Martin Wiener Magnus Mahring Ulrich Remus Carol Saunders

1. Control Configuration and Control Enactment
in Information Systems Projects:
Review and Expanded Theoretical Framework
Martin Wiener, Bentley University
Magnus Mähring, Stockholm School of Economics
Ulrich Remus, University of Innsbruck
Carol Saunders, Northern Arizona University
Theory and Review
Citation: Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., and Saunders, C. (2016) “Control Configuration and Control Enactment in
Information Systems Projects: Review and Expanded Theoretical Framework,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 741-774.

2. • The control of IS projects is a key activity for deployment of IT resources and
ultimately for value creation through IT
• In our study, we provide a systematic review and synthesis of the literature and
develop an expanded theoretical framework for IS project control with
supporting conjectures
• Our review reveals that prior research primarily studies the contextual
antecedents and performance consequences of control modes and amounts,
and thus focuses on control configurations (what?)
• In contrast, prior research largely neglects control enactment (how?), that is,
how the controller interacts with the controllee to put controls into practice
• Informed by the review results, we conceptualize control enactment in terms of
control style (authoritative vs. enabling) and control congruence
(communicational and evaluational)
• Expanding the toolbox of concepts available to IS researchers, our framework
helps resolve existing research gaps and inconsistencies, and opens up new
avenues for future research on the control of IS projects
2
In a nutshell
Summary

3. • Introduction
– Motivation
– Foundations
• Literature review
– Methodology & Analytical framework
– Key results
• Theory development
– Expanded theoretical framework
– Definitions & Conceptualizations
– Conjectures
• Contributions
3
Contents
Overview
2
1
3
4

4. 4
Controlling IS projects is a challenging task,
contributing to the continuing high failure rate
• Inherent complexity
(KIRSCH 1996; MÄHRING & KEIL 2008)
• Abstract work processes and
project outcomes
(CHOUDHURY & SABHERWAL 2003)
• Project dynamics (e.g.,
goals, team members,
stakeholders, context
factors)
(KIRSCH 2004)
• Lack of relevant knowledge
(KIRSCH ET AL. 2002)
• Etc.
Control challenges IS project failure
Motivation
FBI Virtual
Case File
project
“I did not do the things
I should have done to make sure
that [the project] was a success”
(FBI DIRECTOR RICHARD MUELLER)
EXAMPLE
21 3 4

5. • Control is often thought to be dyadic (controller vs. controllee), with
the controller carrying out specific activities to regulate or adjust the
controllee behavior (CHOUDHURY & SABHERWAL 2003; KIRSCH 1996)
• Control activities are typically categorized into different types and
modes of control (JAWORSKI 1988; KIRSCH 1996; OUCHI 1979)
5
Control modes have been the dominant theoretical lens
in IS project control research over the last 20 years
Foundations
Control activities
Controller Controllee
Behavior
control
Outcome
control
Clan
control
Self-
control
Input
control
Formal control Informal controlTypes
Modes
21 3 4

6. 6
We followed established guidelines to conduct a
comprehensive review centering on three major themes
• Five-step search process
(WEBSTER & WATSON 2002)
– Manual & Keyword search
(AIS Basket of Eight)
– Database search
(EBSCO & ScienceDirect)
– Backward & Forward search
• Study exclusion criteria
– No focus on “IS project control”
– Conference papers that resulted in
journal articles
– Research-in-progress papers
– No original content
(e.g., announcements, forewords)
• Final review sample of 57 studies
• Theme 1: Control choices
(antecedents)
• Theme 2: Control effects
(consequences)
• Theme 3: Control dynamics
(changes)
Review methodology Analytical framework
Literature review 21 3 4

7. Note: A = Agreement; G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 7
The review revealed areas of agreement, gaps, and
inconsistencies in extant IS project control literature
Review results (1/2)
Theme Key points
Control
choices
• Four key antecedents of control mode choices: behavior observability, outcome
measurability, controller and controllee IS knowledge (A)
• Two key antecedents of control amount choices: complexity of the project task and
the controller’s trust in the controllee (A)
• While the potential importance of control style is identified in the literature, little is
known about the antecedents of different control styles (G)
Control
effects
• Performance-enhancing effect of formal/informal control in internal IS projects (A)
• Studies on outsourced IS projects have produced mixed results with regard to the
link between control and performance (I)
• Prior literature provides initial evidence for distinct and partly inverse control effects
on project efficiency, quality, and adaptiveness (G)
• Studies are inconclusive as to whether formal and informal controls act as
complements, substitutes, or simultaneously as both (I)
• Strong focus on intended control consequences; this focus largely neglects
unintended, socio-emotional consequences of control (G)
Control
dynamics
• Less than one sixth of the reviewed studies apply a dynamic perspective (G)
• Performance problems trigger changes in control portfolio configurations (A)
• Like static studies, dynamic studies focus on control modes and amounts (G)
21 3 4

8. Note: A = Agreement; G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 8
Most importantly, it shows that earlier research has primarily
focused on control portfolio configurations (What modes?)
Review results (2/2)
Theme Key points
Conceptual
basis
• Great majority of the studies in our sample view IS project control in terms of control
modes and amounts, and thus focus on control portfolio configurations (A)
• Only six studies also consider facets of how controls are put into practice, focusing
on either control style or control congruence (G)
• About 90% of the reviewed studies draw upon the well-established ‘Kirsch typology’
to classify controls into four modes: behavior, outcome, clan and self-control (A)
• In contrast, only three studies in the review sample include input control as third
mode of formal control in their analysis (G)
Research
method
• Review does not point to any bias in IS project control research by the dominance
of a particular method (qualitative and quantitative studies are well balanced)
• However, one can observe a strong methodological focus on surveys (27 studies)
and case studies (24) as compared to the rather limited use of other methods, such
as ethnographies, experiments, and multi-method approaches (G)
• Only five survey-based studies in our review sample collected matched-pair data
covering both sides of the control dyad; all other surveys relied on data collected
from only one side of the dyad (typically the controller), thereby neglecting the
controllee’s perspective and implicitly assuming control congruence between
controller and controllee (G)
21 3 4

9. 9
On this basis, we offer an expanded framework of IS project
control that pays particular attention to how controls are enacted
Traditional view Expanded view
Theoretical framework 21 3 4

10. 10
Drawing on the insights gained from our review, we conceptualize
control enactment (how?) in terms of control style and congruence
Definitions & Conceptualizations
Control enactment
Interaction between controller and controllee through which the controller implements formal controls
and/or promotes informal controls
Enabling
Anticipation of breakdowns
(repair) & visibility of
control activities
(transparency)
(ADLER & BORYS 1996)
Control style
Manner in which the interaction between
controller and controllee is conducted
(GREGORY ET AL. 2013; GREGORY & KEIL 2014)
Authoritative
Top-down control style that
relies on bureaucratic
values and lacks repair &
transparency features
(ADLER & BORYS 1996)
Communicational
Shared understanding
between controller and
controllee regarding the
enacted controls
(OUCHI 1978)
Evaluational
Controller-controllee
agreement regarding the
appropriateness of the
enacted controls
(NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. 2013)
Control congruence
Degree of similarity between controller and
controllee perceptions of enacted controls
(NARAYANASWAMY ET AL. 2013)
vs. +
21 3 4

11. Note: C = Conjecture (see slides 12-15) 11
Our expanded framework with supporting conjectures inspires
exploration of novel theoretical relationships within the area
Conjectures (overview) 21 3 4
Antecedents of
control-style choices
and dynamics
C1 C2
Interplay between
control styles and
(informal)
control modes
Consequences of
control styles and
control congruence
C4 C5 C6
Interplay between
control styles and
control congruence
C7 C8
C3

12. Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 12
The choice of a particular control style depends on controller-
controllee power asymmetries and performance problems
Conjectures (1/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
1a In IS project control relationships, power asymmetries
in favor of the controller (based on formal authority and/
or knowledge) increase the likelihood for the use of an
authoritative control style.
• Antecedents of control-style
choices (G)
1b In IS project control relationships, power symmetries or
power asymmetries in favor of the controllee (e.g., lack
of controller IS knowledge) increase the likelihood for
the use of an enabling control style.
• See above
2 In situations where an enabling control style is in use,
the anticipation and/or occurrence of performance
problems in IS projects increase the likelihood for a
shift to an authoritative control style.
• Antecedents of control-style
choices (G)
• Control dynamics in terms of
control style (G)
• Input control (G)
21 3 4

13. Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 13
Control styles have distinct effects on the enactment of informal
controls and the different dimensions of IS project performance
Conjectures (2/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
3 In IS project control relationships, enacting formal
controls (i.e., input, behavior, and outcome controls) in
an enabling control style facilitates the enactment of
informal controls (i.e., clan and self-controls), whereas
enacting formal controls in an authoritative control
style may counteract the enactment of informal
controls.
• Interaction effects between
formal/informal controls (I)
• Input control (G)
4a Under the precondition that the controller possesses the
appropriate knowledge, enacting controls in an
authoritative control style is particularly beneficial for IS
project efficiency.
• Distinct control effects on IS
project efficiency, quality, and
adaptiveness (G)
4b Enacting controls in an enabling control style is
particularly beneficial for IS project quality and
adaptiveness.
• See above
21 3 4

14. Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 14
An authoritative control style and a lack of control congruence
increase the risk of unintended control consequences
Conjectures (3/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
5 While the use of an authoritative control style is more
likely to evoke negative socio-emotional control
consequences (such as controllee dissatisfaction and
demotivation) in IS projects, the use of an enabling
control style is more likely to mitigate such negative
socio-emotional control consequences.
• Negative socio-emotional
consequences of control
activities (G)
• Controllee perspective (G)
6 Both communicational congruence and evaluational
congruence are important to ensure that controls have
the intended impact on controllee behaviors, and
ultimately increase IS project performance.
• Direct control effects on the
performance of outsourced IS
projects (I)
• Negative socio-emotional
consequences of control
activities (G)
• Controllee perspective (G)
21 3 4

15. Note: G = Gap; I = Inconsistency. 15
Contextual factors such as task complexity and power distance
influence the interplay between control styles and congruence
Conjectures (4/4)
# Conjecture Gaps/Inconsistencies
7 In IS projects with high task complexity, enacting
controls in an enabling control style helps achieve
communicational congruence between controller and
controllee; whereas in IS projects with low task
complexity, enacting controls in an authoritative
control style helps achieve communicational
congruence.
• Interplay between control style
and congruence (G)
8 In IS projects conducted within cultural contexts
characterized by high power distance, enacting
controls in an authoritative control style helps achieve
evaluational congruence between controller and
controllee; whereas in IS projects conducted within
cultural contexts characterized by low power distance,
enacting controls in an enabling control style helps
achieve evaluational congruence.
• Interplay between control style
and congruence (G)
21 3 4

16. 1. By addressing control style, a key aspect of control enactment, our
expanded theoretical framework points toward possible expansions of our
understanding of control choices (C1) and dynamics (C2) in IS projects
2. Our framework proposes that the control style influences whether formal
and informal controls complement or substitute each other (C3), thereby
offering an explanation for inconclusive results in prior literature
3. Conceptualizing control enactment in terms of control style (C4) and
control congruence (C6), the framework offers a way to better understand
how control activities impact IS project performance
4. Our framework incorporates not only intended (performance-related)
control consequences, but also unintended consequences (C5, C6)
5. The framework prompts new questions about how control styles are
related to communicational congruence (C7) and evaluational congruence
(C8), and how contextual factors might influence this interplay
6. Incorporating input control, our framework moves beyond the prevalent
view of projects as in essence closed systems with predefined resources
16
Our expanded framework highlights the importance of studying
control configuration (what) and enactment (how) in combination
Main contributions 21 3 4

17. Our aim and hope is for this Theory and Review study to inspire and
provide the conceptual basis for novel, exciting and useful research
on IS project control that pushes the boundaries of the research area
17
Contact
Author team
Martin
WIENER
mwiener@bentley.edu
Magnus
MÄHRING
magnus.mahring@hhs.se
Ulrich
REMUS
ulrich.remus@uibk.ac.at
Carol
SAUNDERS
carol.saunders@nau.edu

18. Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. 1996. “Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive,” Administrative Science
Quarterly (41:1), pp. 61-89.
Choudhury, V., and Sabherwal, R. 2003. “Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects,”
Information Systems Research (14:3), pp. 291-314.
Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., and Keil, M. 2013. “Control Balancing in Information Systems Development
Offshoring Projects,” MIS Quarterly (37:4), pp. 1211-1232.
Gregory, R. W., and Keil, M. 2014. “Blending Bureaucratic and Collaborative Management Styles to Achieve
Control Ambidexterity in IS Projects,” European Journal of Information Systems (23:3), pp. 343-356.
Jaworski, B. J. 1988. “Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and
Consequences,” Journal of Marketing (52:3), pp. 23-39.
Kirsch, L. J. 1996. “The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems
Development Process,” Organization Science (7:1), pp. 1-21.
Kirsch, L. J. 2004. “Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control,” Information Systems
Research (15:4), pp. 374-395.
Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Dong-Gil, K., and Purvis, R. L. 2002. “Controlling Information Systems
Development Projects: The View from the Client,” Management Science (48:4), pp. 484-498.
Mähring, M., and Keil, M. 2008. “Information Technology Project Escalation: A Process Model,” Decision
Sciences (39:2), pp. 239-272.
Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V., and Henry, R. M. 2013. “The Impact of Influence Tactics in Information
System Development Projects: A Control-Loss Perspective,” Journal of Management Information
Systems (30:1), pp. 191-225.
Ouchi, W. G. 1978. “The Transmission of Control through Organizational Hierarchy,” Academy of Management
Journal (21:2), pp.173-192.
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms,”
Management Science (25:9), pp. 833-848.
Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature
Review,” MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii-xxiii.
18
References