Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx

Journal of Management Information Systems / Summer 2014,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 79–106.
© 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions:
www.copyright.com
ISSN 0742–1222 (print) / ISSN 1557–928X (online)
DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222310104
Achieving IT Program Goals with
Integrative Conflict Management
JAMES J. JIANG, JAMIE Y.T. CHANG, HOUN-GEE CHEN,
ERIC T.G. WANG, AND GARY KLEIN
James J. Jiang is the Fu-Bon Chair Professor, College of
Management, National Taiwan
University (NTU), Taiwan. Prior to joining NTU he was a
distinguished professor of
information systems at the Australian National University and
professor of informa-
tion systems at the University of Central Florida. He earned his
Ph.D. in information
systems from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. Jiang’s research
interests include IS
project and program management and IT service quality. He has
published over 160
academic journal articles related to these subjects. He is an
associate editor of Infor-
mation & Management and Journal of the Association for
Information Systems and

a senior editor of MIS Quarterly.
Jamie Y.T. Chang is an assistant professor of information
management at Tunghai Uni-
versity, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in information
management from the National
Central University, Taiwan. Her research interests include IS
project management, IS
program management, and enterprise systems implementation.
Her current research
projects involve the development of program goal consensus
theory. Dr. Chang’s
work has been published in International Journal of Project
Management, Journal
of Systems and Software, and MIS Review.
houn-gee Chen is associate dean and professor of business
administration in the
College of Management, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
He earned his Ph.D. in
industrial engineering from the University of Wisconsin–
Madison. He was previously
a faculty member at the University of Notre Dame and National
Tsing Hua University.
His research interests include e-commerce, management
information systems, infor-
mation technology, project management, and software quality.
Dr. Chen’s research
has been published in Journal of Management Information
Systems, Information &
Management, Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM,
IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, and others. He is the editor-in-
chief of the Journal
of Information Management and serves on the editorial boards
of many international

journals.
eriC T.g. Wang is Information Management Chaired Professor
in the Department
of Information Management at National Central University,
Taiwan. He received a
Ph.D. in business administration, specialized in computer and
information systems,
from the William E. Simon Graduate School of Business
Administration, Univer-
sity of Rochester. His research interests include electronic
commerce, supply chain
management, outsourcing, organizational economics, and
organizational impact of
information technology. His research has appeared in Journal of
Management Infor-
mation Systems, MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research,
Management Science,
Decision Sciences, and others.
80 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
garY Klein is the Couger Professor of Information Systems at
the University of
Colorado, Colorado Springs. He earned his Ph.D. in
management from Purdue Uni-
versity. His research interests include project management,
technology transfer, and
mathematical modeling, with over 160 academic publications in
these areas. He served
as Director of Education for the American Society for the
Advancement of Project
Management, is an active member of the Project Management
Institute and the Inter-

national Project Management Association, and is a Fellow of the
Decision Sciences
Institute. He serves on the editorial boards of the International
Journal of Information
Technology Project Management and Information &
Management, as a departmental
editor for the Project Management Journal, as a senior editor of
the Journal of the
Association for Information Systems and the Pacific Asia
Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, and as an associate editor of MIS
Quarterly.
absTraCT: Information technology (IT) programs are collections
of projects structured
to meet goals established by top management regarding the use
of technology. Prior
research has established the importance of commitment to the
organizational goals set
by top management and a shared understanding of the goals
among the project teams.
However, conflicts occur among project teams due to pursuit of
their own goals, their
unique approaches to completion of required tasks, and their
individual need for limited
resources. These conflicts need to be resolved in a fashion that
leads to the pursuit of
program goals, not the independent goals lodged in individual
projects. We develop
a model of an IT program environment to study the effects of
goal interdependence
among projects and shared understanding of organizational
goals on promoting inte-
grative conflict management (ICM). ICM techniques yield
agreement on decisions
in the face of conflicting ideas. In turn, ICM promotes arrival at

an agreement about
implementation means and commitment to the IT program goals,
which are better
achieved as a result. The model presents a new perspective for
research on conflict
that considers the specific resolution process to be a key
component in the attainment
of goals. Practitioners should instill integrative conflict
resolution techniques into
program and project processes as a fundamental means of
achieving goals critical to
the organization.
KeY Words and phrases: conflict management, goal
commitment, goal consensus,
goal understanding, IT program, IT projects, means consensus
project integration,
project management.
Conflict among projects within a program was unavoidable . . .
the challenge is
having each project manager working cooperatively toward the
overall program
goals. (T.J. Fang, vice president of the Management Information
Center for
Quanta Computer, personal communication, January 13, 2013)
programs are inCreasinglY applied To manage Complex,
ambiguous information
technology (IT) deployments that are essential for organizations
to remain competi-
tive [12, 50]. A program is “a temporary flexible organization
created to coordinate,
direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related
projects and activities in order

ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 81
to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the organization’s
strategic objectives” [65,
p. 4]. Traditional project management is limited to low-
ambiguity situations where
clear deliverables and parameters have been identified, while
program management
is a methodology that enables organizations to deal with
increased ambiguity and
complexity. Program management is well suited to reduce
ambiguity, which occurs
when large numbers of possible solutions and stakeholders
present no clear path to
defined business goals. Addressing ambiguity is essential for
project management to be
effective [93]. As examples, IT programs are commonly
organized around enterprise
system implementations with each module considered a separate
project, large-scale
software contracts with each major deliverable a separate
project, and major product
lines of software providers with the satisfaction of each client’s
requirements consid-
ered a separate project [80].
In spite of such widespread acceptance of the program as a
management structure,
researchers still identify several key barriers to successful IT
programs due to the
complex relationships among projects and stakeholders [15, 51].
The relationships
are complex due to multiple interdependent projects with

distinct managers, resource
limitations, differing and often conflicting needs, emergent
inputs and conditions
affecting the processes, and elevated ambiguity [44].
Management of each individual
project still requires effective project management skills within
each project team, but
IT program management requires managing across teams to both
overcome and capi-
talize on the interdependences to deliver promised benefits [67,
69]. Thus, a program
brings together the diverse interests of many teams, resulting in
conflict associated with
interteam relationships instead of intrateam relationships [14,
67]. However, without
the success of all the projects, the program will fail to deliver
business value. Potential
challenges are evident and include conflict among the
interdependent project teams
and a failure to gain commitment to the overall direction and
technical infrastructure,
both prominent occurrences in IT deployments [26, 30, 81].
One theoretical perspective applied to the program environment
is based on the
tradition of goal research [6, 70]. Each project within a program
will have its own
goals that each project team is motivated to achieve [19], while
the program itself
will have established program goals that should serve to direct
the program. These
collective overall and project-level goals will be interdependent
[69]. Goal interde-
pendence means that failing to pursue overall goals by a project
may affect the ability
to achieve the established goals of other projects in the

program. A program requires
that each related project team within the program treat the
overall program goals as
a high priority to fully push successful program completion, as
well as to strive to
achieve individual project goals [18, 78]. Chang [18] addresses
this issue in program
goal consensus theory (PGCT), which advocates that a shared
understanding of clearly
formulated IT program goals and commitment to accomplish the
goals by key program
members are the necessary conditions for effective program
implementation. The
theory, however, does not address how and why the
interdependence issues must be
resolved to accomplish the desired ends, only considering
coordination as a coping
mechanism. Although projects are to collectively provide the
expected deliverables
that enable business functions, potential task-related conflicts
among these projects
have not been considered in prior research. Project leaders must
have an early agree-
ment on the implementation means and approaches that impact
the ability to integrate
the deliverables into a common program outcome. Our
knowledge on how to resolve
conflicts due to independent goals and perspectives in IT
programs so as to accomplish
the common program goals is very limited [80].

Significant work exists that addresses the concerns of task
conflict within a group.
In particular, constructive controversy theory (CCT) proposes
that group members
examine the diverse sides of an issue and come to a reasoned
solution to a problem.
One required condition is a common goal to pursue, so the
solution should have no
individual “winners” or “losers,” and only the quality of the
final decision matters.
The positive feelings and commitment individuals feel in
creating a solution to the
problem together is shared by all participants. We use the
principles of CCT and extend
its scope from a single group with a common goal to multiple
groups with interrelated
goals. Our research question is whether the application of
constructive controversy
practices, by managing the amalgamation of conflict among
projects, can help attain
goal commitment in a goal-interdependent environment and lead
to an agreement on
the means to reach program goals. To address this question, we
adopt PGCT as the
research foundation and incorporate the concepts drawn from
CCT, interdependence,
and the means to deliver a program’s desired outcomes. CCT
itself must be extended
to a multiteam and multigoal environment as well as empirically
tested in an IT setting
with the stakeholder and goal variations common to the field.
The resulting model
combines interteam interdependences, goal establishment and
commitment, and pro-
cesses that best unite disparate projects in a single program.
Beyond these important

theoretical extensions, organizations will benefit from any
inferences regarding the
setting of goals, the process of gaining uniform goal
commitment, reaching agreement
on processes, and the management of conflicts due to
interdependences.
Theoretical Background
programs are formed of disCreTe proJeCTs, each of which has
unique requirements
and features that may mesh or conflict with one another [34].
The differences and
similarities across projects create interdependences of limited
resources, diverse
requirements and system features, and multiple perspectives of
implementation means
that lead to conflict across the projects and create difficulties in
managing them as a
collective program to deliver the expected business functions.
In other words, in addi-
tion to the program goal formulation, implementations’ means
and approaches among
these identified projects must be compatible to enable
integration of the deliverables.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Chang [18], the existing
literature on program
management is sparse and still in the definition and exploratory
stages that include
topics such as (1) defining the program management concept
[74], (2) exploring
program management success factors [75], (3) providing
governance frameworks or
methods [62], and (4) examining the benefits of program
management [80].

Chang [18] proposes a PGCT to provide a foundation for
explaining the achieve-
ment of desired program outcomes. Her model, generalized in
Figure 1, is derived
from strategic consensus theory in the strategic management
literature [84]. Strategic
consensus proposes that agreement among members of the top
management team about
strategic goals will be positively associated with organizational
performance [43].
Business enablement goals of an IT program, however, are
pursued by participants at
multiple levels within an organization who have both direct and
indirect control over
the final outcome. Unless all the key managers of a program
have a shared understand-
ing and are committed to the IT program goals, they may
continue to pursue their
personal self-interests or interests of their subunits instead of
those established for a
higher purpose [18]. A shared goal understanding is essential
for deployment teams
whose primary objective is to deliver the goals established by
the top management
teams [87]. Skepticism or lack of commitment will deter the
promotive coordination
and effort behaviors critical to program goal achievement [1].
The PGCT-based model considers the important motivational
and directional aspects

of having common outcome goals (IT-enabled business
functions), which is ingrained
into key members of a deployment team (shared IT goal
understanding) and has full
support of those involved (goal commitment). The coordination
and effort fostered (pro-
motive interaction behaviors) will drive the deployment forward
in a positive fashion.
However, the model does not consider the bigger problem of
conflict that arises due to
interdependences [11], including the aspect of reaching
agreement on the best means
to achieve overall program goals as opposed to means directed
at achieving individual
project goals [91]. We expand the perspective to include
potential implementation
conflicts among projects [77]. Moving a program forward
requires decisions about
the policies and processes to manage each project [86].
Conflicts will arise among the
multiple projects because of the diversity of available methods,
different backgrounds
and experiences of participants, interdependent team goals, and
different perspectives
of the many stakeholders [60, 69]. Conflict strains interactions
and trust, leads to
further conflict, and has a negative effect on software product
development and client
satisfaction [31]. Therefore, resolving conflict that arises among
the project teams,
from interdependences and from deciding the means to
accomplish the collective goal,
is one of the crucial issues in the successful management of
programs [22].
The relation between conflict and IT development has been

considered critical
for decades. Table 1 highlights the information systems (IS)
literature on conflict.
Conflict examined in the IT implementation context focuses on
either the conflicts
Figure 1. Program Goal Consensus Conceptual Model
T
ab
le
1
. C
on
fl
ic
t
Id
en
ti
fi
ed
i
n

th
e
IS
L
it
er
at
ur
e
S
ou
rc
es
C
on
st
ru
ct
D
efi
ni
ti
on
C

o
n
fli
ct
s
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u
p
m
e
m
b
e
rs
R
o
b
e
y

e
t
a
l.
[7
6
]
C
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct
is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s

a
m
a
n
ife
st
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u

p
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
R
o
b
e
y
e
t
a
l.
[7
7
]
C
o
n
fli
ct

C
o
n
fli
ct
in
te
n
si
ty
is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s
th
e
e
xt
e
n

t
o
f
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u
p
m
e

m
b
e
rs
.
B
a
rk
i a
n
d
H
a
rt
w
ic
k
[1
0
]
C
o
n
fli
ct
C

o
n
fli
ct
is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s
a
m
a
n
ife
st
d
is
a
g
re
e

m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
g
ro
u
p
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
A
n
d
re

s
a
n
d
Z
m
u
d
[
2
]
G
o
a
l c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct
is
t

h
e
d
e
g
re
e
o
f
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e

p
ro
je
ct
g
o
a
ls
a
m
o
n
g
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
B
a
rk
i a
n

d
H
a
rt
w
ic
k
[1
1
]
In
te
rp
e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
fli
ct
In

te
rp
e
rs
o
n
a
l c
o
n
fli
ct
is
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s
a
p
h
e

n
o
m
e
n
o
n
t
h
a
t
o
cc
u
rs
b
e
tw
e
e
n
in
te
rd

e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
p
a
rt
ie
s
a
s
th
e
y
e
xp
e
ri
e
n

ce
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
e
m
o
tio
n
a
l r
e
a
ct
io
n
s
to
p
e
rc

e
iv
e
d
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
ts
a
n
d
in
te
rf
e
re
n
ce

w
ith
t
h
e
a
tt
a
in
m
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
ir
g
o
a
ls
.
L

ia
n
g
e
t
a
l.
[5
5
]
Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
is

t
h
e
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g
t
e
a
m
m
e

m
b
e
rs
r
e
g
a
rd
in
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
te
n
t
o
f
th
e

t
a
sk
s
b
e
in
g
p
e
rf
o
rm
e
d
a
n
d
d
iff
e
re
n
ce

s
in
v
ie
w
p
o
in
ts
,
id
e
a
s,
a
n
d
o
p
in
io
n
s.
L
ia

n
g
e
t
a
l.
[5
6
]
Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
Ta
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
is

jo
b
-o
ri
g
in
a
te
d
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
m
o
n
g

t
e
a
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
r
e
g
a
rd
in
g
p
e
rs
p
e
ct
iv

e
s,
th
o
u
g
h
ts
,
o
r
o
p
in
io
n
s
o
n
h
o
w
t
o

c
o
m
p
le
te
t
a
sk
s
o
r
e
ve
n
w
h
e
th
e
r
to
d
o

c
e
rt
a
in
t
a
sk
s.
C
o
n
fli
ct
s
b
e
tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n

d
I
S
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs
F
o
st
e
r
a
n
d
F
ra
n
z
[2
8
]

U
se
r–
IS
t
a
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct
is
t
h
e
d
iff
e

re
n
t
p
e
rc
e
p
tio
n
s
b
e
tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n
d
I

S
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs
o
n
s
ys
te
m
d
e
si
g
n
a
n
d
sy

st
e
m
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
p
ro
ce
ss
e
s.
Y
e
h
a
n
d

T
sa
i [
9
5
]
U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
si
d
e
r
co
n
fli

ct
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
o
f
a
rg
u
m
e
n
t
b
e

tw
e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n
d
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs
.
S
n
e
a
d
a
n

d
N
d
e
d
e
-A
m
a
d
i [
8
3
]
U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n

si
d
e
r
co
n
fli
ct
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
o
f
u
se

rs
a
n
d
I
S
d
e
ve
lo
p
e
rs
h
a
vi
n
g
t
h
e
ir
o
w
n

r
e
so
u
rc
e
a
n
d
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio
n
a
l c
o
n
st
ra

in
ts
a
n
d
p
ro
te
ct
in
g
t
h
e
ir
o
w
n
in
te
re
st
s.

W
a
n
g
e
t
a
l.
[9
1
]
U
se
r–
IS
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct

is
t
h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
o
f
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
tw

e
e
n
u
se
rs
a
n
d
I
S
s
ta
ff
d
u
ri
n
g
s
ys
te
m
d

e
ve
lo
p
m
e
n
t
p
ro
ce
ss
.
M
e
is
so
n
ie
r
a
n
d
H

o
u
zé
[
6
1
]
U
se
r–
IS
t
a
sk
c
o
n
fli
ct
C
o
n
fli
ct
is
a

n
y
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
b
o
u
t
th
e
s
ys
te
m
,

d
e
fin
iti
o
n
s,
a
n
d
e
xe
cu
tio
n
o
f
ta
sk
s
b
y
u
se

rs
.
C
o
n
fli
ct
a
m
o
n
g
p
ro
je
ct
t
e
a
m
s
w
ith
in
a
p

ro
g
ra
m
T
h
is
s
tu
d
y
In
te
rt
e
a
m
t
a
sk
-r
e
la
te
d

co
n
fli
ct
s
Ta
sk
-o
ri
g
in
a
te
d
d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n

t
a
m
o
n
g
p
ro
je
ct
t
e
a
m
le
a
d
e
rs
r
e
g
a
rd

in
g
p
e
rs
p
e
ct
iv
e
s,
th
o
u
g
h
ts
,
o
r
o
p
in

io
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
q
u
e
n
ce
s
o
f
p
ro
je
ct
c
o

m
p
le
tio
n
; h
o
w
t
o
c
o
m
p
le
te
r
e
q
u
ir
e
d
ta

sk
s
fo
r
e
a
ch
p
ro
je
ct
,
a
n
d
/o
r
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta

tio
n
; d
is
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
r
u
le
s,
p
ro
ce
d
u
re

s,
a
n
d
st
ra
te
g
y.
among team members on a project or between users and IT
personnel. These studies
have dissected conflict in a traditional intrateam environment,
but in spite of valuable
insights, overlooked the conflict in the multiteam environment.
Conditions associ-
ated with conflict among IT program teams include (1)
competition for resources,
(2) lack of cooperation, (3) conflicting subgoals/system features
among projects, and
(4) implementation methods/strategy conflicts [10, 44]. These
task-related conflicts
must be resolved to improve prospects of success. Table 2
highlights the IS literature
about how to deal with conflicts effectively under intrateam

situations along with
associated benefits. In general, conflict resolution processes
that strive to capitalize
on the conflict differ in results from those that attempt to force
consensus, with strong
benefits arising from viewing conflict as a competition across
teams under the theories
of constructive controversy and conflict [40]. These processes
can be classified as either
integrative (attempts to identify and achieve outcomes that are
mutually satisfying)
or nonintegrative. In general, integrative conflict management
(ICM) processes are
the more effective approach compared to the others (e.g.,
compromising, assertion, or
avoidance) in the IT project implementation context. Still, these
conclusions have not
been considered in an interteam environment where there is a
need for joint decision
making that accounts for differences in goals and perceptions
[45]. In such a case,
ICM may be the most appropriate [13].
To consider a productive view of conflict resolution, we turn to
CCT. CCT begins
with a strong goal [40]. Once the goal is universally understood,
group members must
collectively examine the various perspectives of any issue to
arrive at the best deci-
sion on how to achieve the goal. The common goal must be
shared and understood by
participants in the resolution of conflict, embedded in the
shared IT goal understanding
of PGCT. A process that implements the principles of CCT
should create the desired
goal commitment of PGCT through the improved relationships

and designing the
means to accomplish the program goal. To date, however, CCT
has not been consid-
ered and tested in the interteam context, nor has any shared
understanding of goals
been considered as the input. We will consider and test these
extensions in this study.
In summary, interdependence often results in conflict among
project teams; however,
adopting a process following the principles of CCT will lead to
a decision on delivery
means and the commitment toward completing a mutually
shared goal.
To meet the principles of implementing CCT, an ICM approach
is encouraged [41,
63]. In ICM, satisfactory conflict resolution should not inhibit
discussion to avoid
disagreement or argument. Instead, a realistic appraisal of
alternative ideas and courses
of action present a more fruitful environment. When individuals
present their rationale
and solutions to others, they engage in cognitive rehearsal,
deepen understanding of the
problem and their position, and use high-level reasoning [89].
When confronted with
different rationales and solutions, individuals become uncertain
as to the correctness
of their views. By adapting their perspective to the reasoning of
others, individuals
arrive at reconceptualized solutions. The outcomes of such a
process can include
cognitive reasoning about decision outcomes, attitude change
about the problem and
decisions, and increased self-esteem. Furthermore, the
commitment individuals feel

to the common problem and solution is enhanced. Although the
process of ICM can
T
ab
le
2
. C
on
fl
ic
t
M
an
ag
em
en
t
in
t
he
I
S

L
it
er
at
ur
e
S
ou
rc
es
C
on
ce
pt
D
efi
ni
ti
on
S
a
w
ye
r

a
n
d
G
u
in
a
n
[
7
9
]
C
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
h
e
a
b
ili
ty
o
f
th
e
t
e
a
m
t
o
r
e
a
ch
a
g
re

e
m
e
n
ts
a
m
o
n
g
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
S
u
ss
m
a
n
a
n

d
G
u
in
a
n
[
8
5
]
C
o
n
fli
ct
r
e
so
lu
tio
n
T
h
e
d
e

g
re
e
t
h
e
t
e
a
m
m
in
im
iz
e
s
te
n
si
o
n
s
b
e

tw
e
e
n
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.
A
ri
a
s-
A
ra
n
d
a
a
n
d
B
u

st
in
za
-
S
a
n
ch
e
z
[4
];
B
a
rk
i a
n
d
H
a
rt
w
ic
k
[1

1
]
A
ss
e
rt
in
g
A
ss
e
rt
in
g
o
cc
u
rs
a
s
in
d
iv
id

u
a
ls
s
tr
iv
e
t
o
w
in
o
r
p
re
va
il.
C
o
n
fli
ct
is
s

e
e
n
a
s
a
z
e
ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio
n
,
w
ith
o
n
e
p

a
rt
y’
s
g
a
in
c
o
m
in
g
o
n
ly
w
ith
t
h
e
o
th
e
r’s

lo
ss
,
o
r
w
ith
o
n
e
p
a
rt
y’
s
a
cc
u
ra
cy
o
r
co
rr

e
ct
n
e
ss
o
cc
u
rr
in
g
a
s
o
th
e
rs
a
re
f
o
u
n
d

t
o
b
e
in
a
cc
u
ra
te
o
r
in
co
rr
e
ct
.
A
cc
o
m
m
o
d

a
tin
g
A
cc
o
m
m
o
d
a
tin
g
v
ie
w
s
co
n
fli
ct
a
s
ze

ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio
n
s
a
n
d
o
cc
u
r
w
h
e
n
in
d
iv

id
u
a
ls
s
a
cr
ifi
ce
t
h
e
ir
o
w
n
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d

d
e
si
re
s
in
o
rd
e
r
to
s
a
tis
fy
t
h
o
se
o
f
o
th
e

r
p
a
rt
ie
s.
C
o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g
C
o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g

v
ie
w
s
co
n
fli
ct
a
s
a
z
e
ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio
n
. H
o

w
e
ve
r,
c
o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g
f
re
q
u
e
n
tly
s
p
lit
s

th
e
d
iff
e
re
n
ce
o
r
in
vo
lv
e
s
g
iv
e
-a
n
d
-t
a
ke

b
e
h
a
vi
o
rs
w
h
e
re
e
a
ch
p
a
rt
y
w
in
s
g
ro
u
n

d
a
n
d
lo
se
s
g
ro
u
n
d
.
P
ro
b
le
m
-s
o
lv
in
g
P

ro
b
le
m
-s
o
lv
in
g
o
cc
u
rs
w
h
e
n
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls

in
c
o
n
fli
ct
t
ry
t
o
f
u
lly
s
a
tis
fy
t
h
e
c
o
n
ce

rn
s
o
f
a
ll
p
a
rt
ie
s.
H
e
re
,
co
n
fli
ct
is
n
o
t

se
e
n
a
s
a
z
e
ro
s
u
m
s
itu
a
tio
n
.
A
vo
id
in
g
A

vo
id
in
g
o
cc
u
rs
w
h
e
n
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
a
re
in
d
iff

e
re
n
t
to
t
h
e
c
o
n
ce
rn
s
o
f
e
ith
e
r
p
a
rt
y

o
r
re
fu
se
t
o
a
ct
o
r
p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
te
in
c
o
n
fli

ct
. H
e
re
,
o
n
e
w
ith
d
ra
w
s,
p
h
ys
ic
a
lly
o
r
p
sy

ch
o
lo
g
ic
a
lly
,
a
b
d
ic
a
tin
g
re
sp
o
n
si
b
ili
ty

f
o
r
th
e
s
o
lu
tio
n
.
P
a
u
l e
t
a
l.
[6
8
]
C
o
lla
b
o

ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
lla
b
o
ra
tiv
e

c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
re
fe
rs
t
o
a
m
e
ch

a
n
is
m
b
y
w
h
ic
h
b
o
th
p
a
rt
ie
s
sa
tis
fy
t
h
e

ir
d
e
si
re
s
a
n
d
n
e
ith
e
r
si
d
e
h
a
s
to
s
a

cr
ifi
ce
c
o
n
si
d
e
ra
b
ly
. C
o
lla
b
o
ra
tiv
e
s
ty
le
(
h

ig
h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
o
th
e
rs
a
n
d
f
o
r
se
lf)
p
e

rt
a
in
s
to
in
te
g
ra
tin
g
t
h
e
v
ie
w
s
o
f
a
ll
in
vo

lv
e
d
.
N
o
n
co
lla
b
o
ra
tiv
e
co
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m

e
n
t
N
o
n
co
lla
b
o
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m

e
n
t
in
cl
u
d
e
s
a
vo
id
a
n
ce
,
a
cc
o
m
m
o
d
a

tio
n
,
co
m
p
e
tit
io
n
,
a
n
d
co
m
p
ro
m
is
e
.

F
u
ru
m
o
[
2
9
]
In
te
g
ra
tin
g
H
ig
h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f

o
r
se
lf
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
.
C
o
m
p
ro
m
is
in
g
M
o
d

e
ra
te
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se
lf
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
.
D
o
m

in
a
tin
g
H
ig
h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
se
lf
a
n
d
lo
w
c
o
n

ce
rn
f
o
r
o
th
e
rs
.
O
b
lig
in
g
L
o
w
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o

r
se
lf
a
n
d
h
ig
h
c
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
o
th
e
rs
.
M
ir
a

n
d
a
a
n
d
B
o
st
ro
m
[
6
3
]
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o

r
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
r
a
tt
e
m
p
ts
t
o
id
e

n
tif
y
a
n
d
a
ch
ie
ve
o
u
tc
o
m
e
s
m
u
tu
a
lly
s
a

tis
fy
in
g
t
o
b
o
th
p
a
rt
ie
s.
D
is
tr
ib
u
tiv
e
b
e
h

a
vi
o
r
D
is
tr
ib
u
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
r
e
m
p
h
a
si

ze
s
th
e
a
ch
ie
ve
m
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
o
u
tc
o
m
e
s
o

f
o
n
e
p
a
rt
y
o
ve
r
th
e
o
th
e
r.
A
vo
id
a
n
ce
A
vo

id
a
n
ce
is
f
a
ilu
re
t
o
c
o
n
fr
o
n
t
o
r
a
tt
e
m

p
t
to
r
e
so
lv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
,
sh
o
w
in
g
lo
w
c
o
n

ce
rn
f
o
r
e
ith
e
r
p
a
rt
y.
K
a
n
ka
n
h
a
lli
e
t
a
l.
[4

1
]
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
S
o
lv
in
g
t
h
e
p
ro
b
le
m
t
h
ro

u
g
h
c
o
lla
b
o
ra
tio
n
.
D
is
tr
ib
u
tiv
e
S
o
lv
in
g

t
h
e
p
ro
b
le
m
t
h
ro
u
g
h
a
ss
e
rt
io
n
.
G
o
o
e

t
a
l.
[3
2
]
H
a
rm
o
n
io
u
s
co
n
fli
ct
re
so
lu
tio
n
T

h
e
e
xt
e
n
t
to
w
h
ic
h
p
a
rt
ie
s
a
ch
ie
ve
m
u
tu

a
lly
s
a
tis
fy
in
g
r
e
so
lu
tio
n
s
o
f
co
n
fli
ct
s
th
ro

u
g
h
a
g
re
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o
n
se
n
su
s.
T
h
is

s
tu
d
y
In
te
g
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

S
o
lv
in
g
t
h
e
p
ro
b
le
m
s
th
ro
u
g
h
c
o
lla
b
o

ra
tio
n
a
m
o
n
g
p
ro
je
ct
t
e
a
m
le
a
d
e
rs
t
o
r
e

m
o
ve
c
o
n
fli
ct
b
y
a
d
d
re
ss
in
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
ce

rn
s
o
f
a
ll
p
a
rt
ie
s.
Figure 2. Proposed Research Model
operate in a beneficial way, certain conditions are required,
including the heterogene-
ity of participants, the dissemination of information among the
decision makers, and
the capability of participants to engage in rational discourse
[39]. These conditions
are met in IT programs by the diversity of key players,
specialized knowledge and
information held among the different participants, and the
professional competence
of IT professionals to share and discuss problems. Under the
pressure of goal interde-
pendence and constrained by shared, common goals, these

conditions should result in
agreement about delivery means and an increased commitment
to the program goals
by key members of the multiproject teams.
Based on the above discussion of PGCT, CCT, and ICM, we
propose an extended
model of PGCT as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, both project
goal interdependence
and shared IT goal understanding among key program members
will encourage
ICM approaches. ICM will, in turn, foster commitment to the
overall program goal
and arrive at an agreement as to the means of delivery. Both
goal commitment and
agreement on the program’s delivery means will be positively
associated with final
IT program goal achievement. PGCT is extended by adding goal
interdependence,
ICM, and delivery means consensus to explain how the
interdependent project goals
impact the program environment and how agreement on delivery
means influences
achieving the program goals. CCT is elevated from a single
group consideration to
an interteam setting, enriched by considering more goal related
concepts in a formal
managerial structure.
Research Hypotheses
When KeY plaYers aCross mulTiple proJeCTs perceive their
goals to be interdependent,
they will act to resolve differences and drive toward
commonalities. The perception of
related goals is an important variable affecting the dynamics

and outcome of a group
interaction: either competition or cooperation [25]. People in a
cooperative setting
want each other to pursue their goals effectively, for the other’s
effectiveness helps all
of them reach their goals. Furthermore, CCT suggests that
intended cooperation over
multiple goals is an implicit condition for people to adopt ICM
approaches. In an IT
program, each project team strives to act effectively and expects
other teams to do the
same. By necessity, projects rely on the output of others in their
own accomplishment
of deliverables. Interdependences require an overlap of
responsibilities to ensure a
smooth transition between activities of two different
components or entities. A program
cannot be successful if the interdependences among projects are
not identified and
managed. ICM approaches would allow the related project team
leaders to resolve the
task-related conflicts caused by interdependences. In the
literature, studies have shown
a positive relationship between interdependences and
cooperation behaviors such as
sharing information, acknowledging each other’s perspective,
and communicating
effectively [20, 90]. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 1: Goal interdependence is positively associated

with using an ICM
approach among key project and program members of an IT
program.
A common understanding of the communal goals is essential for
taking intelligent
actions by all members of the program. Goal theorists suggest
that goals regulate and
sustain efforts toward goal accomplishment [19]. Furthermore,
goals have an energizing
function; they serve as a moving force that entails both physical
effort and subjec-
tive effort from individuals toward attainment [9]. A shared IT
goal understanding
among program members will establish a common set of
expectations for the entire
program. All else being equal (e.g., team competence), people
tend to be motivated
to achieve a desired target when they have precise expectations
[58]. Goals also affect
teams by leading to the creation, discovery, and use of task-
relevant knowledge and
strategies [23]. Common goals encourage harmony [17]. They
reduce or erase the
possibility of opportunistic behavior and increase team
effectiveness [66]. Programs
are created to deliver expected business benefits. Projects are
established in the early
stages following the establishment of program goals; however,
at this early stage the
technical and task-related implementation procedures have not
been established. These
task-related strategies must be established so individual projects
can be effective. The
above discussion suggests that when shared IT goal
understanding exists, program

members are more likely to adopt a cooperative method such as
ICM to resolve the
task-related interteam conflicts. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 2: Shared IT goal understanding is positively
associated with the use
of ICM among key project and program members of an IT
program.
Working in a positive climate with respect for all perspectives
will promote working
toward a common goal. Teams are effective when they
coordinate and apply available
resources of individuals to stimulate creative solutions and
implementation [92]. How-
ever, groups may undermine motivation, leaving members
tempted to engage in social
loafing and letting others do the work [42]. A cooperative
approach to conflict com-
municates the intention to seek a mutually beneficial solution; a
competitive approach
indicates that protagonists are trying to win [24]. The success of
the program depends
on the completion of all the projects. ICM approaches allow
each of the projects to
be successfully delivered. Furthermore, the adoption of ICM
will lead to a positive
climate among project leaders. Previous studies, in fact, find
that ICM approaches
promote perceptions of fairness, working relationships, resource
usage efficiency,

commitment, and general satisfaction [13]. In short, an ICM
approach among inter-
dependent projects will not only enhance the chance of
individual project success but
also the perceptions of solution satisfaction and confidence,
cooperative attitudes, and
trust in the others to perform effectively by team members. This
positive team climate
is a critical factor for the final team outcomes [78]. Therefore,
program team members
are likely to perceive a higher expectation of goal attainment,
which is considered a
proximal antecedent of goal commitment [36]. Therefore, we
believe:
Hypothesis 3a: The use of ICM among key project and program
members is
positively associated with their extent of program goal
commitment.
Using the collective experience and knowledge of participants
will add to the
generation of agreeable methods to achieve common goals.
Participative decision
making focuses more on how to complete the desired ends
instead of on revisit-
ing the goals [47]. Principles of productive conflict resolution
include higher-level
reasoning strategies, viewing problems from different
perspectives, and bringing
individuals together [40]. These principles bring to light
advantageous outcomes that
include more reasoned solutions, decisions that consider a large
number of options,
and commitment to the solutions driven by a higher degree of
involvement. As a final

product, a mutually agreed upon solution is usually achieved
when ICM approaches
are adopted. Therefore, a higher level of delivery means that
consensus among pro-
gram team members is likely to be reached with greater levels
of ICM approaches.
We propose the following:
Hypothesis 3b: The use of ICM approaches among key project
and program
members is positively associated with the extent of delivery
means consensus.
Business value realization in a program is a learning process of
sense making, due
to program ambiguity. Changes to individual project functions
and objectives are not
uncommon [88]. Project managers are, unfortunately, averse to
change. The program
teams must not only clearly resolve task-related implementation
conflicts among
projects to reduce the uncertainty of implementation but also
ensure that each project
takes a continuous commitment to work as a team to cope with
changes. Continuous
monitoring and correction of the program to achieve the
program goals cannot be
accomplished without strong commitment. Conceptually,
individuals who are highly
committed to a goal direct their cognitive and behavioral
resources to attaining the goal,
whereas individuals with low-goal commitment may be
distracted from the assigned
goal and may put effort into unrelated activities because they
have not internalized
the goal [73]. The relationship between goal commitment and

performance is most
evident when performance is measured in relation to the goal
level, providing a direct tie
between the two [5]. However, regardless of goal difficulty, the
more the team members
are committed to their assigned team goals, the more they are
willing to take actions to
reach them and the better the performance will be. To realize a
program goal requires
not only effective plans and procedures but also collaboration
and positive attitudes
toward changes within the interdependent projects during the
program implementation
period [87]. Based on the above discussion, we propose the
following:
Hypothesis 4: The extent of goal commitment among key
project and program
members is positively associated with IT goal achievement.
Effectively promoting how the implementation process is to be
conducted positively
influences a participant’s persistence to a course of action.
Knowledge about key opera-
tional elements of one’s relevant environment enhances
coordination and effectiveness
in performing tasks that are complex, unpredictable, urgent, or
novel [16, 52]. When
the members of an IT program team organize their knowledge of
tasks, equipment,
roles, goals, and abilities for each project within the program,

they share a mental
model that allows anticipation of actions across projects so that
they can coordinate
their behaviors effectively [48]. Task models capture
perceptions and understanding
of team procedures, strategies, and task contingencies. Thus,
shared understanding
and consensus on the delivery means is a shared task agreement
for active parties in
the IT program. Those agreeing on means achieve higher levels
of performance [57].
Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 5: The extent of delivery means consensus among
key project and
program members is positively associated with IT goal
achievement.
We control for possible confounds by including four relevant
control variables in
the analysis—program size, number of projects, program
duration, and time since
go-live. Program size and the number of projects could affect
program goal achieve-
ment because of greater effort required to coordinate the
activities. They were mea-
sured by asking program managers to indicate the number of
key program members
involved in their IT program and the number of component
projects. Program duration
is a potential confound, as longer programs are exposed to
greater risk of changing
requirements. Time since go-live could affect the dependent
variable because elimina-
tion of bugs in the original implementation could alter
perceptions of the outcomes.

A longer time since go-live also means the program has had a
longer time to achieve
its overall goals. These were measured by asking IT managers
to indicate the duration
of the program and how long the resulting system has been in
use.
Research Methodology
The TargeT respondenTs of This sTudY were key players in
organizations that had
completed an enterprise system program. Enterprise systems
were chosen because of
their ambiguity of isolated goals with a clear demarcation of the
multiple projects, each
project being a unique module in the enterprise system.
Potential organizations came
from the list of annual top performance firms issued by the
China Credit Information
Service, a leading business database in Taiwan. Eligibility
constraints included that
(1) the organization conducted at least two projects within the
program, (2) the enter-
prise system program was completed, and (3) the desired three
key informants were
available to respond to questionnaires. Within each potential
organization, we first
contacted the chief information officer or a top functional
manager to introduce the
purpose of the study, to serve as one respondent, and to obtain
permission of access.

The contacts willing to participate identified two other key
informants who matched
the selection criteria in their firm during a visit by one of the
researchers. Mailed
questionnaires and an instruction letter followed within a few
days.
For each enterprise system sampled, we required responses from
a top management
team member serving as the program manager, the IT manager
of the organization
serving as a coordinator of technology for all projects and
vendors, and one func-
tional manager serving as a project manager in the program.
Program managers are
in charge of the entire implementation and are in a good
position to answer items
that assess program goal achievement; functional managers in
charge of their own
projects are appropriate to answer items about program goal
understanding by their
teams; and IT managers assessed goal interdependence, ICM,
goal commitment, and
delivery means consensus as they supervised the IT function for
all the projects and
had the opportunity to externally observe behaviors of those
efforts. The use of three
questionnaires and three key informant classes lessen potential
problems of common
method variance [71].
Construct Development
Two researchers reviewed the IT project management and team
effectiveness literature
to consider prior measures that represent the variables in the

research model. Goal
interdependence refers to the extent to which project teams
believe they are assigned
group goals and that achievement of their unique goals affects
the achievement of
overall goals or goals of the other teams. The items for
measuring project goal inter-
dependence are from the scale of Chen et al. [21]. Integrative
conflict management
refers to the integration extent of different ideas and interests
while resolving disagree-
ments and friction among key program members. The items for
integrative conflict
management were adapted to our context from the scales of
Janssen et al. [38]. Shared
IT goal understanding refers to the extent of goal consensus
among key program
members about desired IT outcomes. Shared IT goal
understanding is measured with
items adopted from the scales of Ko et al. [49]. Delivery means
consensus refers to
the shared understanding of methods and procedures by key
program members. The
items for measuring delivery means consensus are adjusted for
our context from the
scales of Ko et al. [49]. Goal commitment refers to the extent to
which the key program
members consider the program goals to be important. Items
were adapted from the
scale of Hollenbeck et al. [37] to suit our research context. IT
goal achievement refers
to the extent to which the program deliverables meet outcome
expectations. This was
measured with items suggested by Hoegl and Gemuenden [35].
To consider validity of the items for our context, a group of

eight managers, expe-
rienced in managing IT programs, evaluated the measures for
the new context. We
edited certain items based on feedback from these managers to
create a revised draft
of the instrument. At this point, 30 managers with enterprise
resource planning (ERP)
program experience in an executive master of business
administration (MBA) class
agreed to participate in a pilot test of the survey in a group
meeting off-site from their
organizations. The researchers encouraged these managers to
ask questions while
completing the questionnaire and to make notes on the
instruments if they had com-
ments about particular items. Following completion, the
researchers led a discussion
to elicit feedback and comments. The items were further edited
at this time, but no
items were added or deleted.
To further consider content validity, we determined the content
validity ratio (CVR)
and the content validity index (CVI) for all the measurement
items. Eight content
experts were chosen from among the earlier sample to evaluate
each item on whether
or not the item is an essential and applicable element and
whether or not the item is
worded clearly. CVR is evaluated from responses to binary

scales of the item being
“essential” or “nonessential” and “applicable” or “not
applicable.” CVR represents
the agreement of the content experts on whether an item reflects
the true content of
the variable. CVI is determined as the percentage of experts
rating the item as 3 on a
clarity scale of 1 to 3 (where 3 means very clear). We dropped
three items from the
instrument because the CVR and CVI were lower than 0.75 (for
eight experts), sug-
gesting reasonable content validity [53, 72]. The items
remaining on the instrument
are shown in Table 3.
The next measurement development step was a trial sample. One
hundred and fifty-
three managers from executive MBA classes at three major
universities served as the
sample. The knowledge of business processes, structures, and
procedures is high for
this experienced group. With the trial sample, we performed a
preliminary assess-
ment of the scales based on a principal components analysis
with varimax rotation
of all the items. The strength of the resulting reliability
estimates suggested a high
internal consistency among the scale items, with all alpha
values greater than 0.7.
All the items also loaded significantly on their respective
constructs, with no cross-
loading issues. This provided preliminary evidence of the
reliability and validity of
the measurement scales.
Data Collection

The final sample daTa ColleCTion sTarTed in deCember 2010
and was completed
in August 2012. Reminders followed after two weeks of not
receiving anticipated
responses. Incomplete questionnaires were further processed by
e-mails or telephone
calls. A total of 183 firms with 549 respondents, for a response
rate of 18.3 percent
from those initially contacted, were collected and included in
our analysis. The
characteristics of the 549 respondents are depicted in Table 4.
To consider whether
nonresponse bias is a problem, we compared the demographics
of all the companies
returning the questionnaires early and those of the companies
returning the question-
naires late, divided by the date we sent out reminders [82]. We
compared the means
of program size and the dependent variables between the two
groups and found no
significant difference (p = 0.99).
Assessment of the Measurement Model
On the final sample, we conducted a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) using
AMOS 18. Estimation of the CFA with six constructs yielded
good fit statistics:
T
ab

le
3
. M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
M
od
el
:
R
el
ia
bi
li
ty
a
nd
C
on
ve

rg
en
t V
al
id
it
y
C
on
st
ru
ct
s
M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
it
em
s

L
oa
di
ng
s
C
om
po
si
te
re
li
ab
il
it
y
A
ve
ra
ge
va
ri

an
ce
ex
tr
ac
te
d
S
h
a
re
d
I
T
g
o
a
l
u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d

in
g
(S
G
U
1
)
T
h
e
m
a
in
g
o
a
ls
o
f
th
e
e
n
te
rp

ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
a
re
w
e
ll
u
n
d
e
rs
to
o
d
f
o
r
a

ll
ke
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
in
m
y
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio

n
.
0
.9
0
**
0
.9
3
0
.8
2
(S
G
U
2
)
A
ll
th
e
k
e
y

p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
a
g
re
e
o
n
w
h
ic
h
o
b
je

ct
iv
e
s
a
re
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t
to
t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p

ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.9
2
**
(S
G
U
3
)
T
h
e
g
o
a
ls
o
f
th
e
e

n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
a
re
w
e
ll
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
te
d

a
m
o
n
g
a
ll
th
e
k
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
.

0
.9
2
**
G
o
a
l i
n
te
rd
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
ce
(G
I1
)
O
u
r
te
a

m
r
e
a
ch
e
s
p
ro
je
ct
o
b
je
ct
iv
e
s
b
y
h
e
lp
in
g

t
h
e
o
th
e
r
p
ro
je
ct
te
a
m
s’
r
e
a
ch
t
h
e
ir
o

b
je
ct
iv
e
s.
0
.8
1
*
0
.9
1
0
.7
7
(G
I2
)
A
cc
o
m
p
lis

h
in
g
o
u
r
p
ro
je
ct
g
o
a
ls
a
ff
e
ct
e
d
w
h
e
th

e
r
th
e
o
th
e
r
p
ro
je
ct
te
a
m
s
a
ch
ie
ve
d
o
r
d

id
n
o
t
a
ch
ie
ve
t
h
e
ir
g
o
a
ls
.
0
.9
0
**
(G
I3
)

A
ll
th
e
t
e
a
m
s
w
ith
in
t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
s
ys
te

m
p
ro
g
ra
m
a
re
c
o
lle
ct
iv
e
ly
h
e
ld
a
cc
o
u
n
ta
b

le
f
o
r
p
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
ce
/s
u
cc
e
ss
.
0
.9
2
**
In
te

g
ra
tiv
e
c
o
n
fli
ct
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(I
C
M
1
)
U
til

iz
e
d
o
p
p
o
si
te
v
is
io
n
s
to
w
o
rk
o
u
t
co
m
p
re

h
e
n
si
ve
d
e
ci
si
o
n
s.
0
.9
1
**
0
.9
5
0
. 8
6
(I
C

M
2
)
In
te
g
ra
te
d
iv
e
rs
e
id
e
a
s
in
to
c
o
m
p
re

h
e
n
si
ve
d
e
ci
si
o
n
s.
0
.9
5
**
(I
C
M
3
)
R
e
p
lie

d
t
o
a
rg
u
m
e
n
ts
w
ith
c
o
u
n
te
ra
rg
u
m
e
n
ts

u
n
til
s
u
ita
b
le
s
o
lu
tio
n
s
w
e
re
f
o
u
n
d
.
0
.9
2

**
G
o
a
l c
o
m
m
itm
e
n
t
(G
C
1
)
A
ll
ke
y
p
ro
g
ra
m

m
e
m
b
e
rs
a
re
s
tr
o
n
g
ly
c
o
m
m
itt
e
d
t
o
p

u
rs
u
in
g
t
h
e
g
o
a
ls
e
st
a
b
lis
h
e
d
f
o
r
th
e

p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.8
8
**
0
.9
3
0
.8
0
(G
C
2
)
K
e
y
p
ro

g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
b
e
lie
ve
d
t
h
a
t
it
is
r
e
a
lis

tic
t
o
e
xp
e
ct
t
o
r
e
a
ch
th
e
g
o
a
ls
s
p
e
ci
fie

d
in
o
u
r
p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.9
2
**
(G
C
3
)
It
is
e
a
sy
t

o
s
a
y
th
a
t
ke
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
t
a
ke
t
h

e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
g
o
a
ls
s
e
ri
o
u
sl
y.

0
.8
9
**
D
e
liv
e
ry
m
e
a
n
s
co
n
se
n
su
s
(M
C
1

)
K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
f
u
lly
u
n
d
e
rs
ta

n
d
h
o
w
t
h
e
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
w
ill
b
e
im

p
le
m
e
n
te
d
.
0
.9
2
**
0
.9
6
0
.8
3
(M
C
2
)
K
e
y

p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
h
a
ve
a
s
h
a
re
d
u
n
d
e

rs
ta
n
d
in
g
o
f
h
o
w
e
a
ch
p
ro
je
ct
w
ith
in
t
h
e

p
ro
g
ra
m
w
o
u
ld
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
ct
e
d
.
0
.9
3
**

(M
C
3
)
K
e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
f
u
lly
u
n
d
e

rs
ta
n
d
t
h
e
r
u
le
s
a
n
d
p
ro
ce
d
u
re
s
fo
r
p

ro
b
le
m
s/
co
n
fli
ct
s
o
lv
in
g
.
0
.8
7
**
(M
C
4
)
K

e
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
m
b
e
rs
f
u
lly
u
n
d
e
rs
ta
n
d

t
h
e
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
st
ra
te
g
ie
s/
p
la
n
s
fo
r

o
u
r
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m
.
0
.9
4
**
(M
C
5
)
T

h
e
p
ro
ce
d
u
re
f
o
r
o
u
r
e
n
te
rp
ri
se
p
ro
g
ra
m

im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
w
a
s
w
e
ll
u
n
d
e
rs
to
o
d
a
t
th

e
t
im
e
o
f
th
is
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
ta
rt
e
d
.
0
.8
9
**

IT
g
o
a
l a
ch
ie
ve
m
e
n
t
(G
A
1
)
G
o
in
g
b
y
th
e
r

e
su
lts
,
th
is
p
ro
g
ra
m
c
a
n
b
e
r
e
g
a
rd
e
d
a

s
su
cc
e
ss
fu
l.
0
.9
5
**
0
.9
7
0
.9
1
(G
A
2
)
A
ll
o
b

je
ct
iv
e
s/
g
o
a
ls
o
f
th
e
p
ro
g
ra
m
h
a
ve
b
e
e

n
s
a
tis
fie
d
.
0
.9
5
**
(G
A
3
)
F
ro
m
t
h
e
c
o
m

p
a
n
y’
s
p
e
rs
p
e
ct
iv
e
,
a
ll
p
ro
je
ct
g
o
a
ls
w

e
re
a
ch
ie
ve
d
.
0
.9
6
**
(G
A
4
)
T
h
e
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio

n
w
a
s
sa
tis
fie
d
w
ith
t
h
e
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
.
0

.9
5
**
**
p
<
0
.0
5.
Table 4. Demographic Analysis (183 Firms; 549 Respondents)
Frequency Percent
Industry
Electronic/electrical 71 38.7
Commerce business 25 13.7
Information and communication technologies 14 7.7
Finance/management service 12 6.6
Integrated circuit design/semiconductor 7 3.8
Food 4 2.2
Plastics 4 2.2
Others 46 25.1
Program size (number of key program members)
≤ 5 22 12.0
6–10 44 24.0

11–15 31 16.9
16–20 34 18.6
≥ 21 51 27.9
Number of projects
≤ 3 118 64.5
≥ 4 65 35.5
ERP vendor
DSC 123 67.2
Oracle 31 16.9
SAP 8 4.4
Others 21 11.5
Time since go-live
< 1 month 22 12.0
1–3 months 65 35.5
4–7 months 67 36.6
8–11 months 24 13.1
> 12 months 5 2.7
Implemented period
≤ 6 months 54 29.5
7–11 months 76 41.5
1–2 years 38 20.8
> 2 years 15 8.2
χ2 = 295.98, df (degrees of freedom) = 189; χ2/df = 1.57, NFI
(normed fit index) = 0.92,
CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.97, GFI (goodness-of-fit index)
= 0.88, NNFI (non-
normed fit index) = 0.96, AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index)
= 0.83, RMSEA (root
mean square error of approximation) = 0.06. This model
satisfies the recommended
levels [33]. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance

extracted (AVE) served
to demonstrate convergent validity. CR should be greater than
0.7 [33], and AVE, the
ratio of the sum of the variances captured by the construct and
measurement variances,
should greater than 0.5 [7]. These criteria were clearly met, as
shown in Table 3. We
took three steps to assess discriminant validity: (1) all items
should have a higher
loading on the defined construct than on any other construct, (2)
the square root of
the AVE for each construct should be higher than all the
interconstruct correlations
with the construct [27]; and (3) the correlation between any pair
of constructs should
below 0.80 [8]. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, strong discriminant
validity is present
in this data set.
Assessment of Structural Model
The structural equation modeling analysis with maximum
likelihood estimation in
AMOS 18 served to test the hypothesized paths. Estimation of
the structural model
with six constructs resulted in good fit indices (χ2 = 437.04, df
= 254; χ2/df = 1.72,
NFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.84, NNFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.80,
RMSEA = 0.06).
The model has a statistical power greater than 0.9 [59]. The

strong statistical power
enhances our confidence in the results of hypothesis testing,
which is based on the
examination of the standardized coefficients shown on the paths
in Figure 3. All the
hypothesized paths are significant at p < 0.05. Of the four
control variables, program
size (number of key program members) and time since go-live
are significant.
Discussion
This sTudY suCCessfullY addresses an imporTanT researCh
issue: the need for con-
ducting ICM approaches with program implementation members
to determine imple-
mentation means for all projects within the program.
Specifically, based on a survey
of key players in 183 IT programs, all of the expected
relationships show statistical
significance. A shared understanding of goals and the goal
interdependence among
projects within an IT program has a positive effect on program
teams pursuing ICM, as
expected by program management practices. Employing
constructive conflict resolution
techniques of ICM is a way to promote commitment toward
overall program goals by
the key program members and reach an agreement on the tactics
for bringing the IT
Table 5. Correlation Matrix and AVE
SGU GI ICM GC MC GA
Shared IT goal understanding

(SGU)
0.90
Goal interdependence (GI) 0.09 0.88
Integrative conflict management
(ICM)
0.29 0.15 0.93
Goal commitment (GC) 0.23 0.07 0.44 0.89
Delivery means consensus (MC) 0.27 0.20 0.48 0.62 0.91
IT goal achievement (GA) 0.26 0.11 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.95
Note: The boldface values on the diagonal are the square roots
of the AVEs. Off-diagonal elements
are the correlations among constructs.
T
ab
le
6
. C
ro
ss
-F
ac
to

r
L
oa
di
ng
s
It
em
s
IT
g
oa
l
ac
hi
ev
em
en
t
(G
A
)

G
oa
l
in
te
rd
ep
en
de
nc
e
(G
I)
In
te
gr
at
iv
e
co
nfl
ic
t

m
an
ag
em
en
t
(I
C
M
)
D
el
iv
er
y
m
ea
ns
co
ns
en
su

s
(M
C
)
S
ha
re
d
IT
g
oa
l
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
(S
G
U

)
G
oa
l
co
m
m
it
m
en
t
(G
C
)
G
A
1
0
.9
5
0

.0
9
0
.3
3
0
.3
1
0
.1
8
0
.3
3
G
A
2
0
.9

5
0
.1
2
0
.3
7
0
.3
5
0
.2
8
0
.3
9
G
A

3
0
.9
6
0
.1
2
0
.3
7
0
.3
8
0
.2
5
0
.3
9

G
A
4
0
.9
5
0
.0
9
0
.3
4
0
.3
4
0
.2
6
0

.3
6
G
C
1
0
.3
4
0
.0
7
0
.3
7
0
.6
1
0
.2

1
0
.8
8
G
C
2
0
.3
5
0
.0
6
0
.4
2
0
.5
5

0
.2
4
0
.9
2
G
C
3
0
.3
5
0
.0
8
0
.4
0
0

.5
0
0
.1
6
0
.8
9
S
G
U
1
0
.1
9
0
.0
7
0

.2
5
0
.2
2
0
.9
0
0
.1
6
S
G
U
2
0
.1
9
0

.0
7
0
.2
4
0
.2
2
0
.9
2
0
.1
8
S
G
U
3
0

.3
1
0
.1
0
0
.2
9
0
.2
8
0
.9
2
0
.2
6
G

I1
0
.1
2
0
.8
0
0
.0
7
0
.0
6
0
.0
3
0
.0
2

G
I2
0
.0
2
0
.9
0
0
.1
1
0
.1
2
0
.0
2
0
.0
2

G
I3
0
.1
4
0
.9
2
0
.1
7
0
.2
7
0
.1
6
0
.1

4
IC
M
1
0
.3
2
0
.0
9
0
.9
1
0
.4
3
0
.2
4

0
.3
6
IC
M
2
0
.3
7
0
.1
4
0
.9
5
0
.4
5

0
.2
8
0
.4
3
IC
M
3
0
.3
6
0
.1
9
0
.9
2
0
.4

5
0
.2
7
0
.4
4
M
C
1
0
.3
4
0
.1
9
0
.4
5

0
.9
2
0
.2
4
0
.5
9
M
C
2
0
.3
8
0
.2
0

0
.4
5
0
.9
3
0
.2
5
0
.5
6
M
C
3
0
.3
7
0
.1

6
0
.4
4
0
.8
7
0
.2
3
0
.5
3
M
C
4
0
.3
2

0
.2
0
0
.4
7
0
.9
4
0
.2
6
0
.5
6
M
C
5

0
.2
6
0
.1
6
0
.3
7
0
.8
9
0
.2
5
0
.5
7

N
o
te
:
B
ol
df
ac
e
va
lu
es
i
nd
ic
at
e
hi
gh
es
t
lo
ad
in
g.

program’s goals to fruition. The relationships of this model
were derived from two
separate theories to create a single illustrative picture of
achieving program manage-
ment success to include both motivational goals and the
processes required to attain
those goals. PGCT brings in the aspects of utilizing goals to
motivate and develop a
common understanding across projects in an IT program. The
focus of PGCT is to
examine the impact of the program goal formulation; however,
it does not consider
the technical implementation issues associated with the
designed program goals and
the interdependences among the projects within the program. In
other words, it leaves
out consideration of the task-related conflict caused by project
interdependences and
fails to consider how the conflict should be managed to generate
the commitment to
overall goals and the tactics used to develop an IT product that
deliver organizational
benefits. CCT provides a way to fill the void by indicating how
differences among the
stakeholders in a project can lead to the desirable methods and
attitudes agreement.
On its own, however, CCT cannot explain the roles that goals
play in IT programs
situated in a different management structure. CCT implicitly
assumes the existence of

a commonly accepted goal among team members, with all the
members motivated by
the common goal. The logical meshing of PGCT and CCT raised
to the program level
creates a picture that encompasses both motivational and
process needs for program
management. Each relationship in the model of this study has
implications for further
research as well as for practitioners.
One implication involves the current understanding of conflict
in IT deployments
at the program level. While cross-functional teams may be more
likely to produce
innovative IT outcomes, the potential for conflict and stagnation
is also high [54].
Cross-functional teams are likely to experience tension caused
by diverse professional
philosophies and competing goals from cross-functional
representatives [94]. As a
consequence, tension, conflict, and misunderstanding among
functional units may
win over cooperation and threaten commitment [11]. The
existing studies, however,
focus only on the conflicts in an “intrateam” setting. The results
of this study, however,
Figure 3. Structural Model Results
* Statistically significant at p < 0.05.
indicate that interdependences among the projects within an IT

program must also
be effectively addressed. In addition, the results of this study
suggest that the exis-
tence of interdependence among related projects could also
facilitate the adoption of
integrative problem-solving approaches to resolve the task-
related conflicts among
projects. This result was suggested by a recent study [69] at the
project level, which
observed a positive relationship between goal interdependence
and the knowledge-
sharing behaviors among businesses and external IT consultant
subgroups, leading
one to suspect that the property of interdependence is relevant
at multiple structural
levels, but more prominent in programs of higher complexity
than component projects.
The interdependence among projects must be identified and
managed to ensure the
success of program.
A second implication of this study involves the view of shared
IT goal understand-
ing being a major contributor to pursuing methods of ICM and
on to the eventual
success of goal achievement in IT programs. This level of
sharing goes beyond the
traditional concepts of knowledge sharing that includes business
needs and process
methods. Nelson and Cooprider [64] observed that the absence
of shared functional
understanding across teams can contribute to dysfunctional
group dynamics, such as
the incomplete or inaccurate capture of user requirements. Klein
and Jiang [46] argued
that agreements among IT stakeholders on evaluation criteria

must be reached to pro-
vide directions for IT development and implementation.
Ghobadi et al. [30] suggested
that generating a shared requirements understanding between IT
and business users
is the biggest challenge for cross-functional IT development
teams. Existing studies
focused on the shared understanding in the IT intrateam setting,
whereas the shared
IT goal understanding in the current study examined the shared
understanding of
program goals, objectives, and performance indicators across
teams. Communicating
goals and ensuring their understanding may be an essential first
step in an IT program
prior to program deployment activities to facilitate integrative
conflict management
of delivery means in the program setting.
Finally, directly confronting conflict in a positive fashion
improves the agreement
as to how to complete the program as well as adds to the
commitment associated with
the program goals. Based on Chang’s model [18], the level of
goal commitment is
a crucial aspect of achieving desired business goals of the IT
program. The current
study, however, provides an explanation as to how to develop
goal commitment that
is desirable in the interteam context of IT programs—adopting
integrative problem-
solving approaches for resolving the task-related conflicts.
Because conflicts tend to
be unavoidable in the IT context, this positive result is
encouraging for the prospects
of building success in either intrateam or interteam contexts [3,

61]. These conse-
quents of integrative approaches may have a stronger
implication in Asian and other
collectivist societies. Asians tend to use avoidance or
accommodating approaches to
conflict [45]. The positive outcomes found in this study,
however, indicate that taking
an ICM approach can have similar benefits in a collectivist
society, as is suggested
by Western cultures.
In spite of the encouraging results, this study has a few
limitations. First, all of the
enterprise system programs in our sample were implemented
successfully, or at least
went live. Although enterprise systems are typically large and
complex, and represent
a variety of functional areas, they do not proceed through all
stages of an in-house
development. Furthermore, situations forcing abandonment of
enterprise programs will
not be contained in the sample, leading to potential bias toward
systems that achieved
implementation. Conclusions regarding causes of failure cannot
be made with the
data, placing a boundary on PGCT as extended in this study. Of
similar concern is our
focus on ICM techniques, ignoring other possible approaches to
conflict management
and negotiation. We encourage future studies to examine other

conflict management
approaches to confirm and generalize the results of this study.
IT management must take notice of the implications of this
study. The importance
of goal understanding and project goal interdependence suggest
that top management
and IT program managers must ensure that key program
members understand both the
purpose of the IT program and how the individual projects are
interrelated. The more a
program relates to broader organizational goals, the more
important it becomes because
of the potential problems due to diversified stakeholders. Front-
end communication,
perhaps via kick-off practices, is essential to promote shared
understanding. Ques-
tions about the intended results of the program should be
clarified prior to program
commencement. The extent of the interdependence among
projects within the IT
program should be formally evaluated to motivate cooperative
interaction, especially
in the management of inevitable conflicts.
Conflict, as IT managers commonly experience it, has the
potential to destroy the
quality and timeliness of efforts by minimizing effective
communication, creating
inferior technical performance, contributing to schedule
slippage, and perhaps even
resulting in work stoppage. The positive effects of ICM on goal
commitment and
delivery means consensus suggest that conflicts can be
beneficial to IT program teams
when resolved constructively. IT program managers must be

prepared to conduct
ICM processes, or similar approaches. More importantly,
program managers and top
managers should be involved in the conflict resolution process
to understand factors
causing the conflict; as a result, top management and program
managers are able to
make organizational adjustments to resources assigned to the
program and the reward
systems, or take steps to improve communication processes.
Finally, management studies suggest that an individual’s
competency or capacity
for performing required tasks and the individual’s assessed
likelihood of achieving
specific outcomes will determine one’s commitment. ICM can
increase the program
team’s confidence and capability through the sharing of ideas
and discussion of dif-
ferences [41]. Program managers should involve all the key
program members to
propose and discuss the implementation strategies, plans, and
methods. Each project
team must understand and agree on these implementation
means, and are best arrived
at through integrative approaches.
Conclusions
an iT program musT resolve anY differenCes among proJeCTs
that might impede
progress toward the overall goals of realizing business potential
through technology.

This can be problematic due to the interdependences of projects
and the different
means that the individual project teams may employ to pursue
their own goals, rather
than those of the program. The conflicts that arise in a situation
of multiple, differ-
ing goals being forced toward a common objective must be
resolved in the existing
framework of shared goals and interdependences. Central tenets
related to research
on goals in programs focus on the importance of all project
teams being committed
to a goal that has a common understanding among the multiple
projects, but these
models fail to consider the importance of resolving conflicting
views on how best to
attain overall goals as well as independent goals of the
individual projects. To this
end, an existing model of goal attainment in programs is
extended to consider positive
techniques for conflict resolution under preconditions of the
interrelatedness of proj-
ects and shared goals. Furthermore, existing work focuses on
intrateam conflict and
not the interteam context. Thus, the theories are translated to a
different level within
an organization along with expanded consideration of the roles
of goal conditions.
The resulting model is substantially more complete, as it now
considers agreement
on the means to achieve delivery of technology-related business
objectives and the
unique environmental conditions that were not part of either
component of the merged

model. The results confirm that determination of means to
deliver the technology is
a critical aspect in promoting goal commitment and eventually
achieving desired
business outcomes of IT.
referenCes
1. Amason, A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and
dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top
management teams. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 39, 1 (1996), 123–148.
2. Andres, H.P., and Zmud, R.W. A Contingency approach to
software project coordination.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 3 (Winter
2001–2), 41–71.
3. Arazy, O.; Nov, O.; Patterson, R.; and Yeo, L. Information
quality in Wikipedia: The
effects of group composition and task conflict. Journal of
Management Information Systems,
27, 4 (Spring 2011), 71–78.
4. Arias-Aranda, D., and Bustinza-Sanchez, O. Entrepreneurial
attitude and conflict manage-
ment through business simulations. Industrial Management and
Data System, 109, 8 (2009),
1101–1117.
5. Aubé, C., and Rousseau, V. Team goal commitment and team
effectiveness: The role
of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 9, 3 (2005), 189–204.

6. Austin, J.T., and Vancouver, J.B. Goal constructs in
psychology: Structure, process, and
content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 3 (1996), 338–375.
7. Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 1 (1988), 74–94.
8. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; and Phillips, L.W. Assessing construct
validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 3 (1991), 421–
458.
9. Bandura, A., and Cervone, D. Self-evaluative and self-
efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 5
(1983), 1017–1028.
10. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. User participation, conflict, and
conflict resolution: The me-
diating roles of influence. Information Systems Research, 5, 4
(1994), 422–438.
11. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. Interpersonal conflict and its
management in information
system development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 195–228.
12. Bayraktar, E.; Demirbag, M.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Tatoglu, E.;
and Zaim, H. A causal analysis

of the impact of information systems and supply chain
management practices on operational
performance: Evidence from manufacturing SMEs in Turkey.
International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 122, 1 (2009), 133–149.
13. Behfar, K.; Peterson, R.; Mannix, E.; and Trochim, W. The
critical role of conflict resolu-
tion in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type,
conflict management strategies,
and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 2
(2008), 170–188.
14. Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, J.S. MIS problems and failures:
A socio-technical perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 1, 3 (1997), 17–32.
15. Boutross, D. Enterprise program management: A Sprint case
study. Journal of Corporate
Real Estate, 7, 3 (2005), 199–209.
16. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., and Salas, E. Reflections on shared
cognition. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 22, 2 (2001), 195–202.
17. Carver, C.S., and Scheier, M.F. Attention and Self-
Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach
to Human Behavior. New York: Springer, 1981.
18. Chang, J.Y.T. Effect of goal consensus among key members
of information technology
program implementation on program efficiency and system-
business alignment. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, National Central University, Taiwan, 2012.
19. Chen, G., and Kanfer, R. Toward a systems theory of

motivation behavior in work teams.
In B.M. Staw (ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An
Annual Series of Analytical Es-
says and Critical Reviews, vol. 7. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006,
pp. 223–267.
20. Chen, G.; Liu, C.H.; and Tjosvold, D. Conflict management
for effective top management
teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies,
42, 2 (2005), 277–300.
21. Chen, Y.F.; Tjosvold, D.; and Su, S.F. Goal interdependence
for working across cultural
boundaries: Chinese employees with foreign managers.
International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 29, 4 (2005), 429–447.
22. Crawford, J.K. Portfolio management: Overview and best
practices. In J. Knutson (ed.),
Project Management for Business Professionals: A
Comprehensive Guide. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 2001, pp. 33–48.
23. DeShon, R.P.; Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Schmidt, A.M.; Milner,
K.R.; and Wiechmann, D.
A multi-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the
regulation of individual and team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 6 (2004),
1035–1056.
24. Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1973.
25. Deutsch, M. Sixty years of conflict. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 1, 3
(1990), 237–263.

26. Elbanna, A. Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A
multiple-projects perspective.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 1 (2010), 39–51.
27. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18, 1 (1981), 39–50.
28. Foster, S.T., and Franz, C.R. User involvement during
information systems development:
A comparison of analyst and user perceptions of system
acceptance. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 16, 3 (1999), 329–348.
29. Furumo, K. The impact of conflict and conflict management
style on deadbeats and desert-
ers in virtual teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
49, 4 (2009), 66–73.
30. Ghobadi, S.; Daneshgar, F.D.; and Low, G. A model of
cross-functional coopetition in
software development project teams. In W. Abramowicz (ed.),
Business Information Systems.
Berlin: Springer, 2010, pp. 12–22.
31. Gill, J., and Butler, R.J. Managing instability in cross-
cultural alliances. Long Range
Planning, 36, 6 (2003), 543–563.
32. Goo, J.; Kishore, R.; Rao, H.R.; and Nam, K. The role of
service level agreements in
relational management of information technology outsourcing:
An empirical study. MIS Quar-
terly, 33, 1 (2009), 119–146.

33. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; and Black, W.C.
Multivariate Data Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.
34. Hatzakis, T.; Lycett, M.; and Serrano, A. A programme
management approach for ensur-
ing curriculum coherence in IS (higher) education. European
Journal of Information Systems,
16, 5 (2007), 643–657.
35. Hoegl, M., and Gemuenden, H.G. Teamwork quality and the
success of innovative
projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence.
Organizational Science, 12, 4 (2001),
435–449.
36. Hollenbeck, J.R., and Klein, H.J. Goal commitment and the
goal-setting process: Prob-
lems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 2 (1987),
212–220.
37. Hollenbeck, J.R.; Williams, C.L.; and Klein, H.J. An
empirical examination of the anteced-
ents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 1 (1989), 18–23.
38. Janssen, O.; Van de Vliert, E.; and Veenstra, C. How task
and person conflict shape the
role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal
of Management, 25, 2 (1999),

117–142.
39. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Stanne, M.B. Impact of
goal and resource interdepen-
dence on problem-solving success. Journal of Social
Psychology, 129, 5 (1989), 621–629.
40. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Tjosvold, D.
Constructive controversy: The value
of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman
(eds.), The Handbook of Conflict
Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2000, pp. 65–85.
41. Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B.C.Y.; and Wei, K.K. Conflict and
performance in global virtual
teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 3
(Winter 2006–7), 237–274.
42. Karau, S.J., and Williams, K.D. Social loafing: A meta-
analysis review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 4
(1993), 681–706.
43. Kellermanns, F.W.; Walter, J.; Lechner, C.; and Floyd, S.W.
The lack of consensus about
strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of
Management, 31, 5 (2005),
719–737.
44. Khamooshi, H., and Cioffi, D.F. Program risk contingency
budget planning. IEEE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management, 56, 1 (2009), 171–179.
45. Kim, T.Y.; Wang, C.; Kondo, M.; and Kim T.H. Conflict
management styles: The differ-

ences among the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. International
Journal of Conflict Manage-
ment, 18, 1 (2007), 23–41.
46. Klein, G., and Jiang, J.J. Seeking consonance in information
systems. Journal of Systems &
Software, 56, 2 (2001), 195–202.
47. Klein, H.J.; Wesson, M.J.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; and Alge, B.J.
Goal commitment and the
goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical
synthesis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 6 (1999), 885–896.
48. Klimoski, R., and Mohammed, S. Team mental model:
Construct or metaphor? Journal
of Management, 20, 2 (1994), 403–437.
49. Ko, D.G.; Kirsch, L.J.; and King, W.R. Antecedents of
knowledge transfer from consultants
to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly,
29, 1 (2005), 59–85.
50. Koh, S.C.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; and Goodman, T. Drivers,
barriers and critical success
factors for ERP II implementation in supply chains: A critical
analysis. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 20, 4 (2011), 385–402.
51. Koh, S.C.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; and Rajkumar, D. ERP II:
The involvement, benefits
and impediments of collaborative information sharing.
International Journal of Production
Economics, 113, 1 (2008), 245–268.
52. Latham, G.P., and Pinder, C.C. Work motivation theory and

research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 1
(2005), 485–516.
53. Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity.
Personnel Psychology, 28, 4
(1975), 563–575.
54. Levina, N. Collaborating on multiparty information systems
development projects: A
collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems
Research, 16, 2 (2005), 109–130.
55. Liang, T.P.; Liu, C.C.; Lin, T.M.; and Lin, B. Effect of team
diversity on software project
performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107, 5
(2007), 636–653.
56. Liang, T.P.; Wu, J.C.H.; Jiang, J.J.; and Klein, G. The
impact of value diversity on in-
formation system development projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 30, 6
(2012), 731–739.
57. Lim, B.C., and Klein, K.J. Team mental models and team
performance: A field study of
the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27, 4 (2006), 403–418.
58. Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P. Building a practically useful

theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57,
9 (2002), 705–717.
59. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M. W.; and Sugawara, H.M.
Power analysis and determina-
tion of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
Psychological Methods, 1, 2 (1996),
130–149.
60. March, J.G., and Simon, H.A. Organizations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.
61. Meissonier, R., and Houzé, E. Toward an “IT conflict-
resistance theory”: Action re-
search during IT pre-implementation. European Journal of
Information Systems, 19, 5 (2010),
540–561.
62. Milosevic, D.Z.; Martinelli, R.J.; and Waddell, J.M.
Program Management for Improved
Business Results. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
63. Miranda, S.M., and Bostrom, R.P. The impact of group
support systems on group con-
flict and conflict management. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 10, 3 (Winter
1993–94), 63–95.
64. Nelson, K., and Cooprider, J. The contribution of shared
knowledge to IS group perfor-
mance. MIS Quarterly, 20, 4 (1996), 409–429.
65. Office of Government Commerce. Managing Successful
Programmes, 3d ed. Norwich,
UK, 2007.

66. Ouchi, W.G. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,
1 (1980), 129–141.
67. Parolia, N.; Jiang, J.J.; Klein, G.; and Sheu, S. The
contribution of resource interdepen-
dence to IT program performance: A social interdependence
perspective. International Journal
of Project Management, 29, 3 (2011), 313–324.
68. Paul, S.; Samarah, I.M.; Seetharaman, P.; and Mykytyn,
P.P., Jr. An empirical investigation
of collaborative conflict management style in group support
system–based global virtual teams.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 3 (Winter
2004–5), 185–222.
69. Pee, L.G.; Kankanhalli, A.; and Kim, H.W. Knowledge
sharing in information systems
development: A social interdependence perspective. Journal of
the Association for Information
Systems, 11, 10 (2010), 550–575.
70. Pellegrinelli, S. Programme management: Organising
project-based change. International
Journal of Project Management, 15, 3 (1997), 141–149.
71. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; and Podsakoff, N.P.
Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63
(2012), 539–569.
72. Polit, D.; Beck, C.T.; and Owen, S.V. Is the CVI an
acceptable indicator of content validity?

Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and
Health, 30, 4 (2007), 459–467.
73. Renn, R.W. Moderation by goal commitment of the
feedback–performance relationship:
Theoretical explanation and preliminary study. Human Resource
Management Review, 13, 4
(2003), 561–580.
74. Ribbers, P., and Schoo, K. Program management and
complexity of ERP implementations.
Engineering Management Journal, 14, 2 (2002), 45–49.
75. Ritson, G.; Johansen, E.; and Osborne, A. Successful
program wanted: Exploring the
impact of alignment. Project Management Journal, 43, 1 (2012),
21–36.
76. Robey, D.; Farrow, D.; and Franz, C.R. Group process and
conflict in system development.
Management Science, 35, 10 (1989), 1172–1189.
77. Robey, D.; Smith, L.A.; and Vijayasarathy, L.R. Perceptions
of conflict and success in
information systems development projects. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 10,
1 (Summer 1993), 123–139.
78. Salas, E.; Sims, D.E.; and Burke, C.S. Is there a “big five”
in teamwork? Small Group
Research, 36, 5 (2005) 555–598.
79. Sawyer, S., and Guinan, P.J. Software development:
Processes and performance. IBM
System Journal, 37, 4 (1998), 552–569.

80. Seddon, P.B.; Calyert, C.; and Yang, S. A multi-project
model of key factors affecting
organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly,
34, 2 (2010), 305–328.
81. Sherif, K.; Zmud, R.W.; and Bowne, G.J. Managing peer-to-
peer conflicts in disruptive
information technology innovations: The case of software reuse.
MIS Quarterly, 30, 2 (2006),
339–356.
82. Sivo, S.A.; Saunders, C.; Chang, Q.; and Jiang, J.J. How
low should you go? Low response
rates and the validity of inference in IS questionnaire research.
Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 7, 6 (2008), 351–414.
83. Snead, K.C., and Ndede-Amadi, A.A. Attributional bias as a
source of conflict between
users and analysts in an information systems development
context—Hypotheses development.
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15, 5 (2002), 353–365.
84. Stagner, R. Corporate decision making: An empirical study.
Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 53, 1 (1969), 1–13.
85. Sussman, S.W., and Guinan, P.J. Antidotes for high
complexity and ambiguity in software
development. Information & Management, 36, 1 (1999), 23–35.
86. Teeni, D. A cognitive affective model of organizational

communication for designing IT.
MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 251–312.
87. Thiry, M. Combining value and project management into an
effective programme manage-
ment model. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 3
(2002), 221–227.
88. Thiry, M. Program Management. Gower, UK: MGP Books
Group, 2010.
89. Tichy, M.; Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; and Roseth, C.J.
The impact of construc-
tive controversy on moral development. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 40, 4 (2010),
765–787.
90. Tjosvold, D. The conflict-positive organization: It depends
upon us. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 29, 1 (2008), 19–28.
91. Wang, E.T.G.; Chen, H.G.; Jiang, J.J.; and Klein, G.
Interaction quality between IS
professionals and users: Impacting conflict and project
performance. Journal of Information
Science, 31, 4 (2005), 273–282.
92. West, M.A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An
integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied
Psychology: An International Review,
51, 3 (2002), 355–387.
93. Winch, G.; Usmani, A.; and Edkins, A. Towards total
project quality: A gap analysis ap-
proach. Construction Management and Economics, 16, 2 (1998),

193–207.
94. Witt, L.A.; Hilton, T.F.; and Hochwarter, W.A. Addressing
politics in matrix teams.
Group & Organization Management, 26, 2 (2001), 230–247.
95. Yeh, Q., and Tsai, C. Two conflict potentials during IS
development. Information &
Management, 39, 2 (2001), 135–149.
Copyright of Journal of Management Information Systems is the
property of M.E. Sharpe Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION BY
UNDERSTANDING THE SOURCES OF CONFLICT:
TOWARD AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
JOHN W. BUDD, ALEXANDER J. S. COLVIN, AND DIONNE
POHLER*
Organizational leaders, public policymakers, dispute resolution
pro-
fessionals, and scholars have developed diverse methods for
resol-

ving workplace conflict. But inadequate recognition has been
given
to the idea that the effectiveness of a dispute resolution method
depends on its fit with the source of a particular conflict.
Consequently, it is essential to better understand where conflict
comes from and how this affects dispute resolution. To these
ends,
this article uniquely integrates scholarship from multiple
disciplines
to develop a multidimensional framework to conceptualize the
sources of conflict. This framework provides an important
founda-
tion for theorizing and identifying effective dispute resolution
meth-
ods. Such methods are increasingly important as the changing
world of work raises new issues, conflicts, and institutions.
It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see
the problem.
G. K. Chesterton (1932)
Resolving workplace conflict is both critically important and
challenging.
Yet in the dynamic 21st-century world of work, dispute
resolution has
become more complex and conflicts are often not isolated to
issues arising
only in the workplace. Pinpointing the roots of a conflict can be
increasingly
difficult, especially when multiple sources are in play. For
instance, a recent
controversy surrounding the National Football League (NFL)
over players
kneeling during the US national anthem in social protest against
the treat-
ment of African Americans by the police involved myriad issues

that were
difficult to disentangle. The complex nature of the conflicts that
led to the
NFL players’ decisions to kneel during the anthem—and the
responses of
*JOHN W. BUDD ( https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3971-7327) is
the Industrial Relations Land Grant
Chair at the Carlson School of Management, University of
Minnesota. ALEXANDER J. S. COLVIN is the
Kenneth F. Kahn Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of
Conflict Resolution at the ILR School,
Cornell University. DIONNE POHLER is an Associate
Professor at the Centre for Industrial Relations and
Human Resources, University of Toronto. Please address
correspondence to [email protected]
KEYWORDs: conflict, conflict management, conflict theory,
dispute resolution, sources of conflict
ILR Review, 73(2), March 2020, pp. 254–280
DOI: 10.1177/0019793919866817. � The Author(s) 2019
Journal website: journals.sagepub.com/home/ilr
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919866817
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ilr
https://sagepub.com/journals-permissions
other athletes, team owners, the public, and even the American
president—
diverted attention from the players’ interests. This complexity
made dis-
putes over the rights of players to engage in political expression
at work that

much more difficult to resolve and led to numerous other
conflicts.
Two seminal frameworks have significantly advanced our
understanding
of types of workplace conflict (Jehn 1997), and the structural
nature of
workplace disputes and approaches to their resolution (Ury,
Brett, and
Goldberg 1989). The NFL dispute reveals the limitations of
these frame-
works: It is not easily categorized as a task, process, or
relationship conflict
as in Jehn (1997), and it highlights that structural factors such
as interests,
rights, and power emphasized by Ury et al. (1989) are no more
important
than factors such as emotion, disposition, identity, and
communication.
Missing from these frameworks and other important
developments in the
conflict and workplace dispute resolution literatures (Colvin
2016) is an
explicit acknowledgment that effectively resolving a dispute
requires three
steps.1 First, the parties must recognize that conflict has
multiple, varied
sources that go beyond structural issues. Second, they must
accurately diag-
nose the source(s) of different conflicts. Third, dispute
resolution methods
must be tailored to address the underlying sources.
Suppose a dispute prevents two colleagues from working
together for any
number of possible reasons. A dispute rooted in competition for

scarce
resources, such as administrative support or a single opening for
a promo-
tion, needs to be addressed differently from a
miscommunication. A clarify-
ing rule could be useful in resolving a conflict over
administrative support,
but not in the case of miscommunication. Therefore, for a
dispute resolu-
tion method to be successful, the parties must first understand
the sources
of the conflict. Adding to the need to carefully diagnose the
source(s) of a
conflict is the possibility that disputants might differ in their
perceptions of
the source(s) of their conflict. Finally, a failure to diagnose and
resolve the
source(s) of a conflict can cause it to persist and become more
complicated.
We argue that while significant attention has been devoted to
under-
standing the effects of conflict and approaches to dispute
resolution across
academic disciplines and applied fields, the research tends to be
splintered.
Scholars focus on particular types or sources of conflict. Among
these are
1) resource constraints in economics, interests, rights, and other
structural
issues in industrial relations; 2) power in sociology; 3) framing
and social
identity in organizational behavior; 4) personality and emotions
in psychol-
ogy; and 5) miscommunication in communication studies. While
the depth

that comes from disciplinary focus is highly valuable, we
propose that an
integrated framework is also needed to better understand,
diagnose, and
resolve conflict in practice. The best dispute resolution
professionals impli-
citly diagnose a particular dispute and tailor their interventions
to address
1See Kochan and Jick (1978) for an exception in the context of
collective bargaining and Arrow et al.
(1995) for an exception in the broader conflict resolution
literature.
ADVANCING DISPUTE RESOLUTION 255
its diverse root causes. An explicit, integrated framework,
however, is impor-
tant to educate new dispute resolution professionals and quicken
their learn-
ing curves, assist managers and others who lack training or
experience, and
promote reflection among experienced professionals. Such a
framework can
also provide new insights for academic research, encouraging
greater cross-
disciplinary pollination of ideas and approaches to studying
conflict.
We define conflict as an apparent or latent opposition between
two or
more parties that results from differences that are either real or
imagined.
Our objective is to uncover the diverse causes of conflict. Our

Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx

Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx

Similar to Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx (20)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2014, Vol. .docx