Negotiation Discussion and Journal Analysis
Rakesh0501
ACADEMICJOURNAL2.pdf
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
82 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 83
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
84 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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.
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 85
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
86 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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 .
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 87
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.
88 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 89
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,
90 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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:
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 91
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.
92 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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-
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 93
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:
94 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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 **
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 95
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.
96 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 97
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.
98 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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.
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 99
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.
100 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 101
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.
102 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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.
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 103
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.
104 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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.
ACHIEVING IT PROGRAM GOALS WITH INTEGRATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 105
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.
106 JIANG, CHANG, CHEN, WANG, AND KLEIN
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.
