Knowledge that Transforms

Design research (DR) positions information technology artifacts at the core of the Information Systems discipline. However, dominant DR thinking takes a technological view of the IT artifact, paying scant attention to its shaping by the organizational context. Consequently, existing DR methods focus on building the artifact and relegate evaluation to a subsequent and separate phase. They value technological rigor at the cost of organizational relevance, and fail to recognize that the artifact emerges from interaction with the organizational context even when its initial design is guided by the researchers’ intent. We propose action design research (ADR) as a new DR method to address this problem. ADR reflects the premise that IT artifacts are ensembles shaped by the organizational context during development and use. The method conceptualizes the research process as containing the inseparable and inherently interwoven activities of building the IT artifact, intervening in the organization, and evaluating it concurrently. The essay describes the stages of ADR and associated principles that encapsulate its underlying beliefs and values. We illustrate ADR through a case of competence management at Volvo IT.

Firms increasingly turn to online communities to create valuable information. These communities are empowered by new information technology-enabled collaborative tools, tools such as blogs, wikis, and social networks. Collaboration on these platforms is characterized by considerable membership turnover, which could have significant effects on collaborative outcomes. We hypothesize that membership retention relates in a curvilinear fashion to effective collaboration: positively up to a threshold and negatively thereafter. The longitudinal history of 2,065 featured articles on Wikipedia offers support for this hypotheses: Contributions from a mixture of new and experienced participants both increases the likelihood that an article will be promoted to featured article status and decreases the risk it will be demoted after having been promoted. These findings imply that, contrary to many of the assumptions in previous research, participant retention does not have a strictly positive effect on emerging collaborative environments. Further analysis of our data provides empirical evidence that knowledge creation and knowledge retention are actually distinct phases of community-based peer production, and that communities may on average experience more turnover than ideal during the knowledge retention phase.

To date, many important threads of information privacy research have developed, but these threads have not been woven together into a cohesive fabric. This paper provides an interdisciplinary review of privacy-related research in order to enable a more cohesive treatment. With a sample of 320 privacy articles and 128 books and book sections, we classify previous literature in two ways: (1) using an ethics-based nomenclature of normative, purely descriptive, and empirically descriptive, and (2) based on their level of analysis: individual, group, organizational, and societal. Based upon our analyses via these two classification approaches, we identify three major areas in which previous research contributions reside: the conceptualization of information privacy, the relationship between information privacy and other constructs, and the contextual nature of these relationships. As we consider these major areas, we draw three overarching conclusions. First, there are many theoretical developments in the body of normative and purely descriptive studies that have not been addressed in empirical research on privacy. Rigorous studies that either trace processes associated with, or test implied assertions from, these value-laden arguments could add great value. Second, some of the levels of analysis have received less attention in certain contexts than have others in the research to date. Future empirical studies—both positivist and interpretive—could profitably be targeted to these under-researched levels of analysis. Third, positivist empirical studies will add the greatest value if they focus on antecedents to privacy concerns and on actual outcomes. In that light, we recommend that researchers be alert to an overarching macro model that we term APCO (Antecedents → Privacy Concerns → Outcomes).

With the proliferation and ubiquity of information and communication technologies (ICTs), it is becoming imperative for individuals to constantly engage with these technologies in order to get work accomplished. Academic literature, popular press, and anecdotal evidence suggest that ICTs are responsible for increased stress levels in individuals (known as technostress). However, despite the influence of stress on health costs and productivity, it is not very clear which characteristics of ICTs create stress. We draw from IS and stress research to build and test a model of technostress. The person–environment fit model is used as a theoretical lens. The research model proposes that certain technology characteristics—like usability (usefulness, complexity, and reliability), intrusiveness (presenteeism, anonymity), and dynamism (pace of change)—are related to stressors (work overload, role ambiguity, invasion of privacy, work–home conflict, and job insecurity). Field data from 661 working professionals was obtained and analyzed. The results clearly suggest the prevalence of technostress and the hypotheses from the model are generally supported. Work overload and role ambiguity are found to be the two most dominant stressors, whereas intrusive technology characteristics are found to be the dominant predictors of stressors. The results open up new avenues for research by highlighting the incidence of technostress in organizations and possible interventions to alleviate it.

How do information technology capabilities contribute to firm performance? This study develops a conceptual model linking IT-enabled information management capability with three important organizational capabilities (customer management capability, process management capability, and performance management capability). We argue that these three capabilities mediate the relationship between information management capability and firm performance. We use a rare archival data set from a conglomerate business group that had adopted a model of performance excellence for organizational transformation based on the Baldrige criteria. This data set contains actual scores from high quality assessments of firms and intraorganizational units of the conglomerate, and hence provides unobtrusive measures of the key constructs to validate our conceptual model. We find that information management capability plays an important role in developing other firm capabilities for customer management, process management, and performance management. In turn, these capabilities favorably influence customer, financial, human resources, and organizational effectiveness measures of firm performance. Among key managerial implications, senior leaders must focus on creating necessary conditions for developing IT infrastructure and information management capability because they play a foundational role in building other capabilities for improved firm performance. The Baldrige model also needs some changes to more explicitly acknowledge the role and importance of information management capability so that senior leaders know where to begin in their journey toward business excellence.

Advances in information technology and e-commerce enable firms to make personalized offers to individual consumers based on information about the consumers. However, the collection and use of private information have caused serious concerns about privacy invasion by consumers, creating a personalization–privacy tradeoff. The key approach to address privacy concerns is via the protection of privacy through the implementation of fair information practices, a set of standards governing the collection and use of personal information. In this paper, we take a game-theoretic approach to explore the motivation of firms for privacy protection and its impact on competition and social welfare in the context of product and price personalization. We find that privacy protection can work as a competition-mitigating mechanism by generating asymmetry in the consumer segments to which firms offer personalization, enhancing the profit extraction abilities of the firms. In equilibrium, both symmetric and asymmetric choices of privacy protection by the firms can result, depending on the size of the personalization scope and the investment cost of protection. Further, as consumers become more concerned about their privacy, it is more likely that all firms adopt privacy protection. In the perspective of welfare, we show that autonomous choices of privacy protection by personalizing firms can improve social welfare at the expense of consumer welfare. We further find that regulation enforcing the implementation of fair information practices can be efficient from the social welfare perspective mainly by limiting the incentives of the firms to exploit the competition-mitigation effect.

Despite the fact that validating the measures of constructs is critical to building cumulative knowledge in MIS and the behavioral sciences, the process of scale development and validation continues to be a challenging activity. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is that many of the scale development procedures advocated in the literature are limited by the fact that they (1) fail to adequately discuss how to develop appropriate conceptual definitions of the focal construct, (2) often fail to properly specify the measurement model that relates the latent construct to its indicators, and (3) underutilize techniques that provide evidence that the set of items used to represent the focal construct actually measures what it purports to measure. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to integrate new and existing techniques into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures. First, we briefly elaborate upon some of the limitations of current scale development practices. Following this, we discuss each of the steps in the scale development process while paying particular attention to the differences that are required when one is attempting to develop scales for constructs with formative indicators as opposed to constructs with reflective indicators. Finally, we discuss several things that should be done after the initial development of a scale to examine its generalizability and to enhance its usefulness.

Almost 30 years after the introduction of the CIO position, the ideal CIO reporting structure (whether the CIO should report to the CEO or the CFO) is yet to be identified. There is an intuitive assumption among some proponents of IT that the CIO should always report to the CEO to promote the importance of IT and the CIO’s clout in the firm, while some adversaries of IT call for a CIO–CFO reporting structure to keep a tab on IT spending. However, we challenge these two ad hoc prescriptions by arguing that neither CIO reporting structure is necessarily optimal, and that the CIO reporting structure should not be used to gauge the strategic role of IT in the firm. First, extending the strategy–structure paradigm, we propose that a firm’s strategic positioning (differentiation or cost leadership) should be a primary determinant of its CIO reporting structure. We hypothesize that differentiators are more likely to have their CIO report to the CEO in order to pursue IT initiatives that help the firm’s differentiation strategy. We also hypothesize that cost leaders are more likely to have their CIO report to the CFO to lead IT initiatives to facilitate the firm’s cost leadership strategy. Second, extending the alignment–fit view, we propose that firms that align their CIO reporting structure with their strategic positioning (specifically, differentiation with a CIO–CEO reporting structure and cost leadership with a CIO–CFO reporting structure) will have superior future performance. Longitudinal data from two periods (1990-1993-2006) support the proposed hypotheses, validating the relationship between a firm’s strategic positioning and its CIO reporting structure, and also the positive impact of their alignment on firm performance. These results challenge the ad hoc prescriptions about the CIO reporting structure, demonstrating that a CIO–CEO reporting structure is only superior for differentiators and a CIO–CFO reporting structure is superior only for cost leaders. The CIO reporting structure must, therefore, be designed to align with the firm’s strategic positioning, independent of whether IT plays a key strategic role in the firm.