Power, politics, and MIS implementation

ABSTRACT

Theories of resistance to management information systems (MIS) are important because they guide the implementation strategies and tactics chosen by implementors. Three basic theories of the causes of resistance underlie many prescriptions and rules for MIS implementation. Simply stated, people resist MIS because of their own internal factors, because of poor system design, and because of the interaction of specific system design features with aspects of the organizational context of system use. These theories differ in their basic assumptions about systems, organizations, and resistance; they also differ in predictions that can be derived from them and in their implications for the implementation process. These differences are described and the task of evaluating the theories on the bases of the differences is begun. Data from a case study are used to illustrate the theories and to demonstrate the superiority, for implementors, of the interaction theory.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alter, S.L A study of computer aided decision-making in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1975,
• 2: Bariff, M.L., and Galbraith, J.R. Intraorganizational power considerations for designing information systems. Accounting Organizations and Society 3 (1978), 15-27.
• 3: Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital. Monthly Review Press, New York, 1974.
• 4: Crozier, M. The Bureauchratic Phenomenon. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.
• 5: Dalton. M. Men Who Manage. Wiley, New York, 1959.
• 6: Ginzberg, M.J. A detailed look at implementation research. Rept. CISR-4, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1974.
• 7: Ginzberg, M.J. Implementation as a process of change: A framework and empirical study. Rept. CISR-13, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1975.
• 8: Hedberg, B., Edstrom, A., Muller, W., and Wilpert, S.B. The impact of computer technology on organizational power structures. In E. Grechla and N. Szyperski (FAJS.), Information Systems and Organization Structure, Ne w York, 1975, pp. 131-148.
• 9: Keen, P.G.W. Information systems and organizational change. Rept. CISR- 46, Center for Information Systems Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1980.
• 10: Rob Kling, Automated information systems as social resources in policy making, Proceedings of the 1978 annual conference, p.666-674, January 1978 [doi>10.1145/800178.810109]
• 11: Rob Kling, Automated welfare client-tracking and service integration: the political economy of computing, Communications of the ACM, v.21 n.6, p.484-493, June 1978 [doi>10.1145/359511.359528]
• 12: Kling, R. Defining the boundaries of computing in complex organizations: A Behavioral approach. Working Paper, Univ. California, Irvine, 1982.
• 13: Rob Kling, Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.12 n.1, p.61-110, March 1980 [doi>10.1145/356802.356806]
• 14: Laudon, K.C. Computers and Bureaucratic Reform. Wiley, New York, 1974.
• 15: Lawler, E. and Rhode, J.G. Information and Control in Organizations. Goodyear, Palisades, Calif., 1976.
• 16: Lucas, H. Why Information Systems Fag. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1975.
• 17: Markus, M.L. Implementation politics--Top management support and user involvement. Systems, Objectives, Solutions (1981), 203-215.
• 18: Markus, M.L. Understanding information systems use in organizations: A theoretical explanation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve Univ., Cleveland, Ohio, 1979.
• 19: Markus, M.L. and Pfeffer, J. Power and the design and implementation of accounting and control systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society. In press,
• 20: Mechanic, D. Sources of power of lower participants in complex organization. Administrative soi. Quart. (Dec. 1982). 349-364.
• 21: Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., and Theomt, A. The structure of "unstructured" decision processes. Administrative SOL Quart. 21,246-275.
• 22: Noble, D.F. Social choice in machine design: The case of automatically controlled machine tools, and a challenge for labor. Monthly Bey. (1979).
• 23: Pettigrew, A.M. Information control as a power resource. Sociology (May 1972), 187-204.
• 24: Pfeffer, J. Organizationa Design. AHM Publ. Corp., Arlington Heights, m., 1978.
• 25: Pfeffer, J. Power in Organization. Pitman Publ. Co., Marshfield, Mass., 1981.
• 26: Robey, D., and Taggart, W. Measuring managers' minds: The assessment of style in human information processing. Acod. Manag. Bey. 6 (3), 1981.
• 27: Strauss, G. Tactics of lateral relationship: The purchasing agent. In Kolb et el. (Eds.), Organizational Psychology A Book of Readings, 2nd ed., Prentice- Hall, Engleweod Cliffs. N.J. 1974.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY

General Terms:
Human Factors, Management

Keywords:
implementation, intraorganizational power, politics, resistance