Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx

Managing and Using Information Systems:
A Strategic Approach – Sixth Edition
Keri Pearlson, Carol Saunders,
and Dennis Galletta
© Copyright 2016
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chapter 5
IT and Business Transformation
2
Sloan Valve
What was wrong with their Product Development Process?
What did Sloan do? What is NPD?
Did it help?
Are all enterprise system implementations this successful?

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3
Complex and slow; 16 units had to coordinate; took 18-24
months to bring new products to market; >50% of ideas didn’t
make it; nobody accountable
New Product Development: Adoption of ERP. Process: team
included members across the firm; proposed new process of (1)
ideation (2) business case development, (3) project portfolio
management, (4) product development, (5) product/process
validation, (6) launch
Results: Time to market reduced to 12 months, poor ideas
filtered out early; better access to info and customer feedback;
better accountability
Other firms: No, some failed, such as: Overstock.com, Levi
Strauss, Avis Europe
3
SILO PERSPECTIVE
VERSUS
BUSINESS PROCESS PERSPECTIVE
4
4

Silo (Functional) Perspective
Specialized functions (sales, accounting, production, etc.
Advantages:
Allows optimization of expertise.
Group like functions together for transfer of knowledge.
Disadvantages:
Sub-optimization (reinvent wheel; gaps in communication;
bureaucracy)
Tend to lose sight of overall organizational objectives.
Executive Offices
CEO
President
Operations
Marketing
Accounting
Finance
Administration
5
5
The Process Perspective
Examples of processes:

Fulfill customer orders
Manufacturing, planning, execution
Procurement (see below)
Processes have:
Beginning and an end
Inputs and outputs
A process to convert inputs into outputs
Metrics to measure effectiveness
They cross functions
6
6
Receive Requirement for Goods/Services
Create and Send Purchase Order
Receive Goods
Pay Vendor
Verify Invoice

Cross-Functional Nature of Business Processes
7
7
How to Manage a Process
Identify the customers of processes (who receives the output?)
Identify the customers’ requirements (how do we judge
success?)
Clarify the value each process adds to the organizational goals
Share this perspective so the organization itself becomes more
process focused

8
Comparison of Silo Perspective and
Business Process PerspectiveSilo PerspectiveBusiness Process
PerspectiveDefinitionSelf-contained functional units such as
marketing, operations, financeInterrelated, sequential set of
activities and tasks that turns inputs into
outputsFocusFunctionalCross-functionalGoal
AccomplishmentOptimizes on functional goals, which might be
suboptimal for the organizationOptimizes on organizational
goals, or the “big picture”BenefitsHighlighting and developing
core competencies; functional efficienciesAvoiding work
duplication and cross-functional communication gaps;
organizational effectivenessProblemsRedundancy of information
throughout the organization; cross-functional inefficiencies;
communication problemsDifficult to find knowledgeable
generalists; sophisticated software is needed
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
9

What do you do when things change?
Dynamic and agile processes
Examples:
Agile: Autos are built with wires and space for options
Dynamic: Call centers route incoming or even outgoing calls to
available locations and agents
Software defined architectures (see chapter 6)
IT is required to pull this off well
10
Techniques to Transform a Static Process
Radical process redesign
Also known as business process reengineering
Incremental, continuous process improvement
Including total quality management (TQM) and Six Sigma
11
Incremental Change
Total Quality Management
Often results in favorable reactions from personnel
Improvements are owned and controlled
Less threatening change

Six-Sigma is one popular approach to TQM
Developed at Motorola
Institutionalized at GE for “near-perfect products”
Generally regarded as 3.4 defects per million opportunities for
defect (6 std dev from mean)
12
12
Time
Improve-ment
Radical Change
Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
Sets aggressive improvement goals.
Goal is to make a rapid, breakthrough impact on key metrics in
a short amount of time.
Greater resistance by personnel.
Use only when radical change is needed.

13
13
Time
Improve-ment
Comparing the Two
14
Improve-ment

Key Aspects of Radical Change Approaches
Need for quick, major change
Thinking from a cross-functional process perspective
Challenge to old assumptions
Networked (cross-functional organization)
Empowerment of individuals in the process
Measurement of success via metrics tied to business goals and
effectiveness of new processes
15
Workflow and Mapping Processes
Workflow diagrams show a picture of the sequence and detail of
each process step
Objective is to understand and communicate the dimensions of
the process
Over 200 products are available to do this
High-level overview chart plus detailed flow diagram of the
process
16
BPM
Information systems tools used to enable information flow

within and between processes.
Comprehensive, enterprise software packages.
Most frequently discussed:
ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning),
CRM (Customer Relationship Management),
SCM (Supply Chain Management)
Designed to manage the potentially hundreds of systems
throughout a large organization.
SAP, Oracle, Peoplesoft are the most widely used ERP software
packages in large organizations.
17
17
BPM Architecture
18
Standardization vs IntegrationBusiness Process
StandardizationLowHighBusiness Process
IntegrationHighSingle face to customers and suppliers but
standards not enforced internallyHigh needs for reliability,
predictability, and sharing; single view of

processLowDecentralized design; business units decide how to
meet customer needsTasks are done the same way across units,
but there is little need for business units to interact
Source: J. Ross “Forget Strategy: Focus IT on your Operating
Model,”
MIT Center for Information Systems Research Briefing
(December 2005)
19
Enterprise Systems (Enterprise Resource Planning or ERP)
Seamlessly integrate information flows throughout the
company.
Reflect industry “best” practices.
Need to be integrated with existing hardware, OSs, databases,
and telecommunications.
Some assembly (customization) is required
The systems evolve to fit the needs of the diverse marketplace.
20
20
ERP Advantages and

DisadvantagesAdvantagesDisadvantagesRepresent “best
practices”
Modules throughout the organization communicate with each
other
Enable centralized decision-making
Eliminate redundant data entry
Enable standardized procedures in different locationsEnormous
amount of work
Require redesign of business practices for maximum benefit
Require customization if special features are needed
Very high cost
Sold as a suite, not individual modules
Requires extensive training
High risk of failure
21
ERP II
Makes information available to external stakeholders too
Enables e-business applications
Integrates into the cloud
Includes ERP plus other functions (see Figure 5.8)
22
ERP and ERP II Functions

23
Customer Relationship Management
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a natural
extension of applying the value chain model to customers.
CRM includes many management activities performed to
obtain,
enhance relationships with, and
retain customers.
CRM can lead to better customer service, which leads to
competitive advantage for the business.
24
24
CRM
Common systems are:
Oracle
SAP
Salesforce.com (web-based cloud system)
Oracle and SAP integrate into their ERP systems

25
Supply Chain Management (SCM)
An enterprise system that manages the integrated supply chain
Translation: processes are linked across companies
The single network optimizes costs and opportunities for all
companies in the supply chain
Every part of the supply chain has the latest information about
sales expected and inventories from source materials at all
stages
Bullwhip effect occurs when the supplier at each stage adds a
small “buffer” for it’s suppliers in case demand is higher than
expected
26
Difficulties in Integrated Supply Chains
Information integration requires agreement of what information
to share, how to share it, and the authority to view it.
Trust must be established
Planning must be synchronized carefully
Workflow must be coordinated between partners to determine
what to do with the information they obtain
27

Advantages and Disadvantages
of Enterprise Systems
28
The Adoption Decision
The enterprise system sometimes should drive business process
redesign when:
Just starting out.
Organizational processes are not relied upon for strategic
advantage.
Current systems are in crisis.
It is inappropriate for the enterprise system to drive business
process redesign when:
Changing an organization’s processes that are relied upon for
strategic advantage.
The package does not fit the organization.
There is a lack of top management support.
29

29
Managing and Using Information Systems:
A Strategic Approach – Sixth Edition
Keri Pearlson, Carol Saunders,
and Dennis Galletta
© Copyright 2016
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Influence of Digital Technology on Roadmap
Development for Digital Business Transformation
Iryna Strutynska
Department of Computer Science
Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical
University
Ternopil, UKRAINE
[email protected]
Galina Kozbur

University
Ternopil, UKRAINE
[email protected]
Lesia Dmytrotsa
University
Ternopil, UKRAINE
[email protected]
Olena Sorokivska
Department of Management and Administration
Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University
Ternopil, UKRAINE
[email protected]
Liliya Melnyk
Department of Management and Administration
Ternopil Ivan Puluj National Technical University
Ternopil, UKRAINE
[email protected]
Abstract—In a highly competitive information economy,
business structures require continuous introduction of
innovation, effective information technology to ensure
sustainable long-term market benefits, as well as their rational
functioning. The implementation of the digital business model
is
one of the promising areas, which makes it possible to realize

the
activity of enterprises even more productively. The digital
business model allows businesses to react more responsibly to
the needs of potential buyers and customers, and also helps
adapt and optimize business processes over a certain period of
time to certain market conditions. That is why, the purpose of
the article is to identify the peculiarities of the influence of
digital technology on the transformation of existing business
models of organizations. In view of this, an in-depth analysis of
the main stages of the development of a roadmap for the digital
transformation of business has been carried out; business
process management software products and the most suitable
ones have been examined. The article studies digital
technologies
in the context of enterprise business groups and reflects how
relevant technologies affect the transformation of the existing
linear business model into the digital business model and
reflects
the most significant effects for business.
Keywords—information technology, digital economy, digital
technologies, information management system, digital business
model, business processes, BPM, business process management,
CRM, ERP.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this digital era, the pace of change is extremely
frustrating and each organization encounters existential
threats from new and existing competitors. In the era of the
Industrial Revolution 4.0, technology is the right of any
company to change its own business model so as to
differentiate itself from the entire world market.
The competitiveness of business structures is shaped by
the use of digital technologies, the application of the

information management system, reengineering and the
transformation of existing business processes into new digital
business models.
Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change
the business model and provide new revenue and value-
producing opportunities; it is the process of moving to a
digital business [1-7].
The problem of the development of the digital economy
and the transformational processes taking place in society
under the influence of digitization has received a lot of
attention among both foreign authors [1-2, 10-12] and
Ukrainian researchers [3, 5-6], etc.
Fig. 1. The evolution Digital Business Development Path
(Source: Author’s interpretation based on: Gartner)
Despite numerous scientific studies on the development
of information and communication technologies and the
digital economy, we consider that the issues of the impact of
digital technology on the transformation of existing business
models of the organization are insufficiently examined.
II. PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND MARKET TRENDS
On the one hand, in the market of information
technologies and services, there are already a lot of software
products (world and domestic) that are largely able to fill the
gaps in information technology companies. Domestic
business is in search of suitable technologies for business
automation, is familiar with the best European and world
practices of digital transformation.
The development of information technology (systems) of
management for a particular business is a project for the

development of a roadmap for the digital transformation of
business. This is a very important project that requires
significant financial support, highly trained specialists and
knowledge-intensive technology, knowledge in many areas,
namely, project management, digital development
management and others (fig. 2).
978-1-7281-0450-8/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 333
Fig. 2. Relationships Computer Science, Information Systems
with Business World
Before deciding on the use of any information technology
in business, it is necessary to analyze the current business
model (fig. 3) and the business processes of the organization,
to understand the problems that are encountered by the
relevant stakeholders, and only then integrate into the digital
transformation.
Fig. 3. Elements of the business model canvas
(Source: Author’s interpretation based on: Osterwalder, 2010)
In general, modern business solves the triple strategic task
for strengthening their competitive positions:
first, it is necessary to establish closer relations with
suppliers and clients (the sector of work with clients, increase
sales);
second, to increase the level of own operational
efficiency (the sector of effective operational activity of the
organization);
third, to increase the competitiveness of products

produced (consolidation of certain sectors of the business
model).
The fulfilment of all these tasks is impossible without the
integration of information systems and technologies into the
business sphere.
We offer to consider achievement of these three tasks
through the prism of business processes of the organization
using certain information technologies (digital instruments)
(Table 1).
TABLE I. GROUPS OF BUSINESS-PROCESSES OF
ORGANIZATION AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES OF THEIR
TRANSFORMATION
# Groups of business-
processes of organization
Digital instruments
(systems, products, digital
decisions)
Task 1. Establishing closer relations with suppliers and
customers
1 Interaction with suppliers
Management)
2 Interaction with customers
(consumers)
Systems CRM (Customer
Relationships Management)

Task 2. Increase the level of own operational efficiency
3 Resources management ERP (Enterprise Resources
Planning)
4 Management of Business
Process
BPM-system (Business process
management)
5 Analytical component
management (data analysis)
Technologies Big Data, Data
mining, OLAP-cube, cloud
computing,
6 Providing modern
technologies to employees
of the company to
effectively carry out daily
work
Office 365, Google doc, use of
CRM system, dashboards for
evaluation of key indicators
Task 3. Increase the competitiveness of products
7 Product management
(control, storage and
provision of necessary
information)
Systems PLM (Product Lifecycle
Management) and PDM (Product

Data Management), digital
sensors, GIS technology and
others.
8 Marketing activity,
including:
New ways to attract
customers;
Search for effective sales
channels for a particular
consumer;
Changing products or
services using technology.
Digital Internet Marketing Tools
Google Analytics, Google
AdWords; SEO and SMM
Using chat bots to communicate
with customers;
Forming funnel sales;
Connecting a virtual or
complementary reality to a
shopping mall, collecting
customer data.
One of the possible options for an effective and efficient
organizational information support system for the enterprise
is a system that is integrated with the technology of
operational management of business processes.
334

III. SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR MODELING BUSINESS
PROCESS
It is necessary to use informational products that enable
us to simulate business business processes, the so-called "As
Is" model (the “How It Is” Business Processes Model), which
will allow you to see “weak areas” in business, build a new
business model of business-processes, that is, model “To Be”.
These information products will allow you to structure and
automate business processes (reengineering business
processes) of the enterprise.
In the IT market there is a differentiated set of BPM
systems. That is why as the basis for the study «Gartner magic
quadrant bpm tools, 2018» [13] was considered and other
researches [11, 14]. All the information is systematized in
table 2 where TOP 10 BPM-systems are listed and their
characteristics are provided.
TABLE II. 10 BPM-SYSTEMS AND THEIR
CHARACTERISTICS
BPM
Systems Vendor Details
Easy to use Standards support License and cost
Integration with
other corporate
applications
Ability to
dynamically
change the

business
process
ELMA BPM
Founded 2007
Luxembourg
Cloud, SaaS, Web Installed
- Mac
Installed - Windows
Mobile - Android Native,
Mobile - iOS Native
BPMN
Paid,
Free Demo and
free version for five
jobs
Ability to integrate
with "1 C: Enterprise" Yes
Bizagi BPM
Founded 1989
United
Kingdom
Cloud, SaaS, Web
Installed - Windows

Mobile - Android Native,
Mobile - iOS Native
BPMN,
XPDL
Paid,
Free Demo and
free version
Wide possibilities of
integration with CRM
and ERP systems Yes
Bitrix24 Founded 1998 United States
Cloud, SaaS, Web
Installed - Mac
Installed - Windows
Mobile - Android Native
Mobile - iOS Native
IDEF, BPMN
Paid (Starting Price
$39.00/month),
Over 10,000
intranets created
already! Up to 12
users free!

Wide possibilities of
integration with CRM
and ERP systems Yes
Oracle BPM
Founded 1977
United States Convenient and simple, realization of violin tasks
BPMN,
BPEL
Paid,
Free Demo
Wide integration
possibilities Yes
erwin
Business
Process
Founded 1988
United States
Deployment Cloud, SaaS,
Web
Installed - Windows
IDEF0,
IDEF3, DFD
Paid,
Free Demo, free

version
Wide integration
possibilities Yes
Appian Founded 2004 United States
Convenient and simple,
realization of violin tasks BPMN
Paid (Starting Price
$75.00/month), Free
Demo
To store ARIS models,
an object database is
used
No
IBM
Blueworks
Live
IBM Cloud-based BPM
platform. Simple and
straightforward
BPMN Paid,
Free Demo
Wide integration
possibilities

Yes
Bpm’online Founded 2011
Ukraine, United
States
Is ideal for middle-sized
companies and enterprises BPMN Paid, Free Demo
Wide integration
possibilities
Yes
Bonita BPM Founded 2001
France
realization of violin tasks BPMN Bonita open solution
Wide integration
possibilities
Yes
Pegasystems Founded 1983
United States
developed on Java and
OOP concepts
BPMN

Paid,
Free Demo and
free version
Wide integration
possibilities
Yes
Each of the above systems deserves attention. However,
we offer in practical examples a more detailed analysis of the
most suitable software products. The following perspectives
are taken into account: the features of the system, prices and
simplicity of its use (Erwin Business Process, Bitrix24,
Bizagi BPM, ELMA BPM, Pegasystems, Bonita BPM).
(Erwin Business Process, Bitrix24, Bizagi BPM, ELMA
BPM, Pegasystems, Bonita BPM).
IV. PRACTICAL RESULTS
After the practical use of these six BPM systems, we have
chosen two systems that are cost-effective, the most simple
and easy to use.
The advantages of BPM system Erwin Business
Process:
1. Clear, standard, and concise representation of the
elements. To ensure the unity of representing elements of data
models in ERwin, standardized representations of object
names, standardized data types, and standard model samples
(reference models) are used. Visual representation of large
data arrays. Due to the powerful graphic system and
navigation system (IDEF0, IDEF3, DFD);

2. The ability to interact with users. ERwin provides
various opportunities for sharing information among all
members within an organization. Collaborative work with
Depositary Users. ERwin provides automatic version control,
access control, conflict management, and model modification
to work together effectively. At the expense of the web portal,
business analysts, technical specialists and others can access
data models in understandable configurations for them;
335
3. Application of open architecture. ERwin provides
extensive integration opportunities with other process
modeling and information system development tools (more
than 120 different tools).
Fig. 4. BPM for Agroholding Mriya (IDEF0, IDEF3)
BPM ELMA system has a sophisticated yet clear
interface. It is distributed in three versions intended for
organizations with different needs and staff numbers. In
addition, there is a free version for five jobs, which makes it
possible to use it fully in the activities of small businesses
(Fig. 5).
When an enterprise establishes the necessary
configuration of all business processes and coordinates it with
the organizational system, it is at this stage that makes it
possible to decide on the application of certain digital
technologies in the context of different groups of business
processes.
Fig. 5. BPM «Receiving an order from a client» (Agroholding
Mriya»

(system BPM ELMA, BPMN)
It is precisely the implementation of certain information
management systems in the existing business model that will
lead to data transformation and the emergence of a new
digital business model (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. Digital focus areas are drivers for transforming existing
business models
(Source: structured by the authors on the basis of the conducted
in-depth analysis)
336
With the use of modern information technology business
transforms into a new business model and receives significant
benefits:
- access to new markets;
- added value of the product through technology
- intensification and automation of existing business
processes;
- consolidation of key resources (6), key activities (5),
customer relationships (4) and sales channels (3) in integrated
digital business processes based on certain digital systems
(platforms);
- change of business culture;
- formation of a single ecosystem;
- intelligent analytics and forecasting;
- effective cooperation with clients, customers and

partners;
- optimization of system management (including
reduction of funds);
- acceleration of economic cycles;
- efficient use and release of production and warehouse
capacities as a result of reduction.
V. CONCLUSIONS
It is determined that the emergence of the digital economy
has opened new opportunities for the development of
business structures.
New digital technologies have affected the transformation
of existing business models of organizations. Digital business
models have begun to penetrate large and small companies in
different sectors.
That is why in the article the features of application of
modern information technologies in the context of groups of
business. That is why in the article the features of application
of modern information technologies in the context of groups
of business processes and components of business models of
the organization are explored. In view of this, an in-depth
analysis of the main stages of the development of a roadmap
for the digital transformation of business has been carried out;
business process management software products and the most
suitable ones have been examined. The research reflects how
relevant technologies affect the transformation of the existing
linear business model into the digital business model and
discovers the most significant effects for business.
In a future version of this article, we intend to propose to
consider current models and methodologies for calculating

the digital transformation index of EU countries and the
world. We will analyze the general structure of the indicators,
we will pay special attention to the analysis of indicators of
the index of digital transformation of business structures and,
based on this, we will work towards adapting and developing
our own methods and methodologies for digital
transformation for the domestic economy and business
structures.
REFERENCES
[1] Gartner It-Glossary [Electronic resource]. – Access mode:
https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/digital-business-
transformation
[2] Designing the Digital Economy: Embedding Growth through
Design,
Innovation and Technology [Electronic resource]. – Access
mode:
https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/sites/site_apdig/files/re
port/4
63/fieldreportdownload/designcommissionreport-
designingthedigitaleconomy.pdf
[3] «Cyfrovyj porjadok dennyj» – 2020 [Electronic resource]. –
2016. –
Access mode:
https://ucci.org.ua/uploads/files/58e78ee3c3922.pdf
[4] The New Digital Economy. How it will transform business
[Electronic
resource]. – Access mode:
https://www.pwc.com/mt/en/publications/assets/the-new-digital-
economy.pdf

[5] F shchuk V. Tsyfrova ekonom ka – tse realno / V. F shchuk
[Electronic
resource]. – Access mode: https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/experts/tsifrova-
ekonomika-tse-realno-1001102.html
[6] Koliadenko S. V. Tsyfrova ekonom ka: peredumovy ta etapy
stanovlennia v Ukrain u sv t / S. V. Koliadenko. // Ekonom
ka.
– 2016. – – p. 106–107.
[7] OECD Digital Economy Papers [Electronic resource]. –
Access mode:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5ade2bba-
en.pdf?expires=1549033303&id=id&accname=guest&checksum
=B6
62B5E8370EFB9CA9C50B164A621F97
[8] [Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010] Osterwalder, A. and
Pigneur, Y.
(2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for
Visionaries,
Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
[9] Nguyen, G. (2014). Exploring collaborative consumption
business
models – case peer-to-peer digital platforms, Aalto University,
92 p.
[10] Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., and McAfee, A. (2014).
Leading Digital:
Turning Technology into Business Transformation. Harvard
Business
Review Press.
[11] The Infrastructure Needs of the Digital Economy

[Electronic
resource]. – Access mode:
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/infrastructure-needs-of-
the-
digital-economy.aspx
[12] Digitalization vs Digital Transformation: A Trojan Horse
or a Golden
Opportunity? [Electronic resource]. – Access mode:
https://www.scalefocus.com/insights/ business/digitalization-vs-
digital-transformation/
[13] Gartner magic quadrant bpm tools, 2018 [Electronic
resource]. –
Access mode:
https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/business-
process-management-platforms
[14] Business Process Management (BPM) Tools [Electronic
resource]. –
Access mode: https://www.trustradius.com/business-process-
management-bpm
337
Technology A d o p tio n by
G lo b a l V ir tu a l Teams:
D e v e lo p in g a Cohesive
A pproach
W illia m J. Harris, University o f Maryland University College

International trade and collaboration continue to
expand in the development of products, services, and
interdependent-m arket activities. Such expansion
has resulted in an increase in global engineering
groups’ interaction across cultures. These groups
exist, in part, because technology now supports
geographically distributed organizations, which
allows them to improve perform ance and outcome.
However, in many instances, the cultural differences
among group members have become problematic in
their work (Clear, 2010; Nisbett, 2003). Both research
and practice have shown that these groups, and the
technology they use, may form working structures
that are incompatible with many culturally diverse
organizations. This essay explores and uncovers
pertinent issues and provides a conceptual framework
that will allow company managers to adopt technology
that is compatible across global virtual teams (GVT)
and organizations. The aim of this paper is to identify
implications and provide guidance to managers who
may be faced with designing and leading m ulti-
national groups tasked with solving complex problems.
In short, this research will provide guidance to those
managers that will allow them to put theory into
practice.
Background and C ontext o f G lobal
V ir tu a l Teams
Global engineering teams in the public sector are
tasked to provide various capabilities for government
agencies. Contractors that serve various government
agencies and tasked to integrate global technical
capabilities employ many such teams. Often, groups
are formed without a physical presence as enabled

by technology (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). These
engineering team members, being diverse both
in their fields of expertise and in their geographic
location, are expected to work and perform together,
fully exploiting their abilities and accumulation
of knowledge to design capabilities and/or resolve
unique problems (Pavlak, 2004). Often, these teams
are comprised of a variety of engineers from fields
such as software, hardware, systems, mechanical, and
other disciplines. For these teams, team work agility
and decision making are essential (Lowry, Schuetzler,
Giboney, & Gregory, 2015). An engineering team’s
advantage, then - as well as their challenge - is their
collective diversity and trem endous knowledge and
expertise (Harris, 2018).
Team tasking evolves from the first stage of
identifying a problem or requirements to creating
capabilities, introducing new features to existing
products, and then, through to production, technical
services, sustainment, and operations (Defense
Acquisition System, n.d.). The full lifecycle of a project,
whether creating products or providing technical
services, will eventually include the interchange of
ideas, design elements, and solution implem entation
for global team m embers (Harris, 2018).
Many requirements and problems that companies
encounter simply cannot be resolved in-house or at a
single country location; yet, their solutions are critical
4 SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1
for these companies to launch a product, rectify issues

that arise, or sustain their businesses (Harris, 2018).
Moreover, international trade and collaboration have
continued to evolve, resulting in companies receiving
an increase of revenues from global operations
(Thomas, Beilin, Jules, 8c Lynton, 2014). And along
with these increased global opportunities and
international trade, the development of products and
services has expanded internationally and has become
more globally interdependent. Thus, engineering teams
are tasked to accomplish a variety of critical functions
across geographical boundaries (Thomas et al., 2014).
In as much, global virtual teams form and reform as
their tasking progresses or as a response to events that
unfold over the life cycle of a system or product (Clear,
2010). These engineering teams exist, in part, because
technology now supports geographically distributed
organizations, which allows them to effectively
communicate to improve perform ance and outcome
(Harris, 2018).
The Challenges o f Global Virtual Teams
As a result of this virtual environment, managers
of these teams are faced with efficiently providing
effective resources along with guiding teams through
the entire life-cycle process from determ ining
requirements through finding and implementing
solutions. These virtual teams rely on technology to
execute engineering processes, collaborate in their
activities, and to validate and share knowledge (Harris,
2018). Furtherm ore, these teams are often faced with
conflict and disagreement within their ranks yet must
still implement effective solutions (Lowry et al., 2015).
The project manager m ust be prepared to plan and
to coordinate effective resources to support the GVT.
Thus, the need to manage the adoption and use of

technology that supports the GVT to accomplish their
tasking is critical for successful outcomes (Harris,
2018).
Research has found, there are a num ber of cultural
challenges that these teams face based on their
diversity (Clear, 2010; Mejias, 1995; Thomas et
al., 2014). These challenges include bridging their
languages, cultures, time zones, experience, and so
forth - through effective management. This in itself
is not an easy task, as it requires a level of agility to
orchestrate and bridge those differences (Thomas et
al., 2014, p. 38). These groups are not always wholly
successful in this endeavor, and consequently, their
differences, be they cultural, linguistic, or logistical,
can become problematic (Nisbett, 2003). Because
these cross-cultural issues pose inherent problems in
the interaction of GVTs, they also form an im portant
com ponent of this research.
Inspite of the fact that these global teams may
be spread out geographically, they are nonetheless
expected to engage in collective behavior to solve
problems quickly, coordinate product design, initiate
start-up activities, brainstorm innovative solutions,
and perform other nonroutine functions. Gains in
technology that support these teams have increased
the expectations of their perform ance and abilities
to better manage interactions, share knowledge, and
predict outcomes. One such Advanced Information
Technology (AIT) designed to support these teams
is collaboration software (Coleman 8c Levine,
2008). The capabilities contained within this type
if software are available off the shelf, and they are
also configurable. Among these AIT technologies is

SharePoint enterprise software, which uses third-party
applications, such as BPM CRM. However, we must
not lose sight of the fact that people are as complex as
the systems they adopt. As such, adding the variable
of cultural differences among teams may com pound
tasking problems for virtual global groups (Clear, 2010;
Mejias, 1995). This study examines the issues faced by
organizations as they prepare to launch global teams
using AIT.
Companies and agencies that do business
internationally may run into unique problems with
political consequences. Harris (2018 p. 14) provided
a poignant example: For nearly 2 decades, both the
U.S. D epartm ent of Defense (DOD) and NASA have
used the Russian RD-180 rocket motors for the heavy
lift Atlas V rocket to resupply the International Space
Station and for launching military satellites (Dilanian,
2016). In order to use this Russian rocket motor,
the U.S. military contracts with the United Launch
Alliance (a joint venture between defense contractors
Boeing and Lockheed Martin; Dilanian, 2016). Yet,
this practice is particularly problematic given the
adversarial nature of US/Russian relations (e.g., their
opposing roles in Syria and the Ukraine). Thus, when
a failure occurs, as it did during the 2016 Cygnus
OA-6 International Space Station’s resupply (“By the
Numbers: How Close Atlas V Came to Failure,” 2016),
both countries put together tiger teams to perform
failure analysis to determ ine the root cause. One can
easily see that a failure of one country’s product may
become exploitive political news overnight, regardless
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volum e 83
Edition 1 5

of sound engineering and business operations.
Regardless of the situation, GVTs come together
with specific tasks, goals, and objectives to achieve
outcomes for unique problems; they accept difficult
challenges and ultimately are able to achieve acceptable
outcomes (Harris, 2018). Not surprisingly, putting
together these teams and then supporting them is a
problem global managers frequently face, especially
when unanticipated critical issues arise that must
be addressed w ithin a short am ount of time (Harris,
2018). In other words, the ability of a company
operating globally to successfully operate across
country and cultural boundaries is only viable if the
company’s m anagement is able to solve difficult and
sometimes time-sensitive problems - whilst satisfying
global stakeholders.
Advanced Information Technology’s Role and New
Social Norms
The late 1950s and early 1960s saw the advent
and proliferation of computers, which enhanced
the scientific technology revolution (Harris, 2018).
And as part of this information revolution, both
routine and nonroutine activities were improved
upon by the use of technology by teams (Geels &
Kemp, 2007). Then in the early 1980s, technology
advancements progressed once again, fully developing
the inform ation digital revolution, which continues
today (Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). W hat were
once localized hardware platforms with dependent
software-supporting engineering functions have given
way to ubiquitous applications compatible with a

variety of devices that support global group interaction
(Brynjolfsson 8c McAfee, 2014). These group support
technical capabilities have led to expanded and new
social com m unication norms. In fact, a new form of
sociology - digital sociology (Lupton, 2015) - has
emerged to address hum an interaction with both
computer-based group support tools and today’s
social media. Thus, as technology has advanced,
so, too, have m ethods of com m unication and team
production (Harris, 2018). These phenom ena have
resulted in a shift in social interaction, bringing forth
new concepts in sociology in-step with group support
technologies that impact the way GVT’s communicate
to accomplish their tasking: digital sociology (Lupton,
2015).
Research Q uestion
The exploratory research question presented below
is designed to drive this systematic study, as will
perm it identification and examination of emerging
themes and relationships, which will ultimately allow
conclusive findings that will inform managers of GVTs.
These findings will provide insight for both researchers
and practitioners into the m anagement of global
virtual teams and the adoption of support technology.
To that end, the following research question forms the
context and drives this research:
W hat specific issues do global problem-solving teams
face when adopting advanced inform ation technology
(AIT) for collaborative support?
L ite ra tu re Review
Whereas the adoption of technology by groups

within singular cultures has been thoroughly
researched for over 3 decades (Nikas & Poulymenakou,
2008, p. 1; Turban, Liang, & Wu, 2011, pp. 140-
141), literature on the adoption of technology to
support global teams across cultures is not as prolific.
Drawing from eight sources (see Appendix B), this
literature review addresses major themes and issues
with supportive evidence. The eight sources are
conventionally identified in the reference section with
a preceding *. First, theoretical underpinnings are
considered, covering concepts on group interaction
and structured adaptation of technology for
m ultinational groups. The eight articles that support
the major topics explored herein, which include both
scholarly and “gray literature,” are then addressed.
Theoretical Underpinnings for Group Interaction
and Technology Adoption
This researcher identified two prim ary theories
upon which collective group behavior in the adoption
of technology can be understood. These theories are
Hofstede’s theory, which provides a model of cultural
differentiation (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, Van Deusen,
Mueller, Sc Charles, 2002), and adaptive structural
theory (AST; DeSanctis & Poole, 1994; DeSanctis et al.,
2008; Gopal, Bostrom, & Chin, 1993).
Hofstede’s theory: Model o f cultural
differentiation. Three of the selected studies
(Davidson & fordan, 1998; Mejias, 1995; Paul,
Samarah, Seetharaman, & Mykytyn, 2005) specifically
based their conclusions on Hofstede’s (1980) seminal
research on the cultural differences of global teams. In
the early 1980s, Hofstede researched and identified the
collective characteristics of countries and their cultures

based on data gathering research from 53 countries
6 SAM Advanced M anagement Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1
and 116,000 respondents. Hofstede discovered that
there are five dimensions in cultural differentiation:
Power-Distance, Uncertainty-Avoidance,
Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity-Femininity,
and Tim e-Orientation. In Mejias’s study (1995), the
author referred to four out of five of the dimensions
described in Hofstede’s cultural differentiation model:
“Cultural differentiation described four dimensions
of national culture along which value systems may
vary.... [H]is Model of Cultural Differentiation
framework may be useful in hypothesizing specific
predictions of cultural tendencies” (pp. 56-69).
Davidson and Jordan (1998) and others have
concurred with Mejias’s assertion that the dimensions
of uncertainty avoidance and power distance have
the greatest influence in relating cultural aspects
of interdependent groups operating across cultural
boundaries. However, these dimensions also represent
the underlying characteristics of individualism
or collectivism, in varying degrees, for each of
Hofstede’s five dimensions (See Figure 1). Notably,
Paul et al. (2005. p. 190) viewed the fifth dimension
of individualism/collectivism as a dom inating aspect
across the power distance and uncertainty-avoidance
scheme. Here, Mejias (1995, pp. 59, 61) provides a apt
description of both power distance and uncertainty-
avoidance:
Power Distance describes the relationship and

relative distance between a supervisor and a
subordinate ... the extent to which a particular
national culture accepts and recognizes the
unequal distribution of power and influence
in institutions and organizations. Countries
that score high on power distance appear to
emphasize autocratic or paternalistic, boss-
employee relations. In these countries the
powerful have more privileges over others....
Countries scoring low on Power Distance
favor participative management relations and
prefer the use of “equal rights” and legitimate
power over the use of coercive or referent
power. D uring group decision making, higher
status individuals are more likely to dominate
the group discussion and influence group
outcomes more than low status individuals.
Uncertainty-avoidance expresses the extent
to which members of a particular national
culture feel uncomfortable or threatened by
uncertain or unknow n outcomes (Hofstede,
1980, 1991). Countries that scored high on the
Uncertainty Avoidance dimension tended to
have a low tolerance for uncertainty (expressed
by higher levels of anxiety) and a greater need
for formal rules. Additionally, countries with
F ig u r e 1 . R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n U n v e r t a i n
t y A v o id a n c e a n d P o w e r D is t a n c e
aj u c
as
- w
5

s -
5>
£ o
CL
Uncertainty Avoidance
Low High
Family Model - clannish
Countries:
Southeast Asia, Singapore,
Hong Kong, India, Philippines
Pyramid Model - fiefdom
Countries:
Latin America, Mexico, Brazil, Chile,
Venezuela, Yugoslavia
Market Model - structure Machine Model - bureaucracy
Countries: Countries:
Anglo/Scandinavia, United States, Germanic, Israel, Austria
Australia, Canada, The Netherlands,
United Kingdom
SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 7
strong (high) Uncertainty Avoidance scores
also had less tolerance for people or groups
with deviant ideas or behavior and were more
likely to resist innovative ideas (Hofstede; 1980,

1991). Countries with weak or low Uncertainty
Avoidance scores were inclined to take more
risks and were more likely to tolerate deviant
behavior and innovative ideas when making
group decisions (Hofstede; 1980, 1991).
Figure 1 depicts the relationships between the
variables of power distance and uncertainty-avoidance
and the countries whose cultures align with each. In
sum, Hofstede’s theory is param ount in anticipating
cultural issues associated with multinational teams
as they come together to work.Figure 1. Hofstede’s
Regional/Countries Matrix of Cultural Differentiation
(Mejias, 1995, p. 66; Davidson & Jordan, 1998, p .41).
Adaptive structuration theory (AST). Giddens’s
(1984) original structuration work unified an approach
to social organization theory, resulting in a holistic
view of people acting together to achieve com m on
goals. In doing so, Giddens shifted the focus from the
individual to groups of actors who are knowledgeable
about the systems they produce and reproduce (Harris,
2016, p. 3). Adaptive structuration theory (AST)
expands upon Giddens’s theory that by incorporating
AIT as a com ponent of group activities (as proposed
by researchers, including Gopal et al., 1993, and
DeSanctis et al. 1994; 2008, p. 552), a unified AST
would result.
Harris’ (2016, p. 7) earlier research described the
relationships of groups and technology from an AST
perspective, finding: AST posits that the impacts
of AIT “on group and organization processes and
outcomes depend on the structures incorporated in
the technology and on the structures that emerge as
users attempt to adapt the technology to the tasks

at hand” (Poole, 2013, p. 22). DeSanctis and Poole’s
(1994) foundational description of AST first defines a
system as an observable pattern of relationships among
actors as part of a group. Structures are the rules and
resources that members employ in their activities
and interactions that give the system its pattern. As
members develop rules and resources from their tasks,
norms, and AIT, they enact and sustain structures
to make them part of an ongoing organization of a
system. In other words, groups produce and reproduce
rules and resources as they interact to accomplish
their tasking. As a result, AST posits the effects of
AIT on group processes and outcomes depend on the
structures incorporated w ithin technology (structural
potential) and the emergent (adaptive) structures that
form as members interact with the technology and
themselves over time (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp.
22-23).
DeSanctis and Poole (1994) also describes how
AST works by identifying the two AIT structural
elements: spirit and features. Spirit being the general
intent with regards to values and goals of the specific
rules. Capabilities and usage rules make up structural
features of the technology... The result being a novel
structural ensemble tailored to the group’s n eed s... and
interactions (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994, pp. 22-23).
Harris (2016) also found that the components of
structural adaptations from the interactions of group
members with regard to appropriated AIT (depicted
in Figure 2) are segregated by input-process-output
functions. These elements (changing rules, resources,
group/technology products, and tasking environment)
dynamically come together during social interaction

(see center of Figure 2), appropriating and applying
ongoing influences of new and emerging structures.
Literature from four of the eight studies reinforces
the applicability of AST for this research. For example,
Watson (1994, pp. 47-48) noted that AST makes an
im portant distinction between system and structure:
“The system is a social entity such as a group ...
structures are the norm s of behavior that maintain
the system” (p. 47). Nicolas-Rocca and Coulson
(2014, p. 83) then expanded upon AST with task-
technology-fit to build a framework that explains the
interrelationships of global virtual teams and their
functional abilities. Finally, Nikas and Poulymenakou
(2008, pp. 4-6) applied AST in their research on
adopting web-based collaboration technology to global
teams. Based on the studies of these researchers, AST
became a foundational theory for this paper.
Adopting Advanced Information Technology and
Features
Group support systems (GSS) are a form of AIT.
Watson’s (1994) early work informs us: “GSS is a
blend of technical and social facilities ... and because
GSS design is often based on the customs of the
particular culture in which it was developed ... both
technical and social features may need modification
for successful adoption” (p. 45). Davidson and
Jordan (1998, p. 44) provided research on technology
adoption for GSS as it relates to global teams with a
focus on barriers to adoption in cross-cultural settings.
SAM Advanced Managem ent Journal - Volume 83 Edition 18

Figure 2. Adaptive Structuration Theory Domain and IPO
Diagram
I n p u t s P r o c e s s O u t p u t s
/
S tru c tu re o f Advanced

In fo rm a tio n Technoloev
• Features
V. Spirit (in te n d e d use) /
Task & E n v iro n m e n t
Structures
Task ty p e
S itu a tio n , ex pe c tation s
In te rn a l G ro up System
In d iv id u al preferences
In te ra c tio n
N o rm s, processes,
A IT fa c ilita tio n
G r o u p S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n
Tech A D o ro o riatio n GrouD Processes
* D e gre e o f Respect • Id e a g e n e ra tio n
* Faithfulness • P a rtic ip atio n
■ Consensus • D ec is io n -M a kin g
■ In s tru m e n ta l v a lue • C onflict M g t

• A IT A ttitu d e s • Influen ce
■ Ease o f use • Process M g t
_____ ■P
E m erg ent Sources of
Stru ctu re
A IT Products & O u tp u ts
Task Products &
O utp uts
Changes in E n viro n m en t
D ue to A IT Use
O utcom es
• Q u a lity o b je c tiv e
perceived
• Consensus
• C o m m itm e n t
• C onfidence in
Decisions
• Satisfaction w ith
O utcom es and
Process
Figure 2. Adaptive Structuration Theory Domain and IPO
Diagram (DeSanctis et al., 2008, p. 555;
Gopal et al., 1993, p. 49)
Davidson and Jordan pointed out a num ber of failures
in adopting technology within these environments that
included mismatching software tools, lack of group

interrelations awareness, and insufficient experience in
facilitating the use of AIT (p. 39). These authors also
relied on Hofstede’s theory of cultural differentiation to
explain technology adoption across teams:
GSS may be used as a source of inspiration, but
its underlying assumptions should be tested
to see if they [technology features] fit with
local assumptions about how groups should
function. W here necessary, the assumptions
should be reconceptualised according to local
traditions.
A more recent study on adopting technology was
conducted by Nikas and Poulymenakou (2008).
Their study directly linked AST to the adoption and
adaptation of technology by global groups. These
authors also found that faithfully appropriating
technology (Figure 2) depends on task structures as
well as group social systems (e.g., norms, personal
preferences, facilitation).
Group support and collaboration systems have
dom inated AIT team based research for the past
30 years (Nicolas-Rocca & Coulson, 2014). At first,
technology emerged as stand-alone proprietary
software designed for specific hardware platforms.
These initial systems, which were predom inantly
used for record keeping, data analysis, and reporting,
were feature-limited. More complex systems evolved
that included high perform ance workstations rich
in features and information management, such as
AutoCAD® in the 1980s for engineering support.
Advancing in AIT for GSS now provide open access
cloud applications and social media, thereby advancing

capabilities in support of decision making and other
im portant group needs (Turban et al., 2011, p. 141).
W ithin enterprise support systems, automated
decision technologies include rule-based engines,
statistical or numeric algorithms, workflow
applications, and outcome prediction. Social software
capabilities, described as Collaboration 2.0-3.0, and
products such as SharePoint and SalesForce are
examples of enterprise GSS (Harris, 2016). In fact,
newer AIT features create collaborative platforms
that reflect the way knowledge work is naturally
SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 83 Edition 1 9
accomplished rather than adjusting behaviors around a
system (Harris, 2018; Nicolas-Rocca & Coulson, 2014;
Turban et al., 2011, p. 141).
Global Virtual Team Composition, Structure, and
Use o f Technology
Global virtual teams (GVT) have evolved into groups
that assemble using combinations of technology to
accomplish an organizations task (Paul et al., 2005,
p. 188; Tung & Turban, 1998, p. 177). GVTs are more
complex than traditional face-to-face. These teams
may be comprised of individuals with a collection of
differing skills and professions using tools specific to
their areas of expertise. Or, teams of like professions
are brought together to tackle a common issue within
their area. Both research and practice have shown that
both teams and technology structures change based
on ongoing influences (see Figure 2, AST diagram).

New structures emerge with the dynamic nature of
work that create new rules, thereby changing the tasks
and capabilities of both hum ans and machines. That
is, a multiphase project comprised of both people and
technology transform s as the tasks and environment
change. For example, Paul et al. (2005) linked bipolar
dimensions (see Figure 1) to group composition while
tying perform ance to Hofstede’s theory.
Team structure - centralization/decentralization.
The literature reviewed in this research concluded that
decentralization is a direct benefit of AIT, especially
as it relates to decision making. The studies reviewed
make a clear distinction between decision making and
control, as facilitated by AIT (Robey, 1977, p. 974).
Halal (2013) argued that it is essential to determine
which technology is best suited strategically for a
particular type of organization. As a result, Harris
(2018) found Halal (2013, p. 1640) established the
concept for understanding the impact of technology
on organization centralization or decentralization.
Robey (1977, p. 974) also concluded that AIT has
supported greater degrees of formal and informal
decentralization. For example, as explained by Harris
(2018): Robey (1977) claimed that AIT supports stable
environments, which are best suited to organizations
with central authority where routine operations are
the main focus. However, under dynamic conditions
(i.e., nonroutine operations), technology reinforces
decentralization (Robey, 1977, p. 974). However,
Harris (2018) also found that Pheffer and Leblebici
(1977) came to a different conclusion, claiming that
technology supports centralization (personal control)
as a substitute for formalization. However, Pheffer and

Leblebici (1977) also found that technology supports
rapid environmental changes, which may result in
increasing and enabling decentralization (pp. 245-
246). Huber (1990, p. 57) took decision making one
step further, claiming that AIT provides a uniform
approach to decision making, acting as a decentralized
function for centralized organizations and visa versa.
Nault’s (1998, p. 1322) later work provided a more
detailed organizational application of technology,
asserting that it allows both centralized (hierarchy) and
decentralized (local market) decision support w ithin
the same organization.
Team structure - organization complexity.
Organization complexity is also a com m on theme
in the literature. An early empirical study viewed
knowledge work and technology complexity as
a systems functioning under uncertainty within
organizations (Hickson, Pugh, & Pheysey, 1969,
p. 380). Harris (2018) found in this earlier study,
Hickson et al. characterized technology complexity,
in relationship to organizations, by looking at the
num ber of exceptional cases encountered, the degree
of logical analysis, and how the inform ation was used
in workflow (p. 380). Robey (1977, p. 974) concluded
that the structure of an organization does not depend
upon any type of technology, “but rather the nature
of the task environment,” inferring complexity. Pfeffer
and Leblebici (1977, p. 248) added to the organization
complexity discussion by submitting that technology is
positively associated with both vertical and horizontal
differentiation within organizations, as this allows “the
manager to control and coordinate …

Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx

Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx

Similar to Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx (20)

More from jessiehampson

More from jessiehampson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Managing and Using Information Systems A Strategic Approach –.docx