IS Control & Governance
/Released: November 2020
Research Curation Team:
Carol Saunders (University of Central Florida)
Alex Benlian (Darmstadt University of Technology)
Ola Henfridsson (Miami Herbert Business School)
Martin Wiener (TU Dresden)
Download the PDF: IS Control & Governance
Download the Infographic: IS Control & Governance Infographic
Download the Endnote library: IS Control & Governance Endnote Library
1 Focus of the Research Curation
Since the inception of MISQ in 1977, information systems (IS) control and governance have been, and continue to be, vibrant research streams of key interest to the IS discipline. While both IS control and governance are concerned with ensuring the alignment of IS-related activities and information technology (IT) artifacts and resources (including human resources) with an organization’s objectives and strategy, the two are often viewed as operating at different levels; with IS governance focusing on alignment mechanisms at the meso level and IS control focusing on managerial alignment mechanisms at the micro level. This curation summarizes IS control and governance research in MISQ. In total, we identified 53 papers—spanning the time period from 1978 to 2020—in which IS control (33 papers) or IS governance (20 papers) represent a central topic of the overall study. In the following, we review these papers in terms of research progression and thematic advances and portray them in an infographic (see Figure 1). Table 1 provides details of the 53 papers.
2 Progression of IS Control & Governance Research in MISQ
IS control: Early papers, published in MISQ in the late 1970s and early 1980s, focus on internal control activities and issues (i.e., within organizations). These papers tend to adopt a cybernetic view of control, in which controllers set known performance ‘standards’ and take corrective actions to address any deviations from those standards. Topic-wise, early IS control research is primarily concerned with how managers and other stakeholders, such as IS auditors, can control various aspects of the IS development (ISD) lifecycle to ensure the quality and reliability of software systems along with the controls embedded in those systems (Halloran et al. 1978; Koch 1981; Merten and Severance 1981; Rittenberg and Purdy 1978). Other papers look into control-related challenges and deficiencies contributing to the failure of ISD projects and suggest corrective steps (Schmitt and Kozar 1978), including the use of an evolutionary management approach (Zmud 1980). As well, Munro and Wheeler (1980) and Swanson and Culnan (1978) examine the information requirements for management control and the role of document-based software systems in supporting corresponding control activities, respectively.
From the mid-1980s through the 2000s, MISQ papers continued to study the quality control/audit of software systems and system-based data processing (Ahituv and Zelek 1987; Hansen and Hill 1989), the control of ISD projects (Baskerville and Stage 1996; Dibbern et al. 2008), and the role of software-based systems in supporting management control (Sengupta and Te’eni 1993). Moreover, several papers cover additional topics, such as individual software users’ perceptions of personal control during IS implementation (Baronas and Louis 1988), the unintended effects of behavior control on trust in virtual teams (Piccoli and Ives 2003), and the use of software systems as a means for enacting management controls (Kohli and Kettinger 2004; Tillquist et al. 2002). In doing so, IS control research in MISQ increasingly transitioned from a cybernetic to a behavioral view of control, in which control is commonly defined as any “attempts to ensure that individuals […] act in conformity with predefined strategies” (Piccoli and Ives 2003, p. 368; cf. Dibbern et al. 2008).
During the first half of the 2010s, the control of system quality and security (Li et al. 2012; Spears and Barki 2010), as well as the control of both internal and (offshore) outsourced IS projects (Chua et al. 2012; Gregory et al. 2013; Ply et al. 2012), continued to be key research streams in MISQ. Concurrently, a new stream of IS control research emerged, analyzing the control components used by game companies to exercise control over virtual worlds (Roquilly 2011), the types of control point constellations in digitally enabled, interorganizational value networks (Pagani 2013), the IS-enabled planning and control of buyer-supplier relationships (Wang et al. 2013), as well as the link between control configurations and the evolution of digital infrastructures (Henfridsson and Bygstad 2013). These papers have in common that they emphasize what can be referred to as a structural view of control in which IT artifacts, such as digital infrastructures, represent the control target and/or serve as a means for structuring control relationships, and ultimately, for exercising control over diverse actors. This trend toward a structural view of IS control has carried on into the second half of the 2010s, with MISQ papers examining the role of boundary resources in securing control over platform-based service systems (Eaton et al. 2015), the role of IT infrastructure flexibility in enabling control over post-M&A integration activities (Benitez et al. 2018), and the control and organizing logics of platform-based ecosystems (Sandberg et al. 2020). In parallel, an ongoing research focus on the control of internal and outsourced IS projects can be observed (Jenkin et al. 2019; Moeini and Rivard 2019; Susarla and Mukhopadhyay 2019; Wiener et al. 2016).
IS governance: The earliest MISQ paper on IS governance was published in 1980 (Olson and Chervany 1980) and addressed the governance of the IT function (short: ITG). Subsequent papers studied ITG as well, but also relational governance (e.g., Goo et al. 2009), corporate governance (e.g., Drnevich and Croson 2013), and platform governance (e.g., Deng et al. 2016) including polycentric governance (Mindel et al. 2018). To this day, ITG remains to be a central IS governance research topic (Brown 1999; Olson and Chervany 1980; Sambamurthy and Zmud 1999; Tanriverdi 2006; Venkatesh et al. 2019; Williams and Karahanna 2013; Wu et al. 2015; Xue et al. 2008). Gregory et al.’s (2018) definition of ITG, based on a functional conceptual view, refers to structural, processual, and relational mechanisms to describe patterns of how to govern the IT function. Earlier ITG papers tend to focus on structural mechanisms, such as decision rights or organization structuring (i.e., centralization, decentralization, federated), making the IT function a governance target with an internal focus often aimed at technical specialists and managers within the organization (e.g., Olson and Chervany 1980; Sambamurthy and Zmud 1999; Tanriverdi 2006). In contrast, later ITG papers often have both an internal and external focus (e.g., Xue et al. 2008). For example, Williams and Karahanna (2013) examine coordination mechanisms not only within a large public U.S. institution, but also with state funding agencies and external consultants. In general, ITG papers always examine structural mechanisms, and sometimes processual mechanisms (e.g., procedures and standards for funding decisions) (e.g., Xue et al. 2008) and/or relational mechanisms (e.g., informal networking practices) (e.g., Brown 1999).
Displaying a predominantly external focus, MISQ papers on relational governance (Goo et al. 2009; Gopal and Koka 2012; Grover and Kohli 2012; Rai et al. 2009) were published around 2010; that is, later than most ITG papers but before platform governance papers surfaced. Describing governance as one layer of relational arrangements for IT value co-creation, Grover and Kohli (2012) employ a functional conceptual view. In contrast, the papers on relational governance in IS outsourcing/offshoring settings adopt a behavioral conceptual view of IS governance (Goo et al. 2009; Gopal and Koka 2012; Rai et al. 2009). The corporate governance papers (Benaroch and Chernobai 2017; Drnevich and Croson 2013; Pan et al. 2018) also adopt a behavioral conceptual view, which is consistent with their agency theory underpinning, and have at least some external focus.
MISQ papers on platform governance first appeared in 2016 (Deng et al. 2016; Gregory et al. 2018; Mindel et al. 2018; Song et al. 2018; Svahn et al. 2017). Digital platforms ushered in a new conceptual view of IS governance based on a business logic focused on ecosystems and co-creation of value (cf. Grover and Kohli 2012). All platform papers, except (Svahn et al. 2017), are external or both internal and external in focus, reflecting the change of scope of governance that now spans organizational boundaries. In these papers, platform-based ecosystems, hosting a diverse set of actors (e.g., app developers and users), often represent the target of IS governance. With the emergence of platforms, the conceptual view of governance shifted toward patterns of platform standards, automated processes, and multi-layered architecture arrangements (Gregory et al. 2018).
3 Thematic Advances in Knowledge
Across time, three overarching themes pertaining to the role of IS can be observed in IS control and governance research published in MISQ: IS as a (1) target, (2) context, and (3) enabler or means of control/governance activities.
IS as a target: Focusing on the question of how to ensure the quality and reliability of software systems, early IS control papers in MISQ often view the IT artifact itself as the control target (e.g., Halloran et al. 1978; Koch 1981; Merten and Severance 1981). More recently, this research theme has experienced a notable ‘revival,’ with a particular emphasis on system compliance and security (Li et al. 2012; Spears and Barki 2010), as well as the evolution of digital infrastructures and platforms (Henfridsson and Bygstad 2013; Sandberg et al. 2020). A similar pattern applies to IS governance research in MISQ, with several earlier papers (e.g., Olson and Chervany 1980; Sambamurthy and Zmud 1999), as well as more recent papers (e.g., Benaroch and Chernobai 2017; Wu et al. 2015), focusing on governance activities explicitly targeted at IT resources.
IS as a context: Since the early works by Schmitt and Kozar (1978) and Zmud (1980), research that uses IS primarily as a challenging control context has been an enduring research theme in MISQ. Interestingly, there has been a noticeable increase in corresponding papers since the early 2010s, with a particular focus on the exercise of control in a variety of IS project contexts (e.g., Chua et al. 2012; Jenkin et al. 2019; Moeini and Rivard 2019). Among other things, these papers have led to an expansion of the conceptual toolbox available to IS control researchers, including the concepts of control balancing (Gregory et al. 2013) and enactment (Wiener et al. 2016). In contrast, only a handful of MISQ papers study governance issues in different IS contexts, such as relational governance in outsourced settings (e.g., Goo et al. 2009; Gopal and Koka 2012; Rai et al. 2009).
IS as an enabler/means: While early IS control papers published in MISQ focused on the enabling role of IS in supporting managerial control processes (e.g., Munro and Wheeler 1980; Swanson and Culnan 1978), since the 2000s, there has been a steady increase in papers focusing on the use of IS, and digital platforms in particular, as a control means (e.g., Eaton et al. 2015; Pagani 2013; Sandberg et al. 2020). Since 2016, a similar trend can be observed for IS governance research in MISQ with a strong focus on platform-based governance (e.g., Deng et al. 2016; Gregory et al. 2018; Svahn et al. 2017). Corresponding papers view digital platforms as a governance means; for example, as a means of governing crowdsourcing activities (Deng et al. 2016) or sustaining polycentric information commons (Mindel et al. 2018).
Taken together, the study of IS control and IS governance in MISQ has varied noticeably. For instance, when considering the underlying conceptual view, the cybernetic view never appears in governance papers, but frequently appears in early control papers. Similarly, until recently, no discussion of structural mechanisms has appeared in IS control papers, while such mechanisms are virtually always present in functional ITG papers. Still, our analysis suggests that IS control and governance streams published in MISQ have much in common and that this commonality is growing: both streams draw from a broad range of theories and employ an even mix of qualitative and quantitative methodologies; early papers in both streams are very inner-focused and typically view the role of IS as that of the target, whereas recent papers are more externally focused and sometimes describe multiple IS roles simultaneously. Especially with the emergence of digital platforms, the commonality, if not the convergence, between the two research streams is hard to ignore when both streams view the role of IS increasingly as a means of enacting control/governance activities (see green oval in the infographic). Relatedly, a growing number of IS control and governance papers view digital infrastructures/platforms as control or governance targets (e.g., Henfridsson and Bygstad 2013; Song et al. 2018). As well, perhaps nowhere is the convergence of the two research streams more pronounced as when it comes to the definition and use of the terms ‘control’ and ‘governance.’ For example, some MISQ papers describe control as a central element of platform governance (e.g., Gregory et al. 2018; Song et al. 2018; Svahn et al. 2017); others even seemingly use the two terms as synonyms (e.g., Sandberg et al. 2020).
4 Conclusion
Both IS control and governance are among the earliest topics studied in MISQ. While the foci of MISQ papers on IS control and governance differed notably at first, over time, especially with the growing interest in platform research, one can observe an increasing convergence in how the two research topics are studied and viewed. In conclusion, we hope that this curation provides a foundation and inspiration for future research on the critical issues of IS control and governance.
Please cite this curation as follows: Saunders, C., Benlian, A., Henfridsson, O., Wiener, M. “IS Control & Governance,” in MIS Quarterly Research Curations, Ashley Bush and Arun Rai, Eds., http://misq.org/research-curations, November 23, 2020.
References
Ahituv, N., and Zelek, M. 1987. “Instant Quality Control of Large Batch Processing Jobs,” MIS Quarterly (11:3), pp. 313–323. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol11/iss3/4/.
Baronas, A.-M. K., and Louis, M. R. 1988. “Restoring a Sense of Control During Implementation: How User Involvement Leads to System Acceptance,” MIS Quarterly (12:1), pp. 111–124. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol12/iss1/8/.
Baskerville, R. L., and Stage, J. 1996. “Controlling Prototype Development Through Risk Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (20:4), pp. 481–504. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol20/iss4/5/.
Benaroch, M., and Chernobai, A. 2017. “Operational IT Failures, IT Value Destruction, and Board-Level IT Governance Changes,” MIS Quarterly (41:3), pp. 729–762. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol41/iss3/6/.
Benitez, J., Ray, G., and Henseler, J. 2018. “Impact of Information Technology Infrastructure Flexibility on Mergers and Acquisitions,” MIS Quarterly (42:1), pp. 25–43. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss1/4/.
Brown, C. V. 1999. “Horizontal Mechanisms Under Differing IS Organization Contexts,” MIS Quarterly (23:3), pp. 421–454. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol23/iss3/5/.
Chua, C. E. H., Lim, W.-K., Soh, C., and Sia, S. K. 2012. “Enacting Clan Control in Complex IT Projects: A Social Capital Perspective,” MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 577–600. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss2/13/.
Deng, X., Joshi, K. D., and Galliers, R. D. 2016. “The Duality of Empowerment and Marginalization in Microtask Crowdsourcing: Giving Voice to the Less Powerful Through Value Sensitive Design,” MIS Quarterly (40:2), pp. 279–302. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol40/iss2/4/.
Dibbern, J., Winkler, J., and Heinzl, A. 2008. “Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs Between Software Projects Offshored to India,” MIS Quarterly (32:2), pp. 333–366. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol32/iss2/9/.
Drnevich, P. L., and Croson, D. C. 2013. “Information Technology and Business-Level Strategy: Toward an Integrated Theoretical Perspective,” MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 483–509. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss2/11/.
Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., and Sorensen, C. 2015. “Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple’s IOS Service System,” MIS Quarterly (39:1), 217. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss1/13/.
Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H. R., and Nam, K. 2009. “The Role of Service Level Agreements in Relational Management of Information Technology Outsourcing: An Empirical Study,” MIS Quarterly (33:1), pp. 119–145. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol33/iss1/8/.
Gopal, A., and Koka, B. R. 2012. “The Asymmetric Benefits of Relational Flexibility: Evidence from Software Development Outsourcing,” MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 553–576. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss2/12/.
Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., and Keil, M. 2013. “Control Balancing in Information Systems Development Offshoring Projects,” MIS Quarterly (37:4), pp. 1211–1232. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss4/12/.
Gregory, R. W., Kaganer, E., Henfridsson, O., and Ruch, T. J. 2018. “IT Consumerization and the Transformation of IT Governance,” MIS Quarterly (42:4), pp. 1225–1253. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss4/12/.
Grover, V., and Kohli, R. 2012. “Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments,” MIS Quarterly (36:1), pp. 225–232. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss1/3/.
Halloran, D., Manchester, S., Moriarty, S., Riley, R., Rohrman, J., and Skramstad, T. 1978. “Systems Development Quality Control,” MIS Quarterly (2:4), pp. 1–13. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol2/iss1/14/.
Hansen, J. V, and Hill, N. C. 1989. “Control and Audit of Electronic Data Interchange,” MIS Quarterly (13:4), pp. 403–413. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol13/iss4/2/.
Henfridsson, O., and Bygstad, B. 2013. “The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution,” MIS Quarterly (37:3), pp. 907–931. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss3/14/.
Jenkin, T. A., Chan, Y. E., and Sabherwal, R. 2019. “Mutual Understanding in Information Systems Development: Changes Within and Across Projects,” MIS Quarterly (43:2), pp. 649–671. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol43/iss2/15/.
Koch, H. S. 1981. “Online Computer Auditing Through Continuous and Intermittent Simulation,” MIS Quarterly (5:1), pp. 29–41. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol5/iss1/3/.
Kohli, R., and Kettinger, W. J. 2004. “Informating the Clan: Controlling Physicians’ Costs and Outcomes,” MIS Quarterly (28:3), pp. 363–394. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol28/iss3/4/.
Li, C., Peters, G. F., Richardson, V. J., and Watson, M. W. 2012. “The Consequences of Information Technology Control Weaknesses on Management Information Systems: The Case of Sarbanes-Oxley Internal Control Reports,” MIS Quarterly (36:1), pp. 179–203. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss1/14/.
Merten, A. G., and Severance, D. G. 1981. “Data Processing Control: A State-of-the Art Survey of Attitudes and Concerns of DP Executives,” MIS Quarterly (5:2), pp. 11–32. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol5/iss2/2/.
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., and Rai, A. 2018. “The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons,” MIS Quarterly (42:2), pp. 607–631. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss2/13/.
Moeini, M., and Rivard, S. 2019. “Responding—or Not—to Information Technology Project Risks: An Integrative Model,” MIS Quarterly (43:2), pp. 475–500. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol43/iss2/8/.
Munro, M. C., and Wheeler, B. R. 1980. “Planning, Critical Success Factors, and Management’s Information Requirements,” MIS Quarterly (4:4), pp. 27–38. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol4/iss4/2/.
Olson, M. H., and Chervany, N. L. 1980. “The Relationship Between Organizational Characteristics and the Structure of the Information Services Function,” MIS Quarterly (4:2), pp. 57–68. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol4/iss2/5/.
Pagani, M. 2013. “Digital Business Strategy and Value Creation: Framing the Dynamic Cycle of Control Points,” MIS Quarterly (37:2), pp. 617–632. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss2/16/.
Pan, Y., Huang, P., and Gopal, A. 2018. “Board Independence and Firm Performance in the IT Industry: The Moderating Role of New Entry Threats,” MIS Quarterly (42:3), pp. 979–1000. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss3/16/.
Piccoli, G., and Ives, B. 2003. “Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams,” MIS Quarterly (27:3), pp. 365–395. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol27/iss3/3/.
Ply, J. K., Moore, J. E., Williams, C. K., and Thatcher, J. B. 2012. “IS Employee Attitudes and Perceptions at Varying Levels of Software Process Maturity,” MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 601–624. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol36/iss2/14/.
Rai, A., Maruping, L. M., and Venkatesh, V. 2009. “Offshore Information Systems Project Success: The Role of Social Embeddedness and Cultural Characteristics,” MIS Quarterly (33:3), pp. 617–641. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol33/iss3/13/.
Rittenberg, L. E., and Purdy, C. R. 1978. “The Internal Auditor’s Role in MIS Development,” MIS Quarterly (2:4), pp. 47–57. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol2/iss1/18/.
Roquilly, C. 2011. “Control Over Virtual Worlds by Game Companies: Issues and Recommendations,” MIS Quarterly (35:3), pp. 653–671. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol35/iss3/10/.
Sambamurthy, V., and Zmud, R. W. 1999. “Arrangements for Information Technology Governance: A Theory of Multiple Contingencies,” MIS Quarterly (23:2), pp. 261–290. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol23/iss2/6/.
Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., and Lyytinen, K. 2020. “Digitization and Phase Transitions in Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry,” MIS Quarterly (44:1), MIS Quarterly, pp. 129–153. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol44/iss1/7/.
Schmitt, J. W., and Kozar, K. A. 1978. “Management’s Role in Information System Development Failures: A Case Study,” MIS Quarterly (2:2), pp. 7–16. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol2/iss1/5/.
Sengupta, K., and Te’eni, D. 1993. “Cognitive Feedback in GDSS: Improving Control and Convergence,” MIS Quarterly (17:1), pp. 87–113. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol17/iss1/5/.
Song, P., Xue, L., Rai, A., and Zhang, C. 2018. “The Ecosystem of Software Platform: A Study of Asymmetric Cross-Side Network Effects and Platform Governance,” MIS Quarterly (42:1), pp. 121–142. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol42/iss1/9/.
Spears, J. L., and Barki, H. 2010. “User Participation in Information Systems Security Risk Management,” MIS Quarterly (34:3), pp. 503–522. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol34/iss3/8/.
Susarla, A., and Mukhopadhyay, T. 2019. “Can Outsourcing of Information Technology Foster Innovations in Client Organizations? An Empirical Analysis,” MIS Quarterly (43:3), pp. 929–949. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol43/iss3/13/.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., and Lindgren, R. 2017. “Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns,” MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. 239–253. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol41/iss1/14/.
Swanson, E. B., and Culnan, M. J. 1978. “Document-Based Systems for Management Planning and Control: A Classification, Survey, and Assessment,” MIS Quarterly (2:4), pp. 31–46. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol2/iss1/17/.
Tanriverdi, H. 2006. “Performance Effects of Information Technology Synergies in Multibusiness Firms,” MIS Quarterly (30:1), pp. 57–77. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol30/iss1/5/.
Tillquist, J., King, J. L., and Woo, C. 2002. “A Representational Scheme for Analyzing Information Technology and Organizational Dependency,” MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. 91–118. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol26/iss2/5/.
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., Rai, A., and Setia, P. 2019. “Governance and ICT4D Initiative Success: A Longitudinal Field Study of Ten Villages in Rural India,” MIS Quarterly (43:4), pp. 1081–1104. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol43/iss4/5/.
Wang, E. T. G., Tai, J. C. F., and Grover, V. 2013. “Examining the Relational Benefits of Improved Interfirm Information Processing Capability in Buyer-Supplier Dyads,” MIS Quarterly (37:1), pp. 149–173. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss1/8/.
Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., and Saunders, C. 2016. “Control Configuration and Control Enactment in Information Systems Projects: Review and Expanded Theoretical Framework,” MIS Quarterly (40:3), pp. 741-- D14. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol40/iss3/13/.
Williams, C. K., and Karahanna, E. 2013. “Causal Explanation in the Coordinating Process: A Critical Realist Case Study of Federated IT Governance Structures,” MIS Quarterly (37:3), pp. 933–964. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol37/iss3/15/.
Wu, S. P.-J., Straub, D. W., and Liang, T.-P. 2015. “How Information Technology Governance Mechanisms and Strategic Alignment Influence Organizational Performance: Insights from a Matched Survey of Business and IT Managers,” MIS Quarterly (39:2), pp. 497–518. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol39/iss2/12/.
Xue, Y., Liang, H., and Boulton, W. R. 2008. “Information Technology Governance in Information Technology Investment Decision Processes: The Impact of Investment Characteristics, External Environment, and Internal Context,” MIS Quarterly (32:1), pp. 67–96. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol32/iss1/6/.
Zmud, R. W. 1980. “Management of Large Software Development Efforts,” MIS Quarterly (4:2), pp. 45–55. Also available at https://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol4/iss2/1/.
Figure 1. IS Control & Governance Infographic
