Questioning the IT artefact: User practices that can, could, and cannot be supported in packaged-software designs

European Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 542-554

  Chiasson, M W ^a   Green, L W ^b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Design; Packaged software; Planning; Selection; Specificity

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648981558     PISSN: 0960085X     EISSN: 14769344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000701     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. ABMA T (2005) Responsive evaluation: it's meaning and special contribution to health promotion. Evaluation and program planning 28(3), 279-289.
2. ATTEWELL P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning. Organization Science 3(1), 1-19.
3. AVISON DE and FITZGERALD B (2003) Where now for development methodologies? Communications of the ACM 46(1), 79-82.
4. BOEHM BW (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21(5), 61-72.
5. BOEHM BW (1999) COTS integration: plug and pray? Computer 32(1), 135-1 38.
6. BOOCH G (1996) Object Oriented Analysis & Design: With Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA.
7. BROOKS FP (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4), 10-20.
8. BUTTERFOSS FD, GOODMAN RM, WANDERSMAN A, VALOIS RF and CHINMAN MJ (1996) The plan quality index: an empowerment evaluation tool for measuring and improving the quality of plans. In Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability (FETTERMAN DM, KAFTARIAN SJ and WANDERSMAN A, Eds), pp 304-331, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
9. CALLON M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (LAW J, Ed), pp 196-233, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
10. COAD E and YOURDON E (1991) Object Oriented Design (2nd edition). Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
11. COOPER RB and ZMUD RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36(2), 123-139.
12. CHEN P (1976) The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9-36.
13. CHIASSON MW and LOVATO C (2000) The health planning context and its effect on a user's perceptions of software usefulness. Canadian Journal of Public Health 91 (3), 225-228.
14. CHIASSON MW and LOVATO C (2001) Factors influencing the formation of a user's perceptions and use of a DSS software innovation. Data Base for Advances In Information Systems 32(3), 16-35.
15. DAVENPORT TH (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review 76(4), 121-131.
16. DESANCTIS G and POOLE MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5(2), 121-147.
17. EISENHARDT KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532-550.
18. GASSON S (2006) A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design. European Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 26-41.
19. GREEN LW and KREUTER M (2005) Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, New York.
20. GOODMAN GM, STECKLER A, HOOVER S and SCHWARTZ RA (1993) A critique of contemporary community health promotion approaches: based on a qualitative review of six programs in Maine. American journal of Health Promotion 7, 208-220.
21. HIRSCHHEIM R and KLEIN H (1989) Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM 32, 9-23.
22. IIVARI J, HIRSCHHEIM R and KLEIN HK (1998) A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information systems development approaches and methodologies. Information Systems Research 9(2), 164-193.
23. KEIL M and TIWANA A (2005) Beyond cost: the drivers of COTS application value. IEEE Software 22(3), 64.
24. LAYDER D (1993) New Strategies in Social Research: An Introduction and Cuide. Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.
25. LIGHT B (2005a) Potential pitfalls in packaged software adoption. Communications of the ACM 48(5), 119-121.
26. LIGHT B (2005b) Going beyond 'misfit' as a reason for ERP package customisation. Computers in industry 56, 606-619.
27. LEE A (1989) A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. Management Information Systems Quarterly 13(1), 33-50.
28. LEE A and BASKERVILLE R (2003) Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14(3), 221-243.
29. LUCAS H, WALTON EJ and GINZBERC M (1988) Implementing Packaged Software. MIS Quarterly 12(4), 537-549.
30. NUTBEAM D (1997) Improving the fit between research and practice in health promotion: overcoming structural barriers. Canadian Journal of Public Health 87(suppl 2), s18-s23.
31. ORLIKOWSKI WJ and IACONO CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research - a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2), 121-134.
32. ORLIKOWSKI WJ and YATES J (1994) Genre repertoire: the structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 39, 541-574.
33. POLLOCK N and CORNFORD J (2004) ERP systems and the university as a "unique" organization. Information, Technology & People 17(1), 31-52.
34. SABHERWAL R (2003) The evolution of coordination in outsourced software development projects: a comparison of client and vendor perspectives. Information and Organization 13(3), 153-202.
35. SABHERWAL R and ROBEY D (1995) Reconciling variance and process strategies for studying information systems development. Information Systems Research 6(4), 303-327.
36. SAWYER S (2000) Packaged software: implications of the differences from custom approaches to software development. European Journal of Information Systems 9, 47-58.
37. SAWYER S (2001) A market-based perspective on information systems development. Communications of the ACM 44(11), 97-102.
38. STANDISH GROUP (2004) 2004 Third quarter research report. Downloaded from http://www.standishgroup.com February 14, 2006. Full reference: http:// www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/PDFpages/q3-spotlight. pdf.
39. STAR SL and GRIESEMER JR (1989) Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professinals in Berkeley's museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387-420.
40. SWANSON EB and RAMILLER NC (1997) The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science 8(5), 458-474.
41. TRUEX D, BASKERVILLE R and KLEIN H (1999) Growing systems in emergent organizations. Communications of the ACM 42(8), 11 7-123.
42. VAN DE VEN AH and HUBER GP (1990) Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change. Organization Science 1(3), 213-219.
43. VITALARI NP (1985) The need for longitudinal designs in the study of computing environments. In Research Methods in Information Systems (MUMFORD E, Ed), pp 243-267, Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland.
44. WAGNER EL and NEWELL S (2004) 'Best' for whom? The tension between 'best practice' ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context, Journal of Strategic information Systems 13, 305-328.
45. WANG ETG (2002) Transaction attributes and software outsourcing success: an empirical investigation of transaction cost theory. Information Systems journal 12, 153-181.
46. WILLIAMSON O (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology 87(3), 548-577.
47. YIN RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park.
48. YOURDON E (1976) Structured Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.