Management of technochange in an interorganizational e-Government project

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages

  Nilsson, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

E GOVERNMENTS; ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 51449092459     PISSN: 15301605     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2008.240     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Allen, R. and D. Garlan. "A Formal Basis for Architectural Connection," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (6) 3. 1997. pp. 213-49
2. Baskerville, R. L. Investigating information systems research with action research, Communications of the association for information systems, 2, 19, 1999
3. Baskerville, R. L. and Pries-Heje, J. Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice, Accounting management and information technologies, 9, 1-23, 1999
4. Bent, S. Kernaghan, K. Marson, B. Innovations and Good Practices in Single-Window Service. Canadian Centre for Management Development. 1999.
5. Besson, P. Rowe, F. ERP project dynamics and enacted dialoge: percived understanding, percived leeway, and the nature of task related conflicts. The data base for advances in information systems, vol 32, 4, 47-66. 2001.
6. th. 2002.
7. World Computer Congress - TC2 Stream / 3rd Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA3), Aug 25-30 2002, Montréal, Quebec, Canada: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Darell, R. Reichheld, F. F and Schefter, P. Avoid the four perils of CRM. Harvard business review, vol 80, 2, 101-9. 2002.
9. Enquist, H. and Makrygiannis, N. Understanding misunderstandings, System Sciences, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference, 1998.
10. Enquist, H., Magoulas, T., Bergenstjerna, M., Holmquist, M. DELTA Slutrapport, Göteborgs Universitet, 2001.
11. Enquist, H., Magnusson, J., and Nilsson, A., Change management implications for network organizations, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004.
12. Enquist, H., and Nilsson, A. DELTA, an architecture for managing enterprise development, Proceedings in the europeean conference of information systems, 2006.
13. Checkland, P. Systems thinking, systems pratice, Chichester, UK, J. Weily, 1981.
14. Golden and Powell. Interorganizational information systems as enablers of organizational flexibility. Technology analysis and Strategic management. 16:3. 2004.
15. Gosain, Malholtra and El Sawy. Coordinating for flexibility in E-business supplychains. Journal of management information systems. 21:3. 2004.
16. Hanset, O. , Ciborra, C. and Braa, K. The controle devolution: ERP and the sideeffects of globalization. The database for advances in information systems, 32, 4, 21-33. 2001.
17. Heeks, R. Implementing and managing eGoverment - An international text, Sage publications, London. 2006.
18. Hult, M. and Lenning, S. Towards a definition of action research: A notet and bibliography, Journal of management studies, 17, pp. 241-250, 1980
19. Jorgensen, D. J. Cable, S. Facing the challenges of e-government, SAM Advanced management journal, Summer: 15-30. 2002.
20. Kubiceck, H. Hagen, M. (2000): One Stop Government in Europe: An Overview. I Hagen, M., Kubicek, H. (Red. 2000): One Stop Government in Europe. Results from 11 National Surveys. University of Bremen, Bremen 2000, pp.1-36
21. Magnusson, J., and Nilsson, A. Infusing an Architectural Framework with Neo-institutional Theory: reports from recent change management initiatives within the Swedish Public Administration, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006
22. Markus, L. Technochange management: using IT to drive organizational change, Journal of information Technology, 19, 4-20. 2004.
23. Markus, L., Bashein. Interorganizational Tecnochange: How to make successful choices in electronic partner integration, Society for Information Management, Advanced practecies council. 2006.
24. Medvidovic, N. and R. N. Taylor. "A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (26) 1, pp. 70-93. 2000.
25. Millman, G. J. What did you get from ERP, and what can you get? Financial executive, vol5, 15-24. 2004.
26. Nelson, Shaw. The Adoption and Diffusion of Interogranizational System Standards and Process Innovations University of Illinois. June 26, 2006
27. Reiche, B. H., and Benbasat, I. Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives, MIS-Q, March, 1996
28. Robbins-Gioia. The perception by enterprises of their implementation of enterprise resource planing package, avalible at www.robbinsgioia.com , 2001.
29. Ross, J. Creating a strategic architecture competency: learning in stages. Mis-q executive, vol2-1. 2003.
30. Smolander, K. Rossi, M. and Pauro, M. Going beyond the blueprint: unraveling the complex reality of software architectures, ECIS 2005 proceedings
31. Sowa, J. F. and J. A. Zachman. "Extending and Formalizing the Framework for Information Systems Architecture." IBM Systems Journal 31(3): 590-616. 1992.
32. Susman, G. and Evered, R. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative science quarterly, 23, 4, pp. 582-603, 1978.
33. Wood-Harper, T. L. Research methods in information systems: Using action research, in E. Mumford et al., (eds) Research methods in information systems, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp 169-191. 2004
34. Zachman, J. "Enterprise Architecture: The Issue of the Century." Database programming and design Mars 1997. 1997.
35. Zachman, J. A. "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture." IBM Systems Journal 26(3): 276-292. 1987.