Competing Value Framework

Iivari & Huisman/Organizational Culture & Deployment of SDMs
MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1 pp. 35-58/March 2007 35

RESEARCH NOTE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
METHODOLOGIES
1
By: Juhani Iivari
Department of Information Processing Science
University of Oulu
P.O. Box 3000
90014 Oulun yliopisto
FINLAND
juhani.iivari@oulu.fi
Magda Huisman
School of Computer, Statistical and Mathematical
Sciences
North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus
Private Bag X6001
Potchefstroom 2531
SOUTH AFRICA
rkwhmh@puknet.puk.ac.za
Abstract
This exploratory study analyzes the relationship between
organizational culture and the deployment of systems devel-
opment methodologies. Organizational culture is interpreted
in terms of the competing values model and deployment as
perceptions of the support, use, and impact of systems devel-
opment methodologies. The results show that the deployment
of methodologies by IS developers is primarily associated
1
Ritu Agarwal was the accepting senior editor for this paper. Gert-Jan de
Vreede was the associate editor. Roberto Evaristo and Nancy Russo served
as reviewers. The third reviewer chose to remain anonymous.
with a hierarchical culture that is oriented toward security,
order, and routinization. IT managers critical attitudes of
the deployment of methodologies in organizations with a
strong rational culture (focusing on productivity, efficiency,
and goal achievement) is also worth noting. Based on its
empirical findings, the paper proposes a theoretical model to
explain the impact of organizational culture on the deploy-
ment of systems development methodologies.
Keywords: Systems development, software engineering,
systems development methodology, organizational culture,
competing values model, information systems developers,
information technology managers
Introduction
Modern societies are increasingly dependent on software and
information systems. The recent CHAOS report
2
estimates
that total spending on systems development in 2004 was $255
billion in the United States alone. Although the pessimistic
views of a continued software crisis and the high failure rate
of systems development are exaggerated (Glass 2000),
systems development continues to be challenging. Problems
regarding the cost, timeliness, and quality of software pro-
ducts still exist.
There have been several attempts to tackle these problems.
The Information Systems and Software Engineering com-
munities have witnessed a continuous stream of new systems
2
The Standish Group, available at http://www.standishgroup.com/.
36 MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1/March 2007
development approaches, methods, techniques, process
models, and related tools, even though their practical useful-
nessof methods in particularhas been questioned (e.g. ,
Baskerville et al. 1992; Fitzgerald 1996). It is our contention
that systems development methods are significant for research
and practice. They are repositories of codified knowledge on
how to develop information systems and software artefacts
(Fitzgerald 1998). They attempt to answer the central
question of our discipline: How do we best design IT artifacts
and information systems to increase their compatibility,
usefulness, and ease of use (Benbasat and Zmud 2003)?
Systems development is weakly addressed in the top IS
journals (Vessey et al. 2002). Until recently, there has not
been much research into actual use of systems development
methods (Wynekoop and Russo 1997). Most earlier studies
are descriptive (e.g., Chatzoglou and Macaulay 1996; Hardy
et al. 1995) and do not attempt to explain the use and benefits
of methods. It is only very recently that more explanatory
studies have appeared (Hardgrave and Johnson 2003; Khalifa
and Verner 2000; Riemenschneider et al. 2002). Although
these studies analyze acceptance at the individual level, they
clearly show that the deployment of systems development
methods is a collective phenomenon.
3
Much of the existing
criticism of systems development methods is also based on
case studies (Kautz et al. 2004; Nandhakumar and Avison
1999; Wastell 1996) and therefore is not necessarily
generalizable. Even though existing studies suggest quite
consistently that many organizations claim not to use any
methods (e.g., Chatzoglou and Macaulay 1996; Hardy et al.
1995), at least not rigorously or in their entirety (Bansler and
Bdker 1993; Fitzgerald 1998; Kautz et al. 2004), our
understanding of the contingencies under which methods are
accepted is very limited.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship
between organizational culture and the deployment of systems
development methodologies. Organizational culture may be
one reason for the weak acceptance of methodologies.
Although its significance as a source of organizational inertia
is well known (Cameron and Freeman 1991; Schein 1985),
the relationship between organizational culture and the
deployment of systems development methodologies is
unexplored territory (Leidner and Kayworth 2006).
In view of the state of existing research, this paper is an
exploratory, theory-building exercise. Methodologically, it is
a quantitative survey. As we will argue later, there are no
philosophical (Chalmers 1999) or methodological (Dubin
1978; Wallace 1983) reasons for preferring qualitative to
quantitative research in theory building. Our question is, does
organizational culture, when applied to IT departments, have
any relationship to the deployment of systems development
methodologies? Deployment here refers to perceived support
for systems development provided by methodologies, the
actual use of methodologies, and the perceived impact of their
use on the quality of the system developed and the produc-
tivity of the development process. We will answer this ques-
tion by developing a survey instrument based on the extant
literature on organizational culture and SDM deployment.
After reporting on the survey, we will analyze the relationship
between organizational culture and SDM deployment. Based
on insights from the empirical analysis, we will then proceed
to building a theoretical model to explain the influence of
organizational culture on SDM deployment.
Organizational Culture, the Competing
Values Framework, and the Deployment
of Systems Development
Methodologies
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture (OC) can be construed to cover almost
everything in an organization: basic assumptions and beliefs,
values, models of behavior, rituals, practices, symbols,
heroes, artefacts, and technology (Gagliardi 1986; Hofstede
et al. 1990; Schein 1985). Therefore it is understandable that
it has several interpretations (Allaire and Firsirotu 1984;
Czarniawska-Joerges 1992; Leidner and Kayworth 2006;
Smircich 1983). Despite the differences, there seems to be an
agreement that OC includes several levels with a varying
degree of awareness on the part of the culture-bearers
(Hofstede et al. 1990; Schein 1985). Schein, for example,
suggests that the deepest level consists of patterns of basic
assumptions that the organizational members take for granted
without being aware of them. At the surface level there are
artefacts such as the visible and audible patterns of the
culture. The intermediate level covers values and beliefs,
concerning what ought to be done. This paper focuses on this
intermediate level of values, applying the competing values
model (CVM) (Denison and Spreitzer 1991; Quinn and
Kimberly 1984; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983) as a theoretical
model of OC.
3
In addition to perceived usefulness and compatibility, Riemenschneider et
al. (2002) found subjective norm and voluntariness to be significant
predictors of the intention to use a method. Hardgrave and Johnson (2003)
report organizational usefulness, but not personal usefulness, as a significant
predictor of the intention to use object-oriented methods. They also found
subjective norm to be a significant predictor of organizational usefulness, but
not of the intention to use.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1/March 2007 37
Internal
focus
External
focus
Change
Stability
Group
culture
Hierarchical
culture
Developmental
culture
Rational
culture
Internal
focus
External
focus
Change
Stability
Group
culture
Hierarchical
culture
Developmental
culture
Rational
culture
Figure 1. The Competing Values Framework for Organizational Culture
The major reasons for the selection of the CVM is that, as a
quantitative model of OC, it is compatible with the survey
research method selected for this study, it is well reported in
the literature, and it has fairly short, validated measurement
instruments for OC (e.g., Denison and Spreitzer 1991).
Furthermore, to our knowledge there are not many alternative
quantitative models of OC, the Organizational Culture
Inventory (Cooke and Rousseau 1988) and the model of
Hofstede et al. (1990) being notable alternatives. These two
alternatives were far too complex, however, for the purposes
of the present paper, both including more than 100 items
required to measure culture.
The CVM focuses on values as core constituents of OC. It is
based on two distinctions: change versus stability and inter-
nal focus versus external focus (Figure 1). Change empha-
sizes flexibility and spontaneity, whereas stability focuses on
control, continuity, and order. Internal focus underlines inte-
gration and maintenance of the socio-technical system,
whereas external focus emphasizes competition and inter-
action with the organizational environment (Denison and
Spreitzer 1991). The opposite ends of these dimensions
impose competing and conflicting demands on the organiza-
tion.
Based on the two dimensions, one can distinguish four types
of culture. The group culture (change and internal focus) is
primarily concerned with human relations and flexibility.
Belonging, trust, and participation are its core values. Effec-
tiveness criteria include the development of human potential
and member commitment. The developmental culture
(change and external focus) is future-oriented, considering
what might be. The effectiveness criteria emphasize growth,
resource acquisition, creativity, and adaptation to the external
environment. The rational culture (stability and external
focus) is achievement-oriented, focusing on productivity,
efficiency, and goal achievement. The hierarchical culture
(stability and internal focus) is oriented toward security,
order, and routinization. It emphasizes control, stability and
efficiency through the following of regulations. Each of the
cultural types has its polar opposite (Denison and Spreitzer
1991). A group OC, which emphasizes flexibility and inter-
nal focus, is contrasted with a rational OC, the latter stressing
control and external focus. A developmental OC, which is
characterized by flexibility and external focus, is opposed by
a hierarchical OC, which emphasizes control and internal
focus.
The four are ideal types in the sense that an organization is
unlikely to reflect only one type (Denison and Spreitzer
1991). CVM stresses a reasonable balance between the oppo-
site orientations, although some cultural types may be more
dominant than others. This imposes paradoxical requirements
for effective organizations (Cameron 1986).
Large organizations tend to develop a number of subcultures
(Gregory 1983; Smircich 1983) instead of a single homo-
geneous culture. Recognizing this plurality, this paper applies
CVM to IT departments, since they can be expected to be
most closely associated with the behavior of IS developers
and the deployment of SDMs.
Deployment of Systems Development
Methodologies
The usage of systems development methodologies (SDMs) is
a versatile concept. One reason is the ambiguity related to the
Table 1. Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies
Aspect Dimension
Methodology support 1. Perceived SDM support as production technology
2. Perceived SDM support as control technology
3. Perceived methodology support as cognitive & cooperation technology
Methodology use 4. Maximum intensity of SDM use (vertical use)
5. SDM use across the organization (horizontal use)
Methodology impact 6. Perceived impact on the quality of developed systems
7. Perceived impact on the productivity and quality of the development process
term methodology. This paper uses the term to cover the
totality of systems development approaches (such as the
structured approach, information modeling approach, object-
oriented approach, socio-technical design approach, etc.),
process models (such as the linear life-cycle, prototyping,
evolutionary development, and spiral models), specific
methods (e.g., Yourdons structured analysis, IE, NIAM,
OMT, UML, ETHICS) and specific techniques in an organi-
zation. There are two reasons for this broad interpretation of
an SDM. First, we wish to point out that the question is not
only about the specific methods and techniques, but about
more general approaches and process models. We contend
systems developers may apply a methodology by following
the goals, fundamental concepts, guiding principles, and prin-
ciples of the systems development process of a specific
systems development approach (Iivari et al. 1998) such as
object orientation without strictly adhering to any specific
methods. The second reason is related to the second source
of ambiguity, the difficulty of defining and measuring SDM
usage. Referring to Iivari and Maansaari (1998), one can
distinguish explicit and implicit SDM use. Explicit use refers
to consulting the method (documentation), while implicit use
refers to the use of method knowledge after it has been
learned and internalized, possibly years later. In an extreme
case, implicit use may be an unconscious process in which
method knowledge is intertwined with practical experience.
Our broad interpretation of an SDM attempts to capture not
only explicit SDM use, but also implicit use.
Because of the difficulty of defining and measuring SDM
usage, we will focus more broadly on SDM deployment,
comprising methodology support, methodology use, and
methodology impact (Table 1). The dimensions of metho-
dology support are adapted from Henderson and Cooprider
(1990), who identify three functional dimensions of IS
planning and design aids such as SDMs: production tech-
nology, coordination technology, and organizational tech-
nology. They define the functionality of production
technology as having a direct impact on the capacity of
individual(s) to generate planning or design decisions and
subsequent artifacts or products (p. 232). Coordination
technology comprises control functionality and cooperative
functionality. Control functionality enables the user to plan
for and enforce rules, policies or priorities that will govern or
restrict the activities of team members during the planning
and design process (p. 236), while cooperative functionality
enables the user to exchange information with another
individual(s) for the purpose of influencing (affecting) the
concept, process and product of the planning/design team
(p. 236).
4
The two dimensions of methodology use are from
McChesney and Glass (1993). Vertical use in an organiza-
tion describes the intensity of method usage, while horizontal
use describes the percentage of IS developers and projects
using the methodology knowledge. The final two dimensions
are adopted from Iivari (1996).
Organizational Culture and Systems
Development Methodologies
Organizational culture forms the context in which systems
development takes place. We formulated our question in the
Introduction as follows:
4
We omit here organizational technology, consisting of two additional
functionalities: support functionality, to help an individual user understand
and use a planning and design aid effectively, and infrastructure, defined
as standards that enable portability of skills, knowledge, procedures, or
methods across planning or design processes. The support functionality
can be interpreted as a meta-functionality in the sense that it supports the
utilization of all the basic functionalities. One of the findings of the
Henderson and Cooprider (1990) study was that support functionality was
difficult for respondents to differentiate clearly (p. 244). The infrastructure
component resulted from feedback during the study and its differentiation
was not tested empirically. We see infrastructure functionalities such as
standards as supporting cooperation.
RQ: Does organizational culture, when applied to IT
departments, have any relationship with the deploy-
ment of systems development methodologies?
Despite the dearth of previous research into the problem,
there are good a priori reasons to believe in a relationship
between OC and the deployment of SDMs. Applying Schein
(1985), Kekle (1998) interprets OC as unconscious
collective beliefs and assumptions that steer the values and
through them the artefacts and actions of the organization,
including the collective reactions as to whether a new
approach or artefact is good or bad. This implies a conjec-
ture that OC influences the collective reactions as to whether
SDMs are considered good or bad, and consequently their
deployment. The significance of OC as a source of organi-
zational inertia is also well known (Cameron and Freeman
1991; Schein 1985), and there has been some interest in its
influence on the acceptance of IT adoption, diffusion, and
use (Leidner and Kayworth 2006). Applying CVM speci-
fically, Cooper (1994) proposed that different information
systems support alternative values, and that when an IS con-
flicts with the values of OC, implementation of the system
will be resisted. Expanding CVM to comprise ethical cul-
ture, Ruppel and Harrington (2001) found that intranet
implementation is facilitated by a culture that emphasizes
trust and concern for other people (ethical culture), flexibility
and innovation (developmental culture), policies, procedures,
and information management (hierarchical culture).
We are not prepared to put forward any a priori hypotheses
about the relationship between organizational culture and
SDM deployment for three reasons. The first reason is the
richness of the concept of organizational culture, comprising
symbols, heroes, rituals, values, and practices. Therefore,
SDMs and their use can be conceived to be part of OC, as
rituals (Robey and Markus 1984) that serve as a social
defense against the anxieties and uncertainties of systems
development rather than as an efficient and effective means
of developing systems (Wastell 1996). Since OC and SDMs
are not necessarily conceptually distinct, the suggestion that
OC influences SDM deployment becomes problematic. To
avoid this overlap, the paper selected CVM, which focuses
only on values in an organizational culture.
The second reason is that one can also conjecture that SDMs
include certain cultural assumptions, and when these assump-
tions are incongruent with OC in an organization, SDM
deployment is impeded. To our knowledge there is no
previous research in this area, but Ngwenyama and Nielsen
(2003) applied CVM to the analysis of the cultural
assumptions of the capability in maturity model (CMM)
literature and concluded that the design ideal of CMM
reflects the rational culture, but becomes more hierarchical at
higher levels of maturity. In view of the close affinity
between CMM and SDMs, there are good reasons to believe
that the latter may include certain cultural assumptions as
well.
The third reason is that CVM suggests that the effectiveness
of an organization imposes paradoxical requirements in order
to balance opposite cultural orientations. This implies that
the assumed relationship between OC and SDM deployment
may be either reinforcing or complementary. The former
means that an SDM reinforces the existing OC and the latter
that it complements it in some way. To exemplify the
former, organizations with a hierarchical OC may use SDMs
as a means of imposing security, order, and routinization. On
the other hand, one can conceive that organizations with a
developmental OC, for example, may also perceive SDMs as
a means of imposing the necessary security, order, and
routinization.
Overall, this paper takes the view that the relationship
between OC and SDM deployment is interactive and mutu-
ally constitutive, but the details of this relationship are still
open. The purpose is to analyze this relationship using an
exploratory research approach. Based on this exploratory
analysis, the paper proposes a theoretical model with asso-
ciated propositions and hypotheses that allow us to explain
the findings.
Research Design
When analyzing the relationship between the OCs of IT
departments and SDM deployment, we focus on the cultural
perceptions of one occupational community (Van Maanen
and Barley 1984), IS developers. The reason for focusing on
the cultural perceptions of IS developers rather than of IT
managers is to avoid associating culture with the IT
managers view of the desirable culture to be imposed on the
IT department. IT managers views of OC may represent an
organizational ideology that they exercise in their normative
control over IS developers (Kunda 1992). This ideology may
differ radically from the OC perceived by IS developers. In
the case of SDM deployment, we decided to study both IS
developers and IT managers perceptions. One reason for
this is the possible common method bias brought by a
research design in which the same respondents (i.e., IS
developers) assess both OC and SDM deployment. Our
research design allows intergroup analysis in which OC is
assessed by IS developers and deployment by IT managers.
One should note, however, that the purpose of this study is
Table 2. Response Rate of Survey
Number
Distributed
Number
Returned
Response
Rate (%)
Organizations 213 80 37.6
IS developers 893 234 26.2
IT managers 213 73 34.3
Table 3. Profiles of Responding Organizations Based on the IT Manager Data (N = 73)
n % n %
Business area Organization size
Administrative services 3 4.1 1-50 employees 5 6.8
Finance/Banking/Insurance 11 15.1 51-200 employees 8 11.0
Software house/Software consulting 5 6.8 More than 200 employees 60 82.2
Manufacturing 24 32.9 IT Department Size
Retail/Wholesale 7 9.6 15 employees 17 23.3
Education 21 28.8 620 employees 23 31.5
Other 2 2.7 2050 employees 12 16.4
More than 50 employees 21 28.8
not a systematic comparison of IT managers and IS
developers perceptions (some of these have been reported in
Huisman and Iivari 2006).
The Survey
This study is part of a larger survey of systems SDM use in
South Africa, conducted in 1999. The 1999 IT Users Hand-
book
5
was used and the 443 listed organizations were
contacted via telephone to determine if they were willing to
participate in the study. In all, 213 organizations agreed to
take part. A package of questionnaires was sent to a contact
person in each organization, who distributed it. This package
consisted of one questionnaire to be answered by the IT
manager and a number of questionnaires to be answered by
individual IS developers in the organization. The number of
IS developer questionnaires was determined for each organi-
zation during the telephone contacts. The response rate is
given in Table 2. Completed IT manager questionnaires were
received from 73 organizations and completed IS developer
questionnaires from 234 developers from 71 organizations.
The total number of organizations was 80 and the number of
responses from organizations with both IS developer and IT
manager responses was 64. The distribution of IS developer
responses per organization was skewed, so that only one
developer questionnaire was received from 30.9 percent of the
organizations, whereas 25.0 percent of the organizations
returned five developer questionnaires. The maximum num-
ber of questionnaires returned by one organization was 11.
The profiles of the participating organizations and individual
IS developers are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Due to
problems with the mailing service in South Africa, it was not
possible to analyze nonresponse bias based on a comparison
of the latest replies, because one cannot be sure that the
replies that arrived latest were written latest.
6
However, when
we compared the sectoral composition of businesses in South
Africa (ABSA Group 2000) at the time of the survey with the
sectoral composition of business areas in our sample (Table 3)
using the z-test for differences between two proportions, no
significant differences were found.
5
The most comprehensive reference guide to the IT industry in South Africa,
The 1999 IT Users Handbook is published by Computing S.A., TML Trade
Publishing, PO Box 182, Pinegowrie 2123, South Africa.
6
Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain the envelopes with the date of
mailing.
Table 4. Profiles of Responding IS Developers (N = 234)
n % n %
Education Systems analyst 24 10.3
Senior certificate (high school) 39 16.7 Analyst/Programmer 93 39.7
Certificate or diploma 79 33.8 Programmer 36 15.4
University or technical degree 75 32.1 Other 29 12.4
Honors or Masters degree 36 15.4 Missing 3 1.3
Ph.D. degree 0 0.0 Experience in Systems Development
Other 3 1.3 None 4 1.7
Missing 2 0.9 Less than 1 year 14 6.0
Title 12 years 21 9.0
IT manager 11 4.7 35 years 51 21.8
Project manager 25 10.7 510 years 53 22.6
Team leader 13 5.6 More than 10 years 89 38.0
Measurement
The appropriateness and validity of the questionnaires were
tested in two stages. First, six lecturers from the Computer
Science and Information Systems Department at the Potchef-
stroom University for CHE tested the questionnaires. After
some changes, they were pilot tested in practice at the IT
department of an organization in Gauteng. The relevant part
of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.
All of the questions except those on OC and horizontal SDM
use were addressed to both IS developers and IT managers.
For the reasons explained above, only the IS developers were
asked about OC and only the IT managers about horizontal
SDM use.
All of the measurement instruments, except that for OC, were
specifically developed for the present study. Organizational
culture was measured using the instrument suggested by
Yeung et al. (1991). At the individual level, the scores for
each of the culture orientations were computed as averages of
the items included in the measure, and the cultural orientation
at the organizational level was obtained as the average of the
individual scores. Accordingly, even though the IT managers
were not questioned about OC, the organizational culture of
the IT departments they were heading was measured using the
IS developer data.
The details of the analysis of the measurement instruments are
reported in Appendix B. The reliabilities of measures were
tested using Cronbachs alpha, leading to the removal of a
few items from the measurement instruments. Factor analyses
of the measures for the seven dimensions of SDM deployment
led to eleven factors. Factor analysis of perceived SDM sup-
port as production technology identified three factors: sup-
port for organizational alignment, support for technical
design, and support for verification and validation. Factor
analysis of perceived SDM support as cognitive and coopera-
tion technology gave two factors: support for the common
conception of systems development practice and support for
the evaluation of systems development practice. Factor
analysis of perceived SDM impact on the quality and pro-
ductivity of the development process led to two factors:
productivity effects and morale and quality effects, goal
achievement, and reputation.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was performed using Statistica (version 5)
software. Indices for the four organizational culture types for
each organization were calculated as averages of the
developers perceptions regarding the culture of that organi-
zation. For all other variables, individual developer and
manager responses were aggregated separately to the
organizational level by calculating the aggregated responses
as means of the individual responses.
Notes on Exploratory Surveys as a Research
Method for Theory Building
Because of the lack of previous research in this area, the
phenomenon of the relationship between OC and SDM de-
ployment is poorly understood. There is no a priori theory to
explain the phenomenon.
7
Consequently, this paper is of the
theory-creating rather than theory-testing. Even though
theory-creating research is sometimes associated with quali-
tative and interpretive research methods rather than with
quantitative ones (Jrvinen 2001), we do not see any philo-
sophical (Chalmers 1999) or methodological (Dubin 1978;
Wallace 1983) reasons why this should be so. Instead, we see
the relationship between the purpose of a piece of research
(exploratory/theory-creating versus confirmatory/theory-
testing) and its methods as orthogonal. Qualitative research
methods can also be used to test theories, as pointed out by
Lee (1989), and quantitative research methods can be used to
inspire theory building. Appendix C includes our argumen-
tation of this point.
This paper employs a survey as its research method in an
attempt to create new theory. Based on survey data on the
deployment of SDMs in South Africa, the paper proposes a
theoretical model that allows interpretation of the empirical
findings. The present study can be interpreted as an
exploratory survey (Malhotra and Grover 1998). Even though
Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993) evaluate, based on an
analysis of 122 surveys published by IS scholars between
1980 and 1990, that exploratory and descriptive surveys have
been of moderate or poor quality, we do not interpret them as
claiming that this is necessarily so because of inherent
weaknesses of exploratory and descriptive surveys. Rather
the question is about poor research design, sampling
procedures, and data collection. Malhotra and Grover (1998)
suggest 17 criteria for an ideal survey. The present paper
clearly violates two of these (Criterion 10: Are pilot data
used for purifying measures or are existing, validated
measures adapted? Criterion 11: Are confirmatory methods
used?). Two criteria (Criterion 6: Is content validity
assessed? Criterion 9: Is construct validity assessed?) are
only partially addressed.
8
In principle, these shortcomings in
measurement could dilute the empirical findings of the present
study. However, our results are not based on single mea-
surements, but more holistic patterns and puzzles discernable
in the empirical findings. Therefore, we see them as
indicative enough to justify the theory-building exercise that
will be reported later.
Results
To test the effect of individual culture orientations, regression
analysis was used, considering each of the seven dimensions
(with eleven factors) of SDM deployment as the dependent
variable and the four indicators of organizational culture as
the independent variables. The details of the regression
analyses are reported in Appendix D and the results are
summarized in Table 5, which lists the significant and almost
significant regression coefficients identified (+ for positive
and for negative, p # 0.05, and (+) and (-) for almost
significant, p # 0.10).
9

One striking finding in Table 5 is the positive relationship
between the hierarchical culture orientation and SDM deploy-
ment in the case of IS developers: the more hierarchical a
culture is perceived to be, the more support SDMs are
perceived to provide and the more they are used. The
developmental culture is also found to have a positive asso-
ciation with SDM deployment, but not systematically so. Of
particular interest, the more rational the cultural orientation,
the more critical IT managers seem to be with regard to SDM
support and impact. This is intriguing, since Huisman and
Iivari (2006) found IT managers to have more positive
perceptions of SDM deployment than IS developers.
Regression analysis using a more comprehensive model,
including the four cultural orientations, business area, IT
department size, maturity of the IT department, innovation
characteristics (relative advantage, complexity, compatibility,
voluntariness), and percentage of time spent on new develop-
ment, gave quite consistent results. The rational cultural
orientation was negatively associated with deployment and
the hierarchical cultural orientation positively associated with
it (Huisman 2000).
10
The developmental cultural orientation
did not exhibit any significant association with SDM deploy-
ment in this more extensive analysis.
If we look at Table 5 with reference to the three aspects of
SDM deployment, we can observe a decrease in the signi-
ficance of the relationship between OC and SDM deployment
in the case of IS developers from left to right. When we focus
on the hierarchical cultural orientation only, the positive rela-
tionship is the most consistent in the case of perceived support
7
By theory, we mean an ordered set of assertions about a generic behavior
or structure assumed to hold throughout a significantly broad range of
specific instances (Weick 1989).
8
In the case of Criterion 6, only organizational culture is measured using an
existing instrument. The other measures for the present study were developed
based on the literature. Referring to Criterion 9, construct validity is assessed
using only factor analysis for each construct separately.
9
The number of + and signs shows how many times a significant beta
coefficient is found when the overall measures of the dependent variables are
not included (e.g., in the last column of Table 5).
10
Note, however, that the sample size in this more extensive regression
analysis was quite low relative to the number of predictor variables, only
about five times the number of independent variables.
Table 5. Summary of the Results of the Regression Analyses
Support as
production
technology
(3)
Support as
control
technology
(1)
Support as
cognitive &
coordination
technology
(2)
Vertical and
horizontal
SDM use
(2)
Impact on the
quality of the
systems
developed
(1)
Impact on the
quality and pro-
ductivity of the
systems develop-
ment process
(2)
Group culture
orientation
Developmental
culture orientation
De: +(+)
Ma: (+)
Hierarchical
culture orientation
De: +
Ma: +(+)
De: + De: (+) De: (+)
Rational culture
orientation Ma: (-) Ma: (-) Ma: (-) Ma: (-)(-)
De = IS developers; Ma = IT managers
for systems development (two significant coefficients and one
almost significant out of the six possibilities). There is one
almost significant relationship in the case of SDM use (out of
two possibilities) and none in the case SDM impact (out of
three possibilities). This order, that SDM support perceptions
are most affected by OC, then SDM use, and SDM impact
least, is quite natural if one conceives an order of causality in
which perceived SDM support influences SDM use and SDM
use affects SDM impacts.
On the other hand, the IT managers perceptions in the case
of the rational cultural orientation behaved in just the opposite
manner. IT managers are most consistently critical of the
SDM impact (two almost significant relationships out of three
possibilities), especially regarding the quality and produc-
tivity of the systems development process. There is one
almost significant relationship in the case of SDM use (out of
two possibilities) and two almost significant relationships in
the case of SDM support for systems development (out of six
possibilities).
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
How can we explain the findings presented above? Let us
start with the observation that the more hierarchical a culture
was, the higher SDM deployment was reported by IS
developers. One possibility is that SDM use is mandatory in
the organization, and that its IS developers take this mandate
more seriously than those in organizations with a less
hierarchical culture. A second option is that SDMs as norm
systems (Lyytinen 1986) are part of the social norms of the
organization and the hierarchical culture affects the degree to
which these norms are followed. Even though these two
possibilities may explain the relationship between the
hierarchical cultural orientation and SDM deployment, they
do not easily explain why the same positive relationship was
not discovered in the case of IT managers. It is also difficult
to see how the mandatory nature of SDMs and social norms
could explain IT managers critical attitudes in organizations
with a strong rational culture. In the IT managers case, the
expected outcomes related to SDM deployment provide a
more natural explanation. The above considerations lead us
to suggest the model in Figure 2 to explain our findings.
11
The model of Figure 2 makes a distinction between propo-
sitions and hypotheses based on their generality. Propositions
are more general, whereas hypotheses are more bounded in
time and space. We claim that the boundaries of the domain
(Bacharach 1989; Dubin 1978) are very essential, especially
when the conjectures concern human artefacts such as SDMs.
Even though influenced by Dubin (1978) and Bacharach
(1989), our use of the terms proposition and hypothesis differs
11
The dotted arrow in Figure 2 describes the feedback from SDM deploy-
ment. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss it in detail.
SDM Deployment
Relative emphasis
placed on alter-
native values by
an actor group
Beliefs in SDM
support for
alternative values
by an actor group
P5
P6
H6a,
H6b
P7
SDM use
Perceived
SDM support
for systems
development
P1, H1
Mandatoriness
of SDM use
P3, H3
P4, H4
Organizational
culture
orientations
Social norms
concerning
SDM use P2
Perceived
SDM impact
SDM Deployment
Relative emphasis
placed on alter-
native values by
an actor group
Beliefs in SDM
support for
alternative values
by an actor group
P5
P6
H6a,
H6b
P7
SDM use SDM use
Perceived
SDM support
for systems
development
Perceived
SDM support
for systems
development
P1, H1
Mandatoriness
of SDM use
Mandatoriness
of SDM use
P3, H3
P4, H4
Organizational
culture
orientations
Social norms
concerning
SDM use
Social norms
concerning
SDM use P2
Perceived
SDM impact
Figure 2. The Theoretical Model
from theirs.
12
For them, propositions exist between theore-
tical constructs and hypotheses between operational variables.
Let us discuss the propositions and hypotheses of Figure 2 in
more detail (Table 6).
SDM use in an organization may be more or less mandatory.
The word mandatoriness in Figure 2 is used consciously in
contrast to voluntariness, in an attempt to capture the extent
to which the desired behavior (SDM use in the present case)
is made mandatory in the organization, whereas voluntariness
(Moore and Benbasat 1991) is a more subjective view of the
extent to which SDM use is perceived as voluntary.
The hierarchical culture assumes that an individual will
comply with organizational mandates (Quinn and Kimberly
1984). Therefore, Hypotheses H1 suggests that the strength
of the hierarchical culture affects the extent to which manda-
tory SDMs are used. It is beyond the scope of the present
paper to analyze in details how mandatoriness may affect
SDM deployment. One could conjecture, however, that it
affects the perceived voluntariness, which affects the
relationship. Hypothesis H1 is in line with the significance of
centralization and formalization in the implementation of
innovations (Zaltman et al. 1973). Understandably, there is
no prior research on the relationship between mandatoriness
and SDM deployment. There are only a few studies on the
impact of voluntariness on the acceptance of SDMs and
related software process innovations (Green et al. 2004; Iivari
1996; Huisman 2000; Riemenschneider et al. 2002), and all of
these report a significant negative relationship. Hypothesis
H1 claims that this is especially so in organizations with a
strong hierarchical culture.
13
12
Based on Dubin (1978), it would be more appropriate to talk about laws of
interaction and propositions in Figure 2. We are hesitant, however, to talk
about laws in the context of behavioral sciences.
13
According to Huismans (2000) data at the organizational level, the corre-
lation between the organizational average of voluntariness and horizontal
methodology use was -0.32 (p # 0.05) in organizations with the hierarchical
culture orientation # 3 (n = 45) and -0.65 (p # 0.01) in organizations with the
hierarchical culture orientation > 3 (n = 15). The corresponding correlations
in the case of vertical methodology use were -0.38 (p # 0.01) and -0.45 (p #
0.10). At the individual level, the correlation between voluntariness and
vertical methodology use was -0.14 (p # 0.10) in organizations with the low
hierarchical culture orientation (n = 139) and -0.29 (p # 0.05) in
organizations with the high hierarchical culture orientation (n = 39).
Table 6. Propositions and Hypotheses
Propositions Hypotheses
P1 Organizational culture orientations affect the extent
to which mandatoriness of SDM use influences
actual SDM use.
H1 The hierarchical cultural orientation affects positively the
extent to which mandatoriness of SDM use influences
actual SDM use.
to which SDMs are made mandatory.
to which social norms concerning SDM use
influence actual SDM use.
H3 The hierarchical cultural orientation affects positively the
extent to which social norms concerning SDM use
influence actual SDM use.
P4 Organizational culture orientations affect social
norms related to SDM use.
H4 The hierarchical cultural orientation increases the number
of social norms related to SDM use.
P5 Organizational culture orientations affect the relative
emphasis put on alternative values.
P6 Organizational culture orientations affect the beliefs
in SDM support for alternative values.
H6a The rational cultural orientation has a negative impact on IT
managers beliefs in traditional SDM support for
productivity, efficiency and goal achievement.
H6b The hierarchical cultural orientation has a positive impact
on IS developers beliefs in traditional SDM support for
control, stability and efficiency through following
regulations.
P7 The relative emphasis placed on alternative values
by an actor group and its beliefs in SDM support for
alternative values have an interactive relationship
with the deployment of an SDM.
We do not propose any specific hypotheses corresponding to
Proposition P2, but it can be conjectured that the desired
behavior more easily becomes mandatory in organizations
with a strong hierarchical culture and less so in organizations
with a strong development culture, for example. Buenger et
al. (1996) provide partial evidence for Proposition P2,
reporting that the hierarchical cultural orientation (internal
process value) was associated with vertical coordination. On
the other hand, less mandatory action may be effective in a
strong hierarchical culture, because the desired behavior will
be implemented better (Hypothesis H1). Dysfunctions in
strong mandatory action may also differ depending on the
organizational culture.
14
Referring to Proposition P3 and Hypothesis H3, the hier-
archical culture emphasizes control, stability, and efficiency
through following regulations and is oriented toward security,
order, and routinization (Denison and Spreitzer 1991). SDMs
are regulative norm systems (Lyytinen 1986). It is therefore
likely that that following regulations, including SDMs, will be
a natural form of behavior in organizations with a strong hier-
archical culture and can take place without paying conscious
attention to the underlying values of that culture (see
Proposition P5 below).
Hypothesis H3 is in line with the significance of formalization
in the implementation of innovations (Zaltman et al. 1973).
It also covers the significance of subjective norms (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975) as determinants of SDM deployment. H3 is
more general, however, also covering situations in which
following regulations or norms (such as the standard SDMs in
the organization) is so natural that the members of the culture
do not perceive that this is a question of social pressure to
perform or not perform the particular type of behavior.
Riemenschneider et al. (2002) and Hardgrave and Johnson
(2003) have examined the significance of subjective norms as
a predictor of the intention to use a method, the former
reporting a subjective norm to be a significant predictor of
14
In Huismans (2000) data, the mean for voluntariness in organizations with
low hierarchical culture orientation was 3.33 and in organizations with high
hierarchical culture orientation it was 2.57. The difference is statistically
significant (p # 0.01).
such an intention and the latter a significant predictor of
organizational usefulness, but not of an intention to use the
method. One explanation for this inconsistency in their
findings could be that the two studies did not take the
organizational culture into account. Hypothesis H3 suggests
that a hierarchical culture may accentuate the significance of
subjective norms as determinants of behavior.
In the context of Proposition P4, our hypothesis is that
organizations with a strong hierarchical culture develop more
social norms related to SDM deployment, including SDMs
themselves (Hypothesis H4). The close positive correlation
between the hierarchical cultural orientation and formalization
reported by Zammuto and Krakower (1991) supports the
hypothesis.
As argued above, we do not see that propositions P1 through
P4 with their related hypotheses are effective in explaining
the critical attitude of IT managers toward SDM deployment
in organizations with a strong developmental culture. To
explain this, we introduce values and actors beliefs into the
SDM support for alternative values in Figure 2. According to
Schein (1985), values and beliefs are central constituents of
OC. The beliefs in Figure 2 are more specific, however,
focusing on SDM support for alternative values. The model
resembles the way in which attitudes are defined in the theory
of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), in that the
relative emphasis on alternative values corresponds to an indi-
viduals evaluation of the consequences of his/her behavior
and beliefs in SDM support for such alternative values.
Differing from TRA, our emphasis on alternative values and
beliefs in Figure 2 is more social, both being influenced by
culture (Proposition P5 and Proposition P6).
According to CVM, the four culture orientations (hierarchical,
rational, developmental, and group culture orientations)
influence the relative emphasis placed on alternative values
by different actor groups (for example, emphasis placed on
productivity and efficiency by IT managers versus IS
developers). Proposition P5 allows for the fact that not all
actor groups (e.g., IT managers and IS developers in our case)
necessarily emphasize the alternative values equally, even
though they may share the same organizational subculture.
Despite the difference in the absolute emphasis on different
values, P5 assumes that the direction of the influence of the
culture will be consistent between the groups: the stronger
the cultural orientation, the stronger the emphasis on the
values of that orientation in each actor group.
At the same time, the cultural orientations may also have an
impact on the actor groups beliefs in the SDM support for
alternative values (Proposition P6). A striking empirical
finding in the present study is the negative association
between the rational cultural orientation and SDM deploy-
ment in the case of IT managers perceptions, but not in the
case of IS developers perceptions (see Table 5). Based on
this finding, we propose Hypothesis H6a (Table 6).
Figure 2 suggests two potential explanations for the difference
between IT managers and IS developers in the case of a
rational culture. First, IS developers do not emphasize pro-
ductivity, efficiency, and goal achievement as values to the
same extent as do IT managers. Second, IS developers do not
view the current SDM support for these values as negatively
as do IT managers. Both of these explanations seem
plausible. It may also be that the strong emphasis on pro-
ductivity and efficiency leads to a focus on short-run impacts,
whereas the benefits of SDMs accrue more slowly (see
Fichman and Kemerer 1993). In an extreme case, it may be
a question of IT managers disappointment with SDMs when
projects start to fall behind schedules. It is well known that
SDMs are not very helpful in resolving these crisis situations,
and that in these situations projects easily fall into a chaotic
ad hoc style of systems development without any SDMs
(Humphrey 1989). The critical attitude of IT managers
toward SDMs in rationally oriented organizations seemingly
contradicts the finding of Ngwenyama and Nielsen (2003)
that the design ideal of CMM reflects a rational culture. It
may be that SDMs differ from CMM in their cultural assump-
tions. On the other hand, it may also be that the underlying
cultural assumptions of CMM, if evaluated by practitioners,
would differ from the design ideals espoused in the CMM
literature.
A second striking empirical finding of the present paper is the
positive relationship between the hierarchical cultural orienta-
tion and SDM deployment in the case of IS developers, but
not in the case of IT managers (Table 5). Based on this
empirical finding, we suggest Hypothesis H6b. Compared
with Hypotheses H1, H3, and H4, this provides a comple-
mentary explanation (or possibly an alternative one) for the
positive relation between the hierarchical cultural orientation
and SDM deployment. One explanation for H6b is that
SDMs are essentially norm systems (Lyytinen 1986), and
following SDM regulations may be perceived as a means of
supporting control, stability, and efficiency. As norm sys-
tems, SDMs may be perceived by IS developers to be part and
parcel of the hierarchical culture. This is in line with
Ngwenyama and Nielsen, who found that software process
improvement models such as CMM reflect the hierarchical
culture, especially at higher maturity levels. On the other
hand, 92 percent of the responding companies in the present
study were at the lowest maturity level (Huisman 2000). An
explanation for this potential inconsistency may be that SDMs
also reflect the hierarchical culture at the lower maturity
levels when assessed by practitioners.
Based on Figure 2, one can identify two explanations for the
difference between IS developers and IT managers in the case
of a hierarchical culture. First, IT managers do not emphasize
control, stability, and efficiency through following regulations
as values to the same extent as do IS developers. Second, IT
mangers do not believe that the current SDMs support these
values to the same extent as do IS developers. Although this
is an empirical question, we conjecture that the latter explana-
tion is more plausible.
We have limited Hypotheses H6a and H6b spatially and
temporarily to concern traditional SDMs. Our empirical
material was dominated by the classical structured and
information modeling approaches (Huisman 2000), whereas
more modern approaches such as object-orientation and agile
methods were not well represented. Only rapid application
development represented the lighter and less bureaucratic
ways of developing systems. A potential research question is
whether Hypotheses H6a and H6b can be generalized to cover
these more recent SDMs.
It is conjectured in Figure 2 that the relative emphasis placed
on alternative values by actor groups and their beliefs in SDM
support for these alternative values influence SDM deploy-
ment in an interactive manner (Proposition 7). This implies
that if an actor group (IT managers, for example) places
strong emphasis on certain values (e.g., productivity and
efficiency) and see SDMs as supporting these values, this
promotes methodology deployment. If, on the other hand,
they see that SDMs support these negatively, this will have a
negative influence on methodology deployment.
Practical Implications
What are the practical implications of the results? At a
general level, this paper makes the people engaged in
developing SDMs and introducing them in practice more
aware of the influence of OC on SDM deployment, and
culturally more sensitive. It helps diagnose and understand
cultural milieus and the chances of SDMs being deployed in
organizations with different cultures. The hierarchical culture
seems to be the most benign environment for SDM deploy-
ment, whereas the rational culture is the most hostile, and the
developmental culture and group culture are neutral.
The model recognizes that different actor groups may differ
in their reactions to SDMs, even though sharing the same OC.
This finding is line with von Meier (1999), who found that
different occupational subcultures (engineers versus opera-
tors) had conflicting assessments of the proposed technologies
and as a consequence experienced resistance to adopting the
technology. Our finding is stronger, however, in the sense
that the IS developers and IT managers worked in the same
departments. The model helps anticipate the likely reactions
of different actor groups that affect SDM deployment. If an
actor group believes that a methodology effectively supports
values that are significant to it, the group is likely to be
favorably disposed to high SDM deployment. On the other
hand, if an actor group does not believe that an SDM supports
values that are significant to it, the group will be indifferent
with regard to SDM deployment, and if an actor group
believes that an SDM supports the values negatively, the
group will be likely to oppose SDM deployment.
It is obvious that IS developers are vital for effective SDM
deployment. The present empirical findings suggest that the
chances of SDMs being deployed are higher in organizations
with a strong hierarchical cultural orientation than in organi-
zations with a weaker hierarchical culture. A strong hier-
archical culture in itself may facilitate SDM deployment
(Hypotheses H1 through H4), but a weak hierarchical culture
will pose a considerable challenge for SDM introduction.
One option in this case is to emphasize SDM support for the
dominant cultural orientation of the organization when
introducing an SDM. For example, in an organization with a
dominant developmental cultural orientation, one may
emphasize support for creativity and adaptation to the external
environment. If the SDM to be introduced does not support
these directly, it may be deliberately engineered to include
such features. A second option is to introduce an SDM as an
effective means of making the less creative aspects of systems
development work more orderly and routine, thus freeing
systems developers time for more creative work.
Another point is that the adoption of an SDM may lead to a
more hierarchical culture, since SDMs may be perceived as
manifestations of such a culture. It is well-known from con-
tingency theory that a hierarchical culture has drawbacks,
especially in an uncertain and dynamic environment (Burns
and Stalker 1961). If an organization does not wish to move
in that direction, it should pay special attention to means of
avoiding the hierarchical flavor of SDMs when introducing
them. One possibility is to engineer a SDM that is less
bureaucratic by introducing it as a general approach (Iivari et
al. 1998) rather than as a complicated conglomerate of numer-
ous techniques with massive documentation. A general ap-
proach that emphasizes goals, guiding principles, fundamental
concepts, and principles of the design process may also make
an SDM more useful, as concluded by Fitzgerald (1997, p.
207): the multiplicity of manuals which accompany many
methodologies and prescribe in a very detailed fashion the
exact manner in which development should take place is not
suited to the actual needs of developers in practice.
The finding that IT managers were very critical of SDM
deployment in rationally oriented organizations represents a
considerable challenge to the introduction of SDMs in such
organizations. Management support is one of the factors that
are most consistently reported as facilitating IS implemen-
tation (Ginzberg 1981), while Roberts et al. (1998) list a lack
of management commitment as one of the biggest obstacles
to implementing an SDM. Humphrey (1989) claims that all
major changes to the software processes, such as SPI initia-
tives, must start at the top: managers must set the priorities,
furnish the resources, and provide continued support. It is
unclear whether IT managers criticality is because of the
inherent weakness of SDMs in terms of their productivity and
efficiency benefits, low demonstrability of these benefits,
managers impatience in these organizations, or due to some
other reason. It is obvious that it is extremely difficult to
demonstrate the contribution of SDMs to productivity and
efficiency, and it may be for this reason that IT managers in
organizations with a rationally oriented culture take a more
critical attitude toward SDMs.
One should obviously pay special attention to the introduction
strategy in these rationally oriented organizations, and to the
role of IT managers in this process. First, one should attempt
to convince IT managers of the benefits of SDMs in terms of
their impact on productivity, efficiency, and goal achieve-
ment, especially in the longer run. This is not an easy task.
A second option is to customize an SDM meticulously to fit
the special needs of the adopting organization. One should be
careful, however, when a project encounters a crisis to make
sure that this is a question of conscious, deliberate local
customization rather than simply of sloppy adherence to the
SDM (Humphrey 1989). A third solution is to introduce
changes incrementally (Tolvanen 1998) so that the complexity
of the new methodology increment is reduced and its trial-
ability and demonstrability increased. This can be expected
to facilitate organizational learning with regard to the impact
of SDMs and more rational decision-making concerning their
adoption.
Conclusions
The present study has its limitations. The findings are based
on data from one country, South Africa. We could have
limited the propositions and hypotheses to concern that
country alone, but we do not see any specific reason for doing
so.
15
It is an open question whether our findings can be
generalized to other countries. Therefore, an interesting
research opportunity to replicate comparable studies in other
countries exists. We also analyzed SDMs as a homogeneous
phenomenon. One might question whether there may be
differences in IT managers and IS developers perceptions of
the support provided by alternative SDMs and of their impact.
There is a need for continued research in which the variety of
SDMs is better represented.
Based on the empirical findings, the paper proposed a
theoretical model (Figure 2) to explain the observations. The
model is clearly testable, parsimonious, and general
(Eisenhardt 1989), and there is a clear need to test it as a
whole. The model itself raises several interesting research
questions. First, how is the influence of a hierarchical culture
mediated to SDM deployment, that is, to what extent does this
take place through mandates and social norms and to what
extent through the values of the hierarchical culture and
beliefs in SDM support for these values. Second, the critical
attitude of IT managers in organizations with a dominant
rational culture is a challenge. There is obviously a distinct
need for additional research into the reasons underlying this
attitude. Third, it would be interesting to investigate whether
the different aspects and dimensions of SDM deployment
behave differently in the model. A fourth topic would be to
study to what extent the findings can be generalized to other
IS process innovations.
The present paper analyzed OC by applying a specific quanti-
tative model, CVM. Quantitative research into OC represents
only a minority view, however, as the majority of the research
is qualitative/idiographic. Alternative research methods,
especially in the spirit of multiparadigm (Lewis and Grimes
1999) and multimethod research (Mingers 2001), might also
help us to understand the phenomenon more deeply. These
research avenues lie beyond the scope of the present paper,
however.
The paper demonstrates how an exploratory survey (Malhotra
and Grover 1998) can be used to build an empirically inspired
theory. Even though this is not new, theory-creating explora-
tory surveys have been seriously neglected in IS research.
We hope that this study will spark greater use of this research
method in the future.
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our gratitude to Ritu Agarwal, the senior editor,
for her support and guidance during the long review process, and to
the anonymous reviewers for pushing us to theorize over the puzzles
of our empirical findings.
15
One should also note that most empirical articles in top-ranked IS journals
are based on data from one country (the United States).
References
Absa Group Economic Research. Sectoral Prospects for the South
African Economy 2000-2005, Johannesburg, South Africa, June
2000
Allaire, Y., and Firsirotu, M. E. Theories of Organizational
Culture, Organization Studies (5:3), 1984, pp. 193-226.
Bacharach, S. B. Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for
Evaluation, Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp.
496-515.
Bansler, J., and Bdker, K. A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis:
Design in Organizational Context, ACM Transactions on
Information Systems (11:2), 1993, pp. 165-193.
Baskerville, R., Travis, J., and Truex, D. Systems Without
Method: The Impact of New Technologies on Information Sys-
tems Development Projects, in The Impact of Computer
Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development, K.
E. Kendall, K. Lyytinen, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 241-269.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. The Case Research
Strategy in Studies of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly
(11:3), 1987, pp. 369-388.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. The Identity Crisis Within the
Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Disciplines Core
Properties, MIS Quarterly (27:2), 2003, pp. 183-194.
Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., and Austin, J. Competing
Values in Organizations: Contextual Influences and Structural
Consequences, Organization Science (7:5), 1996, pp. 557-576.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Innovation,
Tavistock, London, 1961.
Cameron, K. S. Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict
in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness, Management
Science (32:5), 1986, pp. 539-553.
Cameron, K. S., and Freeman, S. J. Cultural Congruence, Strength,
and Type: Relationships to Effectiveness, in Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Volume 5, R. W.
Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (eds), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich,
CT, 1991, pp. 23-58.
Chalmers, A. F. What Is this Thing Called Science? (3
rd
ed.), Open
University Press, Buckingham, 1999.
Chatzoglou, P. D., and Macaullay, L. A. Requirements Capture
and IS Methodologies, Information Systems Journal (6), 1996,
pp. 209-225.
Cooke, R. A., and Rousseau, D. M. Behavioral Norms and Expec-
tations: A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of Organiza-
tional Culture, Group & Organization Studies (13:3), 1988, pp.
245-273.
Cooper, R. B. The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implemen-
tation, Information & Management (27:1), 1994, pp. 17-31.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. Exploring Complex Organizations: A
Cultural Perspective, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA,
1992.
Denison, D. R., and Spreitzer, G. M. Organizational Culture and
Organizational Development: A Competing Values Approach,
in Research in Organizational Change and Development,
Volume 5, R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (eds), JAI Press
Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 1-21.
Dubin, R. Theory Building (2
nd
ed.), The Free Press, New York,
1989.
Eisenhardt, K. Building Theories from Case Study Research,
Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp. 532-550.
Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. Adoption of Software Engi-
neering Process Innovations: The Case of Object-Orientation,
Sloan Management Review (34:2), 1993, pp. 7-22.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior:
An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1975.
Fitzgerald, B. An Empirical Investigation into the Adoption of
Systems Development Methodologies, Information & Manage-
ment (34:6), 1998, pp. 317-328.
Fitzgerald, B. Formalized Systems Development Methodologies:
A Critical Perspective, Information Systems Journal (6:1), pp.
3-23, 1996.
Fitzgerald, B. The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in
Practice: A Field Study, Information Systems Journal (7:3), 3,
1997, pp. 201-212.
Gagliardi, P. The Creation and Change of Organizational Cultures:
A Conceptual Framework, Organization Studies (7:2), 1986, pp.
117-134.
Ginzberg, M. J. Key Recurrent Issues in the MIS Implementation
Process, MIS Quarterly (5:2), 1981, pp. 47-59.
Glass, R. L. Talk About a Software Crisis Not!, The Journal
of Systems and Software (55), 2000, pp. 1-2.
Green, G. C., Collins, R. W., and Hevner, A. R. Perceived Control
and Diffusion of Software Process Innovations, Journal of High
Technology Management Research (15:1), 2004, pp. 123-144.
Gregory, K. L. Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures and
Culture Conflicts in Organizations, Administrative Science
Quarterly (28:3), 1983, pp. 359-376.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C.
Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Macmillan, New
York, 1992.
Hardgrave, B. C., and Johnson, R. A. Toward an Information Sys-
tems Development Acceptance Model: The Case of Object-
Oriented Systems Development, IEEE Transactions on Engi-
neering Management (50:3), 2003, pp. 322-336.
Hardy, C. J., Thompson J. B., and Edwards H. M. The Use,
Limitations and Customization of Structured Systems Develop-
ment Methods in the United Kingdom, Information and
Software Technology (37:9), 1995, pp.467-477.
Henderson, J. C., and Cooprider, J. G. Dimensions of I/S Planning
and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology,
Information Systems Research (1:3), 1990, pp. 227-254.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., and Sanders, G.
Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quanti-
tative Study Across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science
Quarterly (35:2), 1990 pp. 286-316.
Huisman, H. M. The Deployment of Systems Development Methodo-
logies: A South African Experience, unpublished Ph.D disser-
tation, Potchefstroom University for CHE, Potchefstroom, South
Africa, 2000.
Huisman, M., and Iivari, J. Deployment of Systems Development
Methodologies: Perceptual Congruence Between IS Managers
and Systems Developers, Information & Management (43:1),
2006, pp. 29-49.
Humphrey, W. S. Managing the Software Process, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.
Iivari, J. Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?, Communications of
the ACM (39:10), 1996, pp. 94-103.
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., and Klein. H. K. A Paradigmatic
Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Ap-
proaches and Methodologies, Information Systems Research
(9:2), 1998, pp. 164-193.
Iivari, J., and Maansaari, J. The Usage of Systems Development
Methods: Are We Stuck to Old Practices?, Information and
Software Technology (40:9), 1998, pp. 501-510.
ISO. Information Technology Software Product Evaluation
Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use, ISO/IEC
DIS 9126, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1990.
Jrvinen, P. On Research Methods, Opinpajan kirja, Tampere,
Finland, 2001.
Kautz, K., Hansen, B., and Jacobsen, D. The Utilization of
Information Systems Development Methodologies in Practice,
Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications (6:4),
2004, pp. 1-20.
Kekle, T. The Effects of Organizational Culture on Successes and
Failures in Implementation of Some Total Quality Management
Approaches, Towards a Theory of Selecting a Culturally
Matching Quality Approach, Acta Wasaensia, No. 65, Industrial
Management 1, Universitas Wasaensis, Vaasa, Finland, 1998.
Khalifa, M., and Verner, J. M. Drivers for Software Development
Method Usage, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(47:2), 2000, pp. 360-369.
Kunda, G. Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1992.
Langley, A. Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data,
Academy of Management Journal (24:4), 1999, pp. 691-710.
Lee, A. A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies, MIS
Quarterly (13:1), 1989, pp. 33-50.
Leidner, D. E., and Kayworth, T. Review: A Review of Culture in
Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of Information
Technology Culture Conflict, MIS Quarterly (30:2), 2006, pp.
357-399.
Lewis, M. W., and Grimes, A. J. Metatriangulation: Building
Theory from Multiple Paradigms, Academy of Management
Review (24:4), 1999, pp. 672-690.
Lilliefors, H. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality
with Mean and Variance Unknown, Journal of the American
Statistical Association (62:318), 1967, pp. 399-402.
Lyytinen, K. Information Systems Development as Social Action:
Framework and Critical Implications, Jyvskyl Studies in
Computer Science, Economics and Statistics, No. 8, Jyvskyln
yliopisto, Jyvskyl, Finland, 1986.
Malhotra, M. K., and Grover, V. An Assessment of Survey
Research in POM: From Constructs to Theory, Journal of
Operations Management (16:4), 1998, pp. 407-425.
McChesney, I. R., and Glass, D. Post-Implementation Manage-
ment of CASE Methodology, European Journal of Information
Systems (2:3), 1993, pp. 201-209.
Mingers, J. Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist
Methodology, Information Systems Research (12:3), 2001, pp.
240-259.
Moore, G. C., and Benbasat, I. Development of an Instrument to
Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology
Innovation, Information Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp.
192-222.
Nandhakumar, J., and Avison, D. E. The Fiction of Methodo-
logical Development: A Field Study of Information Systems
Development, Information Technology & People (12:2), 1999,
pp. 176-191.
Ngwenyama, O., and Nielsen, P. A. Competing Values in Soft-
ware Process Improvement: An Assumption Analysis of CMM
from an Organizational Culture Perspective, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management (50:1), 2003, pp. 100-112.
Pinsonneault, A., and Kraemer, K. L. Survey Research Methodo-
logy in Management Information Systems: An Assessment,
Journal of Management Information Systems (10:2), 1993, pp.
75-106.
Quinn, R. E., and Kimberly, J. R. Paradox, Planning, and
Perseverance: Guidelines for Managerial Practice, in New
Futures: The Challenge of Managing Organizational Transi-
tions, J. R. Kimberly and R. E. Quinn (eds.), Dow Jones-Irwin,
Homewood, IL, 1984, pp. 295-313.
Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. A Spatial Model of Effectiveness
Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organiza-
tional Analysis, Management Science (29:3), 1983, pp. 363-377.
Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., and Davis, F. D.
Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies:
A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models, IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering (28:12), 2002, pp. 1135-1145.
Roberts, R. K. Jr., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., and Rainer, R. K.
Factors That Impact Implementing a Systems Development
Methodology, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
(24:8), 1998, pp. 640-649.
Robey, D., and Markus, M. L. Ritual in Information System
Design, MIS Quarterly (8:1), 1984, pp. 5-15.
Ruppel, C. P., and Harrington, S. J. Sharing Knowledge Through
Intranets: A Study of Organizational Culture and Intranet Imple-
mentation, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
(44:1), 2001, pp. 37-52.
Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, 1985.
Smircich, L. Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis,
Administrative Science Quarterly (28:3), 1983, pp. 339-358.
Tolvanen, J.-P. Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling
Tools, Ph.D. dissertation, Jyvskyl Studies in Computer Science,
Economics and Statistics, Jyvskyln yliopisto, Jyvskyl,
Finland, 1998.
Van Maanen, J., and Barley, S. R. Occupational Communities:
Culture and Control in Organizations, in Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, Volume 6, B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings
(eds.), JAI Press, Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1984, p. 287-365.
Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., and Glass, R. Research in Information
Systems: An Empirical Study of Diversity in the Discipline and
its Journals, Journal of Management Information Systems (19:2),
2002, pp. 129-174.
Von Meier, A. Occupational Cultures as a Challenge to Techno-
logical Innovations, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement (46:1), 1999, pp. 101-114.
Wallace, W.L. Principles of Scientific Sociology, Aldine Publishing
Company, New York, 1983.
Wastell, D. G. The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a Social
Defense, Information Systems Journal (6:1), 1996, pp. 25-40.
Weick, K. E. Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination,
Academy of Management Review (14:4), 1989, pp. 516-531.
Wynekoop, J. L., and Russo, N. L. Studying System Development
Methodologies: An Examination of Research Methods, Infor-
mation Systems Journal (7:1), 1997, pp. 47-65.
Yeung, A. K. O., Brockbank, J. W., and Ulrich, D. O. Organi-
zational Culture and Human Resource Practices: An Empirical
Assessment, in Research In Organizational Change and
Development, Volume 5, R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore
(eds.), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1991, pp. 59-81
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., and Holbek, J. Innovations and
Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1973.
Zammuto, R. F., and Krakower, J. Y. Quantitative and Qualitative
Studies of Organizational Culture, in Research In Organiza-
tional Change and Development, Volume 5, R. W. Woodman
and W. A. Pasmore (eds.), JAI Press Inc, Greenwich, CT, 1991,
pp. 83-114.
About the Authors
Juhani Iivari is a professor of Information Systems at the Univer-
sity of Oulu, Finland, and the Scientific Head of the INFWEST
Postgraduate Education Program of six Finnish universities in the
area of in information systems. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Oulu. Juhani is the national repre-
sentative for Finland in the International Federation of Information
Processings Technical Committee 8 (Information Systems). His
research has broadly focused on theoretical foundations of informa-
tion systems, information systems development methodologies and
approaches, acceptance of information systems, quality of informa-
tion systems, and the relationship between information systems and
knowledge work. Juhani serves on the editorial boards of seven
journals. He has published in journals such as Australian Journal
of Information Systems, Behavior and Information Technology,
Communications of the ACM, Data Base, European Journal of
Information Systems, Information & Management, Information and
Software Technology, Information Systems, Information Systems
Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, MIS Quarterly, Omega, and Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems.
Magda Huisman is a senior lecturer of Computer Science and
Information Systems at the North-West University (Potchefstroom
Campus) where she teaches software engineering, management
information systems, and decision support systems. She received
her Ph.D degree in Computer Science and Information Systems at
the Potchefstroom University for CHE in 2001. Magda is actively
involved in research projects regarding systems development
methodologies. Her research has appeared in journals such as Infor-
mation & Management and she has presented papers at international
conferences in China, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, and Latvia.
Her current research interests are in systems development
methodologies and the diffusion of information technologies.
16
Items followed by an asterisk (*) were dropped during reliability analysis.
Appendix A
The Relevant Part of the Questionnaire
16
Section 1: Organizational Culture
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)
1.1) The IS department I work in is a very personal place. It is like an extended family and people seem to share a lot of themselves.
1.2) The IS department I work in is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
1.3) The IS department I work in is a very formal and structured place. People pay attention to bureaucratic procedures to get things
done.*
1.4) The IS department I work in is a very production-oriented place. People are concerned with getting the job done and are not very
personally involved.*
1.5) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is loyalty and tradition. Commitment to the IS department I work in runs
high.
1.6) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on
being first with products and services.
1.7) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is formal rules and policies. Following rules and maintaining a smooth-
running institution are important.
1.8) The glue that holds the IS department I work in together is an emphasis on tasks and goal accomplishment. A production and
achievement orientation is commonly shared.
1.9) The IS department I work in emphasizes human resources. High morale is important.
1.10) The IS department I work in emphasizes growth through acquiring new resources. Acquiring new products/services to meet new
challenges is important.
1.11) The IS department I work in emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficient, smooth operations are important.
1.12) The IS department I work in, emphasizes competitive actions, outcomes and achievement. Accomplishing measurable goals is
important.
Section 2: Systems Development Methodology
For the purpose of this questionnaire, a systems development methodology is defined as a combination of the following:
systems development approach/approaches
systems development process model/ models
systems development technique/techniques
systems development method/methods, commercial or in-house
which is used to develop systems in your IS department.
Please describe the systems development methodology in use in your IS department by answering questions 1 through 7.
1. To what extent is your IS department using the following standard (commercial) systems development methods at present? You may
mark more than one item (1 = nominally, 5 = intensively)
1.1) STRADIS (Structured Analysis, Design and Implementation of Information Systems)
1.2) YSM (Yourdon Systems Method)
1.3) IE (Information Engineering)
1.4) SSADM (Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method)
. . . .
1.26) MOSES
1.27) UML (Unified Modeling Language)
1.28) Objectory
1.29) Booch
1.30) Other, please specify
2. Please specify the systems development methods that were developed in-house by your IS department, and indicate to what extent your
IS department is using it at present (1 = nominally, 5 = intensively)
2.1)
2.2)
2.3)
2.4)
3. What is the proportion of projects that are developed in your IS department by applying systems development methodology knowledge?
None 1
1 25 % 2
26 50 % 3
51 75 % 4
Over 75 % 5
4. What is the proportion of people in your IS department who apply systems development methodology knowledge?
None 1
1 25 % 2
26 50 % 3
51 75 % 4
Over 75 % 5
5. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)
5.1) Our systems development methodology helps to align the system to be developed with the business.
5.2) Our systems development methodology helps to capture requirements for the system to be developed.
5.3) Our systems development methodology helps to design the architecture of the system to be developed.
5.4) Our systems development methodology helps in system design.
5.5) Our systems development methodology helps in implementing developed systems.
5.6) Our systems development methodology helps in reviewing developed systems.
5.7) Our systems development methodology helps in testing developed systems.
5.8) Our systems development methodology helps to reuse earlier requirements, designs and code during systems development.
5.9) Our systems development methodology helps to involve end-users in systems development projects.
5.10) Our systems development methodology helps to build management commitment in our systems development projects.
5.11) Our systems development methodology helps to get the systems accepted.

6.1) Our systems development methodology helps to decompose the system to be developed into workable parts.
6.2) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the size of the system to be developed.
6.3) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the time and effort required for the development of a planned system.
6.4) Our systems development methodology helps to plan systems development projects.
6.5) Our systems development methodology helps in defining useful milestones for our systems development projects.
6.6) Our systems development methodology helps to organize systems development projects.
6.7) Our systems development methodology helps to keep our systems development projects under control.
6.8) Our systems development methodology helps to estimate the project risks.
6.9) Overall, our systems development methodology helps us to manage our systems development projects.
17
In the case of reliabilities, the figure before the slash refers to the IS developer data and the figure after the slash to the IT manager data.
18
Reliability analysis indicated that item 3 in the three-item measure of the hierarchical culture (items 3, 7, and 11) and item 4 of the measure for the rational
culture (items 4, 8, and 12) reduced the reliability substantially. Therefore these two items were deleted from the final instruments.
7. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statements? (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree)
7.1) Our systems development methodology defines our desired systems development practice.
7.2) Our systems development methodology describes a sound way of developing systems.
7.3) Our systems development methodology forms a useful standard for our systems development.
7.4) Our systems development methodology reminds me about the activities/tasks of systems development.
7.5) Our systems development methodology provides a useful list of possible systems development activities.
7.6) Our systems development methodology provides useful guidelines for conducting systems development.
7.7) Our systems development methodology provides a useful tool-box of techniques to be applied.
7.8) Our systems development methodology defines an ideal process of systems development that is useful, even though it is not
followed in practice.
7.9) Without a systems development methodology one cannot estimate how systems development should be conducted.
7.10) Our systems development methodology allows us to learn from our systems development experience.
7.11) Without a systems development methodology it is impossible to evaluate our systems development practice.
8.1) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more functional systems.
8.2) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more reliable systems.
8.3) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more maintainable systems.
8.4) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more portable systems.
8.5) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more efficient systems.
8.6) Our systems development methodology helps to develop more usable systems.
8.7) Overall, our systems development methodology helps to develop better systems.
8.8) Overall, our systems development methodology helps to make users more satisfied with our systems.
9.1) Our systems development methodology helps to develop new applications faster.
9.2) Our systems development methodology helps to im-prove the functionality of new applications.
9.3) Our systems development methodology helps to increase the productivity of the application developers.
9.4) Our systems development methodology helps to de-crease the cost of systems development.
9.5) Our systems development methodology helps to im-prove the quality of the systems.
9.6) Our systems development methodology helps to decrease the cost of systems maintenance.
9.7) Our systems development methodology helps to improve the documentation of the systems.
9.8) Our systems development methodology improves the morale in our IS department.
9.9) Our systems development methodology helps to achieve the goals of our IS department.
9.10) Our systems development methodology helps to improve our IS departments reputation for excellent work.
Appendix B
Details of the Analysis of Measurement Instruments
Table B1 lists all of the constructs used with associated measurement instruments, factor structures and Cronbachs alpha reliabilities.
17
All
the measurement instruments, except that for OC, were specifically developed for the present study. Organizational culture was measured using
the instrument suggested by Yeung et al. (1991).
18
Vertical use was measured as the maximum intensity of organizational usage of 29 listed
Table B1. The Measurement Instruments with Associated Factor Structures and Reliabilities
Construct Questions in Appendix 1 Reliability
Organizational culture
group culture orientation
developmental culture orientation
hierarchical culture orientation
rational culture orientation
Section 1 Question 1
items 1, 5, 9
items 2, 6, 10
items 7, 11
items 8, 12
0.68/
0.69/
0.63/
0.68/
Vertical use Section 2 Questions 1-2
1 item
Horizontal use Section 2 Questions 3-4
2 items /0.89
Perceived SDM support as production technology
factor 1: Support for organizational alignment
factor 2: Support for technical design
factor 3: Support for verification and validation
items 1, 2, 9-11
items 3, 4, 5, 8
items 6, 7
0.90/0.91
0.84/0.82
0.94/0.91
Perceived SDM support as control technology
one factor
9 items 0.94/0.92
Perceived SDM support as cognitive and cooperation technology
factor 1: Support for the common conception of systems development
practice
factor 2: Support for the evaluation of systems development practice
items 18, 10
items 9, 11
0.92/0.92
0.79/0.92
Perceived SDM impact on the quality of the systems developed
one factor
8 items 0.95/0.93
Perceived SDM impact on the quality and productivity of the
development process
factor 1: Productivity effects and morale
factor 2: Quality effects, goal achievement and reputation
items 14, 8
items 5, 6, 9, 10
0.89/0.90
0.94/0.92
methods, other possible standard (commercial) methods, and possible methods developed in-house. Horizontal use was measured using two
items, the proportion of projects that are developed in the IT department by applying systems development knowledge, and the proportion of
people in the IT department that use SDM knowledge regularly.
The distinction between perceived SDM support as production technology, perceived SDM support as control technology, and perceived SDM
support as cognitive and cooperation technology was adapted from Henderson and Cooprider (1990). The nature of the present survey did not
allow their detailed questions to be used to measure the functionalities in question, and so a shorter version was adopted here. Perceived SDM
support as production technology was measured using 11 items. Factor analysis using the developer data gave only one factor and that using
the manager data three factors. The following analysis uses the more detailed factor structure. Perceived SDM support as control technology
was measured using nine items. Separate factor analyses based on the developer data and the manager data gave only one factor. Perceived
SDM support as cognitive and cooperation technology was measured using 11 items. The selection of items was inspired by Iivari and
Maansaari (1998). Separate factor analyses based on the developer data and the manager data gave very similar factor structures, comprising
two factors: support for the common conception of systems development practice and support for the evaluation of systems development
practice.
Perceived SDM impact on the quality of the systems developed was measured using eight items adopted from the ISO 9126 standard (ISO 1990).
Separate factor analyses based on both the developer data and the manager data gave only one factor. Perceived SDM impact on the quality
and productivity of the development process was measured using 10 items, but item 7 was deleted from the final instrument because it reduced
the reliability considerably. Factor analysis using the developer data gave only one factor, and factor analysis based on the manager data two
factors: productivity effects and morale and quality effects, goal achievement, and reputation. The following analyses use the more
detailed factor structure.
Appendix C
Theory Building Versus Theory Testing Research and Research Methods
Theory-creating research is sometimes associated with qualitative and interpretive research methods and theory-testing research with
quantitative research methods (e.g., Jrvinen 2001). We see that this is based on misreading of the existing literature. Benbasat et al. (1987)
concluded that case studies, as a research method, are particularly appropriate in situations in which research and theory are at their formative
stages, and Eisenhardt (1989) suggests a detailed process for developing theory from case studies. However, according to our reading their
point is not that case studies, or qualitative/idiographic methods more generally, are the only research methods appropriate for inductive,
empirically inspired theory creation. One reason is that no general statement can be inferred inductively, in the sense of strict induction, from
existing empirical observations (Chalmers 1999). Theory creation always includes creative imagination (Weick 1989) that goes beyond
empirical observations (Langley 1999).
The crucial question then becomes what sort of observations inspire this creative imagination. One could speculate that qualitative/idiographic
research methods are better for this creative process, because of the richer data and more flexible data collection (Langley 1999), also allowing
paradoxical evidence (Eisenhardt 1989). We are not aware, however, of any empirical evidence to show that qualitative/idiographic research
methods have really been more effective than quantitative/nomothetic methods in producing empirical observations that inspire novel theories.
One can attempt, of course, to assess the potential strengths and weaknesses of alternative research methods. Eisenhardt, for example, suggests
three strengths of case studies: theory building from cases is likely to generate novel theory, the emergent theory is likely to be testable, and
the resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid. She also identifies two weaknesses: intensive use of empirical data can yield theory that
is excessively complex, and it can result in narrow, idiosyncratic theory.
Malhotra and Grover (1998) distinguish exploratory surveys (including descriptive surveys) and explanatory surveys, associating the former
with hypothesis generation and the latter with hypothesis testing. If one applies the strengths and weaknesses of theory building from case
studies as suggested by Eisenhardt to exploratory surveys, one can expect the resultant theoretical model to be just as testable as theories derived
from case studies. Furthermore, they are likely to be more parsimonious and more general. We do not see any reason to doubt that a theory
inspired by quantitative observations is empirically any less valid than a theory inspired by qualitative data, even though theory creation in the
former case may be inspired more by empirical generalizations accomplished through sample summarization and parameter estimation (Wallace
1983). In conclusion, we contend that no empirical research method should be excluded a priori as inappropriate for exploratory, theory-
building research.
Appendix D
The Relationships Between Culture Orientations and the Deployment
of Systems Development Methodologies
Multiple regression analysis includes a number of assumptions (Hair et al. 1992). The linearity of the relationships was tested visually using
standardized residual and partial regression plots. None of the variables violated this assumption. Homoscedasticity was tested visually using
the standardized residual and observed values plots. None of the variables violated this assumption. The independence of the residuals was
assessed using the Durbin-Watson statistics, with the value 2 indicating that there is no autocorrelation. The values varied between 1.65 and
2.06 in the case of the manager data, and between 1.67 and 2.13 in the case of the developers, with the exception of vertical use, which had
a value of 1.42. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the modified Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Lilliefors 1967). Violations were
detected (p < 0.05) in the regressions with vertical use as the dependent variable for both the manager and developer data. Multi-collinearity
was tested using the tolerance values. The lowest tolerance value was 0.43 in the case of the developer data and 0.40 in that of the manager
data. These values far exceeded the cutoff value of 0.10 suggested by Hair et al. (1992). Taken together, the specific assumptions of multiple
regression analysis were reasonably well satisfied.
Tables D1 through D4 describe the results of the multiple regression analyses used to investigate the relationship between organizational culture
and SDM deployment. Table D1 shows the relationship between the cultural dimensions and factors of perceived SDM support as production
technology, Table D2 the relationship between the culture orientations and perceived SDM support as control and cognitive and cooperation
technologies, Table D3 the relationship between the cultural dimensions and SDM use, and, finally, Table D4 the relationship between culture
orientations and perceived SDM impact on the quality of systems developed and the quality and productivity of the systems development
process.
Table D1. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and Perceived SDM Support as Production
Technology
Support for Organizational
Alignment
Support for Technical
Design
Support for Verification and
Validation

Group culture De: -0.02
Ma: -0.21
De: 0.03
Ma: -0.09
De: 0.00
Ma: -0.19
Developmental culture De: 0.18
Ma: 0.02
De: 0.33
Ma: 0.33
De: 0.39*
Ma: 0.11
Hierarchical culture De: 0.17
Ma: 0.26
De: 0.07
Ma: 0.20
De: 0.41**
Ma: 0.32*
Rational culture De: 0.10
Ma: -0.27
De: 0.05
Ma: -0.35
De: -0.15
Ma: -0.13
R
2
Adjusted R
2
De: 0.12
Ma: 0.18
De: 0.06
Ma: 0.10
De: 0.17*
Ma: 0.09
De: 0.11
Ma: 0.01
De: 0.29***
Ma: 0.11
De: 0.24
Ma: 0.03
p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001
Table D2. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and Perceived SDM Support as Control and
Cognitive and Cooperation Technologies
Support as Control
Technology
Support for a Common
Conception of Systems
Development Practice
Support for the Evaluation of
Systems Development
Practice

Ma: -0.19
De: 0.06
Ma: -0.09
De: 0.16
Ma: -0.14
Developmental
culture
De: 0.20
Ma: -0.03
De: -0.01
Ma: 0.33
De: -0.03
Ma: 0.18
Hierarchical culture De: 0.36*
Ma: 0.15
De: 0.28
Ma: 0.20
De: 0.13
Ma: 0.22
Ma: -0.11
De: 0.02
Ma: -0.18
De: 0.02
Ma: -0.20
R
2
Adjusted R
2
De: 0.19*
Ma: 0.09
De: 0.13
Ma: 0.01
De: 0.09
Ma: 0.07
De: 0.03
Ma: 0.02
De: 0.05
Ma: 0.15
De: -0.02
Ma: -0.07
p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001
Table D3. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and SDM Use
Vertical SDM Use Horizontal SDM Use

Ma: 0.14
De: -
Ma: -0.06
Developmental culture De: -0.03
Ma: 0.20
De: -
Ma: 0.09
Ma: 0.19
De: -
Ma: 0.10
Rational culture De: -0.02
Ma: -0.34
De: -
Ma: -0.21
R
2
Adjusted R
2
De: 0.12
Ma: 0.07
De: 0.06
Ma: 0.00
De: -
Ma: 0.04
De: -
Ma: -0.04
p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001
Table D4. Relationship Between Culture Orientations and the Perceived Impact of SDM on
the Quality of the Systems Developed and the Quality and Productivity of the Systems
Development Process
Impact on the Quality
of the Systems
Developed
Productivity Effects
and Morale
Quality Effects, Goal
Achievement and
Reputation

Group culture De: 0.07
Ma: -0.07
De: 0.12
Ma: -0.16
De: 0.13
Ma: -0.10
Developmental culture De: 0.11
Ma: 0.17
De: 0.25
Ma: 0.41
De: 0.04
Ma: 0.19
Ma: 0.16
De: -0.04
Ma: 0.10
De: 0.03
Ma: 0.16
Ma: -0.29
De: 0.09
Ma: -0.34
De: 0.20
Ma: -0.39
R
2
Adjusted R
2
De: 0.13
Ma: 0.06
De: 0.07
Ma: -0.02
De: 0.15
Ma: 0.10
De: 0.09
Ma: 0.02
De: 0.10
Ma: 0.11
De: 0.04
Ma: 0.03
p # 0.10 *p # 0.05 **p # 0.01 ***p # 0.001

Competing Value Framework

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Competing Value Framework

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Iivari & Huisman/Organizational Culture & Deployment of SDMs

MIS Quarterly Vol. 31 No. 1 pp. 35-58/March 2007 35

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen