Advertisement

Information Technology and Management

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 71–88 | Cite as

Organizing IT to promote agility

  • Kevin P. Gallagher
  • James L. Worrell
Article

Abstract

Agility at the individual business unit and organizational levels presents a challenge for many information system (IS) departments. Business unit agility demands the ability to sense and respond to changes in local competitive environments, whereas organizational agility demands the ability to sense broader market opportunities and respond with changes that are organization-wide. The former requires experimentation and customization of system designs, while the latter demands uniformity and standardization. Although flexible and customizable software might assist organizations in adapting systems to meet these challenges simultaneously, coordination across multiple business units also demands effective organization and governance of system design and development. This paper presents a longitudinal case study of an insurance company that was effective at sensing and responding to changes in the environment at the business unit level, but less effective at sensing and responding at the organizational level. Using the platform logic as a theoretical lens, we analyze this case and offer insights into how multi-unit organizations can manage system design at the organizational and business unit levels, thereby supporting agility through the development of effective organizing and governance mechanisms. Our analysis outlines relational and integration mechanisms and explains how these arrangements helped the organization to attain greater enterprise agility and support its overall strategy.

Keywords

Agility Platform logic Governance 

References

  1. 1.
    A. Borjesson, L. Mathiassen, Inform. Technol. People, 18(4), 359–382 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Lee et al., Commun. ACM, 49(10), 49–54 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Overby, A. Bharadwaj, V. Sambamurthy, Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 15(2), 120–131 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Sambamurthy, A. Bharadwaj, V. Grover, MIS Quarter. 27(2), 237–263 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Weill, M. Subramani, M. Broadbent, MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 44(1), 57–65 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.V. Brown, S.L. Magill, MIS Quarter. 18(4), 371 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Byrd, D. Turner, J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 17(1), 167–208 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Duncan, J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 12(2), 37–57 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Brown, K. Eisenhardt, Admin. Sci. Quarter. 42(1), 1–34 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Sambamurthy, R. Zmud, Inform. Syst. Res. 11(2), 105–114 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Schwartz, R. Hirschheim, J. Strategic Inform. Syst. 12(2), 129–166 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Lawrence, J. Lorsch, Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Gresov, Admin. Sci. Quarter. 34(3), 431–453 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Brown, MIS Quarter. 23(3), 421–454 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. Sambamurthy, R.W. Zmud, MIS Quarter. 23(2), 261–291 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. von Simson, The ‘Centrally Decentralized’ IS Organization, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2–7 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Boland, R. Tenkasi, Org. Sci. 6(4), 350–372 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.R. Galbraith, Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations, 2nd edn. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Thompson, Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. van Oosterhout, E. Waarts, J. van Hillegersberg, Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 15(2), 132–145 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Dove, Response Ability - the Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise (Wiley, New York, NY, 2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Mathiassen, J. Pries-Heje, Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 15(2), 116–119 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Ghemawat, P. del Sol, California Manage. Rev. 40(4), 26–42 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Agarwal, V. Sambamurthy, MIS Quarter. Execut. 1(1), 1–16 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O. El Sawy et al., MIS Quarter. 23(3), 305–335 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Ciborra, Org. Sci. 7(2), 103–118 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Andreau, C. Ciborra, in Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage, ed. by B. Moingeon, A. Edmonson (Sage Publications, New York, 1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Wade, J. Hulland, MIS Quarter. 28(1), 107–142 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Hirschheim, J. Porra, M. Parks, Database 34(4), 8–27 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods 3 (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Eisenhardt, Acad. Manage. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Leonard-Barton, Org. Sci. 1(3), 248–266 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business InformaticsNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management Information SystemsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations