A.

. (2018). Managing multiple-supplier project teams in new software development. International Journal of Project Management, 36(7), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.07.002

41.

Khan

M. E

. (2014). Program governance (Best practices and advances in program management) (1st ed.). Auerbach Publications.

42.

Klein

Müller

. (2020). Literature review expectations of Project Management Journal^®. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820916340

43.

Lehtonen

Martinsuo

. (2008). Change program initiation: Defining and managing the program-organization boundary. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.003

44.

Lehtonen

Martinsuo

. (2009). Integrating the change program with the parent organization. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.002

45.

Lei

Jiang

J. J

. (2022). Shared mental models and boundary management activities in new product development: A perspective on multiteam systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, PP (90), 1–13. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3147905

46.

Leonard

Higson

. (2014). A strategic activity model of enterprise system implementation and use: Scaffolding fluidity. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(1), 62–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.11.003

47.

Luciano

M. M.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mathieu

J. E

. (2018). Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1065–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315601184

48.

Markus

M. L

. (2004). Technochange management: Using IT to drive organizational change. Journal of Information Technology, 19(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000002

49.

Marnewick

. (2017). The reality of adherence to best practices for information system initiatives. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(1), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05-2016-0045

50.

Martinsuo

. (2019). Strategic value at the front end of a radical innovation program. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819853438

51.

Martinsuo

Hoverfält

. (2018). Change program management: Toward a capability for managing value-oriented, integrated multi-project change in its context. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.018

52.

McGrath

. (2002). The golden circle: A way of arguing and acting about technology in the London Ambulance Service. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(4), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000436

53.

Midler

Maniak

de Campigneulles

(2019). Ambidextrous program management: The case of autonomous mobility. Project Management Journal, 50(5), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819869091

54.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldana

. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

55.

Miterev

Engwall

Jerbrant

. (2016). Exploring program management competences for various program types. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3), 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.006

56.

Montealegre

Iyengar

Sweeney

. (2019). Understanding ambidexterity: Managing contradictory tensions between exploration and exploitation in the evolution of digital infrastructure. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(5), 647–680. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00547

57.

Mueller

S. K.

Mendling

Bernroider

E. W. N

. (2019). The roles of social identity and dynamic salient group formations for ERP program management success in a postmerger context. Information Systems Journal, 29(3), 609–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12223

58.

Nadkarni

Prügl

. (2021). Digital transformation: A review, synthesis, and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 71, 233–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

59.

Parolia

Chen

J. V.

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

. (2015). Conflict resolution effectiveness on the implementation efficiency and achievement of business objectives in IT programs: A study of IT vendors. Information and Software Technology, 66, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.05.001

60.

Parolia

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

. (2013). The presence and development of competency in IT programs. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(12), 3140–3150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.07.029

61.

Parolia

Jiang

J. J.

Klein

Sheu

T. S

. (2011). The contribution of resource interdependence to IT program performance: A social interdependence perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.004

62.

Partington

Pellegrinelli

Young

. (2005). Attributes and levels of programme management competence: An interpretive study. International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.004

63.

Pellegrinelli

. (1997). Programme management: Organising project-based change. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00063-4

64.

Pellegrinelli

. (2011). What’s in a name: Project or programme? International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.009

65.

Poltrock

Handel

. (2010). Models of collaboration as the foundation for collaboration technologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270105

66.

Pouloudi

Currie

Whitley

E. A

. (2016). Entangled stakeholder roles and perceptions in health information systems: A longitudinal study of the UK NHS N3 network. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(2), 107–161. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol17/iss2/1

67.

Ribbers

P. M. A.

Schoo

K.-C

. (2002). Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Engineering Management Journal, 14(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2002.11415162

68.

Roberts

T. L.

Cheney

P. H.

Sweeney

P. D.

Hightower

R. T

. (2004). The effects of information technology project complexity on group interaction. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2004.11045814

69.

Rose

Schlichter

B. R

. (2013). Decoupling, re-engaging: Managing trust relationships in implementation projects. Information Systems Journal, 23(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00392.x

70.

Sauer

Willcocks

. (2007). Unreasonable expectations—NHS IT, Greek choruses, and the games institutions play around mega-programmes. Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000108

71.

Schreieck

Wiesche

Krcmar

. (2021). Capabilities for value co-creation and value capture in emergent platform ecosystems: A longitudinal case study of SAP’s cloud platform. Journal of Information Technology, 36(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211023780

72.

Schreieck

Wiesche

Krcmar

. (2022a). From product platform ecosystem to innovation platform ecosystem: An institutional perspective on the governance of ecosystem transformations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 23(6), 1354–1385. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00764

73.

Schreieck

Wiesche

Krcmar

. (2022b). Governing innovation platforms in multi-business organisations. European Journal of Information Systems. DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2022.2041371

74.

Seddon

P. B.

Calvert

Yang

. (2010). A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721429

75.

Shao

. (2018). The moderating effect of program context on the relationship between program managers’ leadership competences and program success. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.004

76.

Teubner

R. A

. (2018). IT program management challenges: Insights from programs that ran into difficulties. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 6(2), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm060204

77.

Teubner

R. A

. (2019). An exploration into IT programs and their management: Findings from multiple case study research. Information Systems Management, 36(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2018.1553648

78.

Tsai, J. C., Wu, X., Klein, G., & Jiang, J. J. (2022). Goal equivocality and joint account of meaning creation in an enterprise system program. Information Systems Management, 39(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1879324

79.

Vega

Chiasson

Brown

. (2008). Extending the research agenda on diffusion: The case of public program interventions for the adoption of e-business systems in SMEs. Journal of Information Technology, 23(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000135

80.

Vial

. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

81.

Wang

W.-T.

Luo

M.-C.

Chang

Y.-M

. (2022). Exploring the relationship between conflict management and transformational leadership behaviors for the success of ERP customization. Information Systems Management, 39(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1913680

82.

Wessel

Baiyere

Ologeanu-Taddei

Cha

Blegind Jensen

. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 102–129. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00655

83.

Willcocks

Smith

. (1995). IT-enabled business process reengineering: Organizational and human resource dimensions. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0963-8687(95)96806-J

84.

Wimelius

Mathiassen

Holmström

Keil

. (2021). A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 198–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12307

85.

Wolfswinkel

J. F.

Furtmueller

Wilderom

C. P. M

. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

86.

X. J.

Huang

W. W.

Chia-An Tsai

Klein

Jiang

J. J

. (2020). Differentiation and dynamism within the IT development program. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 5(3), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2020.08.002

87.

Yeow

Sia

S. K.

Soh

Chua

. (2018). Boundary organization practices for collaboration in enterprise integration. Information Systems Research, 29(1), 149–168. https://doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0743

88.

Yeow

Soh

Hansen

. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001

89.

Kittler

, M. (2012). Matching programme structure to environment: A comparative study of two IS-based change programmes. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 740–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.009