Top 10 IS Theories 2014

The information systems fields focus on theory is well established, and the IS Theory
Wiki serves the need for quick review and understanding. The popularity of theories on the
site may serve as an early indicator of the future prevalence of these theories, or at least
the share of researcher attention during day-to-day research activities. While some
theories, such as 2014s most popular theoryInstitutional Theorylikely benefits from
visitors from other disciplines, some of the changes may reflect a move away from the
individual level of analysis in IS. In fact, none of the top five theories are at the individual
level, although 2014s strongest climberSocial Network Theorycertainly incorporates
the individual perspective. Only two pure-play individual level theories breached the top 10
the Technology Acceptance Model and Diffusion of Innovations theory, and whereas the
former maintained its 2013 spot, the latter lost several spots.

IS Theory Wiki Ranking Changes from 2013 to 2014

The top 10 theory pages visited for 2014 (with across-site percentages): [1]
1. Institutional theory (9.4%)
2. Social network theory (6.7%)
3. Contingency theory (6.6%)
4. Organizational culture theory (5.8%)
5. Transaction cost economics (5.6%)
6. DeLone and McLean IS success model (5.1%)

7. Technology acceptance model (5.1%)

8. Socio-technical theory (4.8%)
9. Garbage can theory (4.0%)
10. Diffusion of innovations theory (3.7%)
As expected, the same handful of theories played around the top between the two years.
For example, we note that institutional theory was the top visited theory for both 2014 and
2013, and contingency theory, organizational culture theory, diffusions of innovations
theory, the DeLone and McLean IS success model, and the diffusions of innovations theory
all were within the top 10 both time periods. Social network theory experienced a significant
jump from 14th to 2nd, and socio-technical theory jumped almost the same interval, going
from 17th to 8th. Transaction cost economics and garbage can theory also felt modest
boosts of 5 and 2 respectively. Six out of the 2013 top ten dropped a few intervals in 2014
(contingency theory, DeLone and McLean IS success model, diffusion of innovations
theory, organizational learning theory, technology-organization-environment framework,
and the theory of planned behavior).
The IS Theories Wiki is a resource for the whole field and requires constant updates to stay
relevant. We are therefore looking for volunteers to update references and add new
theories. Please contact Dave for details.
David Eargle (daveeargle.com)
Kai R. Larsen (kai.larsen@colorado.edu)

Institutional theory
Acronym
INT

Alternate name(s)
Institutionalism, New Institutional Theory

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Institutional emergence, conformity, conflict, change, isomorphism

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Processes which establish schemas, rules, norms and routines

Concise description of theory

Institutional theory attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure.
It considers the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and
routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. It inquires
into how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and
time; and how they fall into decline and disuse. Although the ostensible subject is
stability and order in social life, students of institutions must perforce attend not just to
consensus and conformity but to conflict and change in social structures.
Source: Scott, W. Richard 2004. Institutional theory P408-14 in Encyclopedia of
Social Theory, George Ritzer, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A. Defining institutions there is no single and universally agreed definition of an
institution in the institutional school of thought... Scott (1995:33, 2001:48) asserts that
Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. [They]
are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that, together
with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life.
Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers, including symbolic systems,
relational systems, routines, and artifacts. Institutions operate at different levels of
jurisdiction, from the world system to localized interpersonal relationships. Institutions
by definition connote stability but are subject to change processes, both incremental
and discontinuous Powell and DiMaggio (1991:8) shed light on the meaning of
institutions by offering a definition of the (neo-)institutional field: The new
institutionalism in organization theory and sociology comprises a rejection of rationalactor models, an interest in institutions as independent variables, a turn toward
cognitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties of supra-individual
units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of
individuals attributes or motives.

B. Enactment and (re-)production of institutions These social structures (mentioned

above) are both imposed on and upheld by the actors (e.g. an individual, an
organisation, etc.) behaviour.... One cognitively oriented view is that a given institution
is encoded into an actor through a socialization process. When internalized, it
transforms to a script (patterned behavior). When (or if) the actor behaves according to
the script, the institution is enacted. In this manner, institutions are continuously
(re-)produced. The enactment of an institution externalizes or objectifies it - other
actors can see that the institution is in play, and a new round of socialization starts.
After some time, the institution (and the resulting patterned behaviour) becomes
sedimented and taken for-granted. Then, it might be difficult for the actors even to
realize that their behaviour is in fact partly controlled by an institution. Acting in
accordance with the institution is viewed as rational by those who share the institution.
Source: Fredrik Bjorck. "Institutional Theory: A New Perspective for Research into IS/IT
Security in Organisations," HICSS, p. 70186b, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 7, 2004

Diagram/schematic of theory
Theory
element

Regulative

Normative

Cognitive

Basis of
compliance

Expedience

Social Obligation

Taken for granted

Mechanisms

Coercive

Normative

Mimetic

Logic

Instrumentality

Appropriateness

Orthodoxy

Indicators

Rules, laws,
sanctions

Certification,
accreditation

Prevalence, isomorphism

Basis of
legitimacy

Legally
sanctioned

Morally governed

Culturally supported,
conceptually correct

Three Pillars of Institutions

Source: Source: Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage

Originating author(s)
Philip Selznick, Paul J. DiMaggio, Walter W. Powell, W. Richard Scott, Lynne G. Zucker

Seminal articles
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of Organizations. American Sociological
Review 13: 25-35
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. University of California Press, Berkley,
CA.
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration, A Sociological Interpretation New
York: Harper & Row.
Selznick, P. (1969) Law, Society and Industrial justice, New York: Russel Sage
Foundation.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 16, 191: pp.145-179.
Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational
analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32(4), 493
Scott, W. R. (1995 and 2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage

Originating area
Sociology, Industrial Psychology, Organizational Theory, Organizational Behavior

Level of analysis
Group, firm, industry

IS articles that use the theory

Adler, P. S. (2005). The evolving object of software development. Organization, 12(3),
401.
Aguila, A. R. d., Bruque, S., & Padilla, A. (2002). Global information technology
management and organizational analysis: Research issues. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 5(4), 18.

Alvarez, R. (2001). "It was a great system": Face-work and the discursive construction
of technology during information systems development. Information Technology &
People, 14(4), 385.
Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and organizational change: An institutionalist perspective.
Information Technology & People, 13(4), 234.
Bada, A. O., Aniebonam, M. C., & Owei, V. (2004). Institutional pressures as sources of
improvisations: A case study from a developing country context. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 7(3), 27.
Baptista , J. (2009). Institutionalisation as a process of interplay between technology
and its organisational context of use. Journal Of Information Technology, 24(4): 305320.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from
observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the
links between action and institution. Organization Studies (Walter De Gruyter GmbH &
Co.KG.), 18(1), 93.
Bharati, P., Zhang, C., and Chaudhury, A. (Forthcoming), Social Media Assimilation in
Firms: Investigating the Roles of Absorptive Capacity and Institutional Pressures,
Information Systems Frontiers, Springer.
Bharati, P. and Chaudhury, A. (2012), Technology Assimilation Across the Value Chain:
An Empirical Study of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Information Resources
Management Journal, 25(1), pp. 38-60, January-March.
Boudreau, Marie-Claude, & Robey, Daniel. (1996). Coping with contradictions in
business process re-engineering. Information Technology & People, 9(4), 40.
Butler, T. (2003). An institutional perspective on developing and implementing intranetand internet-based information systems. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 209-231.
Cannon, A. R., & Woszczynski, A. B. (2002). Crises and revolutions in information
technology: Lessons learned from Y2K. Industrial Management + Data Systems,
102(5/6), 318.
Chatterjee, D., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2002). Shaping up for E-commerce:
Institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies. MIS
Quarterly, 26(2), 65.
Cukier, W., Shortt, D., & Devine, I. (2002). ISECON 2001 best paper award winner-gender and information technology: Implications of definitions. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 13(1), 7.
Currie, W. L. (2004). The organizing vision of application service provision: A processoriented analysis. Information & Organization, 14(4), 237-267.

Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R., & Jayatilaka, B. (2004). Information systems
outsourcing: A survey and analysis of the literature. Database for Advances in
Information Systems, 35(4), 6.
Doh, J. P., Teegen, H., & Mudambi, R. (2004). Balancing private and state ownership in
emerging markets' telecommunications infrastructure: Country, industry, and firm
influences. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3), 233.
Gibbs, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2004). A cross-country investigation of the determinants
of scope of E-commerce use: An institutional approach. Electronic Markets, 14(2), 124137.
Hedman, J., & Borell, A. (2004). Narratives in ERP systems evaluation. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 17(4), 283.
Jarvenpaa, L, S., & Leidner, E, D. (1998). An information company in mexico extending
the resource-based view of the firm to a developing country context. Information
Systems Research, 9(4), 342.
King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C. S.
(1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research, 5(2), 139-169.
Kinsella, W. J. (2005). Rhetoric, action, and agency in institutionalized science and
technology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 303.
Kling, R. (1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent
empirical research. ACM Computing Surveys, 12(1), 61-110.
Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Understanding intranets in the context of end-user
computing. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 36(1), 64.
Lamb, R., King, J. L., & Kling, R. (2003). Informational environments: Organizational
contexts of online information use. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 54(2), 97.
Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information
systems research1. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197.
Laudon, K. C., & King, R. (1985). Environmental and institutional modes of system
development: A national criminal history system. Communications of the ACM, 28(7),
728.
Lawrence, C. (2003). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Information Technology
& People, 16(3), 374.
Lucas, L. M., & Ogilvie, D. (2005). The evolution of organisations' search strategies for
knowledge. International Journal of Information Technology & Management, 4(3), 1-1.
Lynskey, M. J. (2004). Knowledge. finance and human capital: The role of social
institutional variables on entrepreneurship in japan. Industry and Innovation, 11(4), 373.

Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change:
Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Nicolaou, A. I. (1999). Social control in information systems development. Information
Technology & People, 12(2), 130.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of
technology in organizations. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of
Management Sciences, 3(3), 398-427.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can
research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each
other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145.
Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of
organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
Premkumar, G., K. Ramamurthy, and M. Crum. (1997). Determinants of EDI Adoption
in the Transportation Industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 6, 107-121.
Ramiller, N. C. (2003). Information systems and global diversity. Information
Technology & People, 16(2), 235.
Reimers, K. (2003). Developing sustainable B2B E-commerce scenarios in the Chinese
context: A research proposal. Electronic Markets, 13(4), 261-270.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organizational
consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological
implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167-185.
Robey, D., & Holmstrom, J. (2001). Transforming municipal governance in global
context: A case study of the dialectics of social change. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 4(4), 19.
Robey, Daniel, & Boudreau, Marie-Claude. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory
organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and
methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167.
Sahay, S. (2003). Information systems and global diversity. Information Technology &
People, 16(2), 240.
Silva, L., & B, Eugenio Figueroa. (2002). Institutional intervention and the expansion of
ICTs in latin america: The case of chile. Information Technology & People, 15(1), 8.
Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information
Technology1. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 553.
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt
interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19-49.

Tillquist, J., King, J. L., & Woo, C. (2002). A representational scheme for analyzing
information technology and organizational dependency. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 91.
Tingling, P. M. and M. Parent (2002). "Mimetic Isomorphism & Technology Evaluation:
Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?" Journal for the Association of Information
Systems 3,5: 113-143.
Ulhi, J. P. (2004). Open source development: A hybrid in innovation and management
theory. Management Decision, 42(9), 1095.
Umanath, S, N., & Campbell, L, T. (1994). Differential diffusion of information systems
technology in multinational enterprises: A research model. Information Resources
Management Journal, 7(1), 6.
Wang, S., & Cheung, W. (2004). E-business adoption by travel agencies: Prime
candidates for mobile e-business. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3),
43-63.
Wareham, J. (2002). Anthropologies of Information Costs: Expanding the NeoInstitutional View, Information and Organization 12(4), 219
Watson, H. J., Abraham, D. L., Chen, D., Preston, D., & Thomas, D. (2004). Data
warehousing ROI: Justifying and assessing a data warehouse. Business Intelligence
Journal, 9(2), 6.
Wu, F., Mahajan, V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2003). An analysis of e-business adoption
and its impact on business performance. Academy of Marketing Science.Journal,
31(4), 425.

Links from this theory to other theories

Transaction cost economics, Resource dependency theory, Evolutionary theory,
historical institutionalism, organization culture and identity, population ecology, and
traditional- and neo-institutional sociology.

External links
http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Institutional%20Theory%20Oxford04.pdf, Chapter
prepared by Scott W. R. for Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory
Development, Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt, eds. Oxford UK: Oxford University
Press
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=issr , Institute for
Social Science Research, University of California, Los Angeles
http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/NewInstitutionalism-I.doc, Jan Chong
web site
http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/encyclo.html, Encyclopedia of
Organizationa Theory - Babson College

Original Contributor(s)
Hossam Ali-Hassan

Social network theory

This site is sponsored by Brigham Young University

This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado

Contents
[hide]

1 Social network theory

2 Acronym

3 Alternate name(s)

4 Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

5 Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

6 Concise description of theory

7 Diagram/schematic of theory

8 Originating author(s)

9 Seminal articles

10 Originating area

11 Level of analysis

12 IS articles that use the theory

13 Links from this theory to other theories

14 External links

15 Original Contributor(s)

Social network theory

Acronym
SNT

Alternate name(s)
Network theory, network analysis

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Node size, density, link strength

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Nodes, links

Concise description of theory

Social network theory views social relationships in terms of nodes and ties. Nodes are the
individual actors within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors.
There can be many kinds of ties between the nodes. In its most simple form, a social
network is a map of all of the relevant ties between the nodes being studied. The network
can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors. These concepts are
often displayed in a social network diagram, where nodes are the points and ties are the
lines.
The power of social network theory stems from its difference from traditional sociological
studies, which assume that it is the attributes of individual actors -- whether they are
friendly or unfriendly, smart or dumb, etc. -- that matter. Social network theory produces an
alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships
and ties with other actors within the network. This approach has turned out to be useful for
explaining many real-world phenomena, but leaves less room for individual agency, the

ability for individuals to influence their success, so much of it rests within the structure of
their network.
Social networks have also been used to examine how companies interact with each other,
characterizing the many informal connections that link executives together, as well as
associations and connections between individual employees at different companies. These
networks provide ways for companies to gather information, deter competition, and even
collude in setting prices or policies.
Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking
Social network theory, however, is not to be confused with Social networking. The correct
source for independent and dependent constructs is:
Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Biehl. M., Kim, H. and Wade, M., Relations Among the Business Management
Disciplines: A Citation Analysis using the Financial Times Journals, OMEGA, 34, pp. 359371, 2006.

Originating author(s)
Stanley Milgram: small worlds problem, six degrees of separation
Mark Granovetter: the strength of weak ties
John Barnes, J. Clyde Mitchell: first to study social networks in the field

Seminal articles
Barnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations,
7, 39-58.
Burkhardt, M.E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: a
longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869-898.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Feeley, T.H., & Barnett, G.A. (1996). Predicting employee turnover from communication
networks. Human Communication Research, 23, 370-387.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual clarification. Social
Networks,1, 215-239.
Freeman, L.C., White, D.R., & Romney, A.K. (1992). Research methods in social network
analysis. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.
Granovetter, Mark;(1973)"The strength of weak ties"; The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp 1360-1380
M.S. Granovetter., "The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited," Social Structure
and Network Analysis (P.V. Marsden and N. Lin, Eds.). Sage, Beverly Hills CA, 1982, pp.
105-130.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the
study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342.
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of
network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, 277-303.
Meyer, G.W. (1994). Social information processing and social networks: A test of social
influence mechanisms. Human Relations, 47, 1013-1048.
Milgram, S. (1967) "The Small World Problem," Psychology Today, (May), pp. 60-67.
Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). "Social Cohesion and Embeddedness," American
Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.
Pollock, T.G., Whitbred, R.C., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and
job characteristics: A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job satisfaction.
Human Communication Research, 26, 292-330.
Rice, R.E., & Richards, W.D. (1985). An overview of network analysis methods and
programs. In: B. Dervin & M.J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 105165). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A handbook. Second edition. London: Sage.
Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, D. Small Worlds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.
Watts, D., Strogatz, S. H. "Collective Dynamics of Small-World Networks," Nature (393),
1998, pp. 440-442.

Originating area
Social psychology, Social anthropology, Mathematical sociology, Psychometrics,

Level of analysis
Individual, group, network

IS articles that use the theory

Baym, N.K. 1995. The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In
Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community, ed. S.G. Jones, pp.
138-163. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Biehl. M., Kim, H. and Wade, M., Relations Among the Business Management Disciplines:
A Citation Analysis using the Financial Times Journals, OMEGA, 34, pp. 359-371, 2006.
Burkhardt, M.E. & Brass, D.J. (1990). Changing patterns and patterns of change - The
effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. ASQ, 35(1), 104127.
Chidambaram, L., & Bostrom, R. P. (1997a). Group development (I): A review & synthesis
of developmental models. Group Decision & Negotiation, 6, 159-187.
Chidambaram, L., & Bostrom, R.P. (1997b). Group development (II): Implications for GSS
research and practice. Group Decision & Negotiation, 6, 231-254.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Keisler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness
of weak ties for technical advice, Organization Science, 119-135.
G. DeSanctis and M.S. Poole, "Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use:
Adaptive structuration theory," Organization Science 5(2), 1982, pp. 121-147.
M. Feldman, "Electronic mail and weak ties in organizations," Office: Technology and
People, 3, 1987, pp. 83-101.
L. Freeman, "The impact of computer based communication on the social structure of an
emerging scientific specialty," Social Networks 6, 1984, pp. 201-221.

L. Garton, C. Haythornthwaite, and B. Wellman,, "Studying online social networks," Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(1),
1997,http://207.201.161.120/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html
C. Haythornthwaite, "Online personal networks," New Media and Society, 2(2), 2000, pp.
195-226.
C. Haythornthwaite, "Exploring multiplexity: Social network structures in a computersupported distance learning class," The Information Society, forthcoming.
C. Haythornthwaite, M.M. Kazmer, J. Robins, and S. Shoemaker, "Community development
among distance learners," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2000.
Greg Madey, Vincent Freeh, Renee Tynan The Open Source Software Development
Phenomenon: An Analysis Based On Social Network Theory, AMCIS, 2002
L. Sproull, and S. Kiesler, "Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
computing," Management Science 32(11), 1986, pp. 1492-1512.
Sudweeks, F., M.L. Mclaughlin, and S. Rafaeli (Eds.), Network and Netplay. MIT Press,
Cambridge MA, 1998.
Wade, M., Kim, H. and Biehl, M., "Information Systems is NOT a Reference Discipline (And
What We Can Do About It)", Journal of AIS, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 247-268, May 2006.
Wade, M., Kim, H. and Biehl, M., "If the Tree of IS Knowledge Falls in a Forest, Will Anyone
Hear?: A Commentary on Grover et al.", Journal of AIS, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 326-335, May
2006.
J.B. Walther, "Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication," Organization
Science, 6(2), 1995, pp. 186-203.
B. Wellman, J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M. Gulia, and C. Haythornthwaite "Computer
networks as social networks," Annual Review of Sociology 22, 1996, pp. 213-238.

Links from this theory to other theories

Actor network theory, General systems theory, Organizational knowledge creation

External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking, Description of Social Network Services
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/perrolle/archive/Ethier-SocialNetworks.html, Research paper
on recent research in SNT
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/so/social_network.htm, Description of
SNT
http://home.earthlink.net/~ckadushin/Texts/Basic%20Network%20Concepts.pdf, Book
chapter on SNT

Original Contributor(s)
Mike Wade

Contingency theory

This site is sponsored by Brigham Young University

This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado

Contents
[hide]

1 Contingency theory

2 Acronym

3 Alternate name(s)

4 Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

5 Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

6 Concise description of theory

7 Diagram/schematic of theory

8 Originating author(s)

9 Seminal articles

10 Originating area

11 Level of analysis

12 IS articles that use the theory

13 Links from this theory to other theories

14 External links

15 Original Contributor(s)

Contingency theory
Acronym
N/A

Alternate name(s)
N/A

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Efficiency, organizational performance

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Strategy, technology, task, organizational size, structure, and culture

Concise description of theory

There are many forms of contingency theory. In a general sense, contingency theories are
a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of organizing /
leading and that an organizational / leadership style that is effective in some situations may
not be successful in others (Fiedler, 1964). In other words: The optimal organization /
leadership style is contingent upon various internal and external constraints.
Four important ideas of Contingency Theory are: 1. There is no universal or one best way
to manage 2. The design of an organization and its subsystems must 'fit' with the
environment 3. Effective organizations not only have a proper 'fit' with the environment but
also between its subsystems 4. The needs of an organization are better satisfied when it is
properly designed and the management style is appropriate both to the tasks undertaken
and the nature of the work group.

There are also contingency theories that relate to decision making (Vroom and Yetton,
1973). According to these models, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon
a number of aspects of the situation: the importance of the decision quality and
acceptance; the amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates;
the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic decision or cooperate in trying to
make a good decision if allowed to participate; the amount of disagreement among
subordinates with respect to their preferred alternatives.
It is worth noting that since the mid 1980s contingency theory has been fairly dead within
the originating field of organization theory. Apart from Lex Donaldson, professor at
Australian Graduate School of Management, and a few other people, nobody within the
field attempt to contribute to a further development of contingency theory, foremost
because of what can be perceived as the lacking explanatory power of the theory.
Sources: http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html andhtt
p://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational
%20Communication/Contingency_Theories.doc/

Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Weill, Peter; Olson, Marorethe H. (1989). An Assessment of the Contingency

Theory of Management Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems,
6(1), 63.

Originating author(s)
Fred Fiedler (contingency theory of leadership)

Seminal articles
Burns, T., Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.1). 149-190. New York: Academic Press.
Kast, F., Rosenzweig, J. (1973). Contingency Views of Organization and Management.
Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch, J. W. (1967) . Organization and Environment. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Otley, D. T. 1980. The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and
prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 5(4): 413-428.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press

Originating area
Organization theory, psychology, strategy

Level of analysis
Firm, individual

IS articles that use the theory

Heeks, Richard (2002) Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure, Success
and Local Improvisations, The Information Society, 18:2, pp. 101-112.
Andres, Hayward P.; Zmud, Robert W. (2001/2002). A Contingency Approach to Software
Project Coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 41-71.
Andrew D. Luzi; Kenneth D. MacKenzie (1982). An Experimental Study of Performance
Information Systems. Management Science (pre-1986), 28(3), 243-259.
Arinzn, Bay. (1991). A Contingency Model of DSS Development Methodology. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 8(1), 149-166.

Barki, Henri; Rivard, Suzanne; Talbot, Jean (2001). An Integrative Contingency Model of
Software Project Risk Management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4),
37-69.
Becerra-Fernandez, Irma; Sabherwal, Rajiv. (2001). Organization Knowledge Management:
A Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-55.
Belanger, France, Collins, Rosann Webb, Cheney, Paul H. (2001). Technology
Requirements and Work Group Communication for Telecommuters. Information Systems
Research, 12(2), 155-176.
Blanton, J Ellis, Watson, Hugh J, Moody, Janette (1992). Toward a better understanding of
information technology organization: A comparative case study. MIS Quarterly, 16(4), 531555.
Brown, Carol V.; Bostrom, Robert P. (1994). Organization designs for the management of
end-user computing: Reexamining the contingencies. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10(4), 183-211.
Chang, Ruey-Dang, Chang, Yeun-Wen, Paper, David (2003). The effect of task uncertainty,
decentralization and AIS characteristics on the performance of AIS: an empirical case in
Taiwan. Information & Management, 40(7), 691-713.
Cheon, Myun J.; Grover, Varun; Teng, James T.C. (1995). Theoretical perspectives on the
outsourcing of information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 10(4), 209-219.
Chin, Wynne W.; Marcolin, Barbara L.; Newsted, Peter R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares
Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte
Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information
Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.
Croteau, Anne-Marie, Raymond, Louis (2004). Performance outcomes of strategic and IT
competencies alignment. Journal of Information Technology, 19(3), 178-190.
Danziger, James N. (1979). Technology and Productivity: A Contingency Analysis of
Computers in Local Government. Administration & Society, 11(2), 144-171.
Devaraj, Sarv, Kohli, Rajiv (2000). Information technology payoff in the health-care industry:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 41-67.
Edstrm, Anders (1977). User Influence and the Success of MIS Projects: A Contingency
Approach. Human Relations, 30(7), 589-607.
Fiedler, Kirk Dean, Grover, Varun, Teng, James T C. (1996). An empirically derived
taxonomy of information technology structure and its relationship to organizational
structure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 9-34.
Franz, Charles R. (1985). User Leadership in the Systems Development Life Cycle: A
Contingency Model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2 (2), 5.
Galegher, Jolene; Kraut, Robert E. (1994). Computer-mediated Communication for
Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing. Information Systems Research,
5(2),110-138.

Giaglis, George M.; Klein, Stefan; O'Keefe, Robert M. (2002). The role of intermediaries in
electronic marketplaces: developing a contingency model. Information Systems Journal,
12(3), 231-246.
Ginberg, Michael J. (1980). An Organizational Contingencies View of Accounting and
Information Systems Implementation. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 5(4), 369-382.
Goodhue, Dale L., Quillard, Judith A.,Rockart, John F. (1988). Managing The Data
Resource: A Contingency Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 372-382.
Gordon, Lawrence A., Miller, Danny.A (1976). Contingency Framework for the Design of
Accounting Information Systems. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 1(1), 59-70.
Hardgrave, Bill C.; Wilson, Rick L. (1999). Toward a Contingency Model for Selecting an
Information System Prototyping Strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems,
16(2), 113-136.
Huber, George (1982). Organizational Information Systems: Determinants of Their
Performance and Behavior. Management Science, 28(2), 138-155.
Jae-Nam Lee; Miranda, Shaila M.; Yong-Mi Kim (2004). IT Outsourcing Strategies:
Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Explanations of Success.Information
Systems Research, 15(2), 110-131.
Khazanchi, Deepak. (2005). Information Technology (IT) Appropriateness: The Contingency
Theory of "Fit" and IT Implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 88-95.
Kyu Kim, K.; Umanath, Narayan S. (1992/1993). Structure and Perceived Effectiveness of
Software Development Subunits: A Task Contingency Analysis. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 9(3), 157-181.
Lai, V.S. (1999). A Contingency Examination of CASE-task Fit on Software Developer's
Performance. European Journal of Information Systems, 8(1), 27-49.
Lee, Choong C., Grover, Varun (1999/2000). Exploring mediation between environmental
and structural attributes: The penetration of communication technologies in manufacturing
organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3),187-217.
Lin, Winston T.; Shao, Benjamin B.M.(2000). The relationship between user participation
and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Information & Management,
37(6), 283-295.
Markus, M. Lynne; Bjrn-Andersen, Niels. (1987). Power Over Users: Its Exercise by
System Professionals. Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 498-504.
McKeen, James D. Guimaraes, Tor, Wetherbe, James C. (1994). The relationship between
user participation and user satisfaction: an investigation of four contingency factors. MIS
Quarterly, 18(4), 427-451.
McKeen, James D., Guimaraes, Tor (1997). Successful strategies for user participation in
systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 133-150.

Nidumolu, Sarma R. (1996). A Comparison of the Structural Contingency and Risk-based

Perspectives on Coordination in Software-development Projects.Journal of Management
Information Systems, 13(2), 77-113.
Panagiotis Kanellis, Ray J Paul (2005). User Behaving Badly: Phenomena and Paradoxes
from an Investigation into Information Systems Misfit. Journal of Organizational and End
User Computing17(2), 64-91.
Pinsonneault, Alain; Heppel, Nelson. (1997/1998). Anonymity in Group Support Systems
Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89-108.
Premkumar, G, King, William R. (1992). An empirical assessment of information systems
planning and the role of information systems in organizations. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 9(2), 99-125.
Ratbe, Dina, King,William R., Kim, Young-Gul (1999/2000). The fit between project
characteristics and application development methodologies: A contingency approach. The
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(2), 26-33.
Raymond, Louis (1990). Organizational Context and Information Systems Success: A
Contingency Approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(4), 5-20.
Sabherwal, Rajiv; King, William R.(1992). Decision Processes for Developing Strategic
Applications of Information Systems: A Contingency Approach. Decision Sciences, 23(4),
917-943.
Schonberger, Richard J. (1980). MIS Design: A Contingency Approach. MIS Quarterly, 4(1),
13-20.
Seliem, Ahmed A.M.; Ashour, Ahmed S.; Khalil, Omar E.M.; Millar, Stephen J. (2003). The
Relationship of Some Organizational Factors to Information Systems Effectiveness: A
Contingency Analysis of Egyptian Data. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(1),
40-71.
Sugumaran, Vijayan, Arogyaswamy, Bernard (2003-2004). Measuring IT Performance:
"Contingency" Variables and Value Modes. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
44(2), 79-86.
Teo, Thompson S.H. (2003). A contingency perspective on Internet adoption and
competitive advantage. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), 78-92.
Trkman, Peter (2010). The Critical Success Factors of Business Process Management.
International Journal of Information Management, 30 (2), 125-134
Umanath, Narayan S. (2003). The concept of contingency beyond It depends: illustrations
from IS research stream. Information & Management, 40(6), 551-562.
Venkatraman, N. (1985/1986).Research on MIS Planning: Some Guidelines from Strategic
Planning Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2(3), 65-77.

Weill, Peter; Olson, Marorethe H. (1989). An Assessment of the Contingency Theory of

Management Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6(1), 5985.
Wetherbe, Jim C.; Whitehead, Canton J. (1977). A Contingency View of Managing the Data
Processing Organization. MIS Quarterly, Mar77, Vol. 1 Issue 1, p19, 7p
Zhu, Zhichang (2002). Evaluating contingency approaches to information systems design.
International Journal of Information Management, 22(5), 343-356.
Zmud, R. W. 1982. Diffusion of modern software practices: Influence of centralization and
formalization. Management Science (28): 1421-1431.

Links from this theory to other theories

N/A

External links
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html, management
summary of contingency theory
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/contingency_theory.htm, brief
summary of contingency theory
http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/fied.htm, website focused on
Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiedler_contingency_model, another description of Fiedler's
contingency theory of leadership
http://www.12manage.com/methods_contingency_theory.html, provides definitions of
didefinitions of types of contingency theory (organization, leadership, decision making)
http://www.geocities.com/kstability/learning/management/contingency.html, description of
contingency theory.
http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational
%20Communication/Contingency_Theories.doc/, contingency theory summary from
Twente

Original Contributor(s)
Mike Wade and Sally Tomasevic

Organizational culture theory

This site is sponsored by Brigham Young University

This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado

Contents
[hide]

1 Organizational Culture Theory

2 Acronym

3 Alternative Name

4 Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

5 Main independent construct(s)/factors(s)

6 Concise description of theory

7 Diagram/schematic of theory

8 Originating authors(s)

9 Seminal articles

10 Originating area

11 Level of analysis

12 IS articles that use the theory

13 Links from this theory to other theories

14 External links

15 Original Contributor(s)

Organizational Culture Theory

Acronym
N/A

Alternative Name
Corporate culture

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Performance, organizational effectiveness, employee commitment, employee satisfaction.

Main independent construct(s)/factors(s)

Organizational culture type, organization culture strength, and culture congruence.

Concise description of theory

Different concepts of culture, stemming from two distinct disciplines (anthropology and
sociology), have been applied to organizational studies since the early 1980s. These two
underlying disciplines represent different paradigms in Burrell and Morgans (1979)
framework, and have contributed to the emergence of the different theories and
frameworks of organizational culture in the academic literature. Anthropology takes the
interpretivist view and sees culture as a metaphor for organizations, defining organizations
as being cultures. On the other hand, sociology takes on the functionalist view and defines
culture, as something an organization possesses. Despite the separate definitions of
organizational culture, there seems to be a movement towards a general consensus.
The most widely used organizational culture framework is that of Edgar Schein (1988), who
adopts the functionalist view and described culture as a pattern of basic assumptions,
invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to cope with its problems
of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be

considered valid and, therefore is to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.
In Scheins (1988) model, culture exists on three levels:
1. Artifacts Artifacts are difficult to measure and they deal with organizational attributes
that can be observed, felt and heard as an individual enters a new culture. 2. Values This
level deals with the espoused goals, ideals, norms, standards, and moral principles and is
usually the level that is usually measured through survey questionnaires. 3. Underlying
assumptions This level deals with phenomena that remain unexplained when insiders are
asked about the values of the organizational culture. Information is gathered in this level by
observing behavior carefully to gather underlying assumptions because they are
sometimes taken for granted and not recognized. According to Schein, the essence of
organizational culture lies in this level.
Source: Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture. WP 2088-88. Sloan School of Management
Working Papers, Massachussets Institute of Technology, 1988.

Diagram/schematic of theory

Source: Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1992, Figure 9.

Originating authors(s)
Edgar Schein, Andrew Pettigrew

Seminal articles
Pettigrew, A.M. On Studying Organizational Cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly
(24:4), 1979, pp. 570-581.
Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.
Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, 1992.
Smircich, L. Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis, Administrative Science
Quarterly (28:3), 1983, pp. 339-358.

Originating area
Social anthropolgy, Social psychology, Organizational psychology

Level of analysis
Organization, group, individual

IS articles that use the theory

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., and Leidner, D. E. An Empirical Examination of the Influence of
Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices, Journal of Management
Information Systems. (22:3), 2005-2006, pp. 191-224.
Bradley, R. V., J. Pridmore, T. A. Byrd, "Information Systems Success in the Context of
Different Corporate Cultural Types: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Management
Information Systems (23:2), 2006, pp. 267-294.
Cooper, R.B. The Inertial Impact of Culture on IT Implementation, Information and
Management (27:1), 1994, pp. 17-31.
Hatcher, M. A Video Conferencing System for the United States Army: Group Decision
Making in a Geographically Distributed Environment, Decision Support Systems (8:2),
1992, pp. 181-190.
Iivari, J., and Huisman, M. The Relationship Between Organizational Culture And The
Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies, MIS Quarterly (31:1), 2007, pp. 3558.
Jones, M. C., Cline, M., and Ryan, S. Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP
implementation: an organizational culture framework, Decision Support Systems (41:2),
2006, pp. 411-434.

Leidner, D.E., and Kayworth, T. Review: A Review of Culture in Information Systems

Research: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Conflict, MIS Quarterly (30:2),
2006, pp. 357-399.
McDermott, C.M., and Stock, G.N. Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing
technology implementation. Journal of Operations Management (17:5), 1999, pp. 521-533.
Nahm, A.Y., Voderembse, M.A., and Koufteros, X.A. The Impact of Organizational Culture
on Time-Based Manufacturing and Performance, Decision Sciences (35:4), 2004, pp. 579607.
Ramamurthy, K. and King, W.R. Computer integrated manufacturing: An exploratory study
of key organizational barriers. International Journal of Management Science (20:4), 1992,
pp. 475-491.
Robey, D., and Markus, M. L. Ritual in Information System Design, MIS Quarterly (8:1),
1984, pp. 5-15.
Ruppel, C. P., and Harrington, S. J. Sharing Knowledge Through Intranets: A Study of
Organizational Culture and Intranet Implementation, IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication (44:1), 2001, pp. 37-52.
Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., Clapper, D. L., and McLean, E. R. ComputerMediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic
and a Collectivistic Culture, Management Science (44:9), 1998, pp. 1263-1278.
Zammuto, R. F., and OConnor, E. J. Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies'
Benefits: The Roles of Organization Design and Culture, The Academy of Management
Review (17:4), 1992, pp. 701-728.

Links from this theory to other theories

External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_culture, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2224, Organizational Culture by Edgar Schein (1988), Sloan
School of Management, Massachussets Institute of Technology Working Papers.

Original Contributor(s)
Oluwakemi Onwuchekwa

Transaction cost economics

This site is sponsored by Brigham Young University

This site is sponsored by theUniversity of Colorado

Contents
[hide]

1 Transaction cost economics

2 Acronym

3 Alternate name(s)

4 Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

5 Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

6 Concise description of theory

7 Diagram/schematic of theory

8 Originating author(s)

9 Seminal articles

10 Originating area

11 Level of analysis

12 IS articles that use the theory

13 Links from this theory to other theories

14 External links

15 Original Contributor(s)

Transaction cost economics

Acronym
TCE

Alternate name(s)
Transaction cost theory, theory of the firm, markets and hierarchies / electronic hierarchies
and electronic markets /

Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)

Governance structure, degree of outsourcing, outsourcing success, inter-organizational
coordination and collaboration

Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)

Coordination costs, transaction risk (opportunity costs), coordination costs, operational risk,
opportunism risk, asset specificity , uncertainty, trust

Concise description of theory

In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost incurred in making an
economic exchange. A number of different kinds of transaction costs exist. Search and
information costs are costs such as those incurred in determining that the required good is
available on the market, who has the lowest price, etc. Bargaining costs are the costs
required to come to an acceptable agreement with the other party to the transaction,
drawing up an appropriate contract, etc.. Policing and enforcement costs are the costs of
making sure the other party sticks to the terms of the contract, and taking appropriate
action (often through the legal system) if this turns out not to be the case.
Transaction costs consist of costs incurred in searching for the best
supplier/partner/customer, the cost of establishing a supposedly "tamper-proof" contract,

and the costs of monitoring and enforcing the implementation of the contract. Transaction
cost theorists assert that the total cost incurred by a firm can be grouped largely into two
componentstransaction costs and production costs. Transaction costs, often known as
coordination costs, are well defined as the costs of "all the information processing
necessary to coordinate the work of people and machines that perform the primary
processes," whereas production costs include the costs incurred from "the physical or other
primary processes necessary to create and distribute the goods or services being
produced"
Transaction cost economics suggests that the costs and difficulties associated with market
transactions sometimes favor hierarchies (or in-house production) and sometimes markets
as an economic governance structure. An intermediate mechanism, called hybrid or
relational, between these two extremes has recently emerged as a new governance
structure .
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost
Kumar, Kuldeep, Van Dissel, Han G., Bielli, Paola, "The Merchant of Prato--Revisited:
Toward a Third Rationality of Information Systems", MIS Quarterly, Jun98, Vol. 22, Issue 2.
Malone, T.W.; Yates, J.; and Benjamin, R.I., "Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies:,
Communications of the ACM, 30, 6 (1987),p. 485.

Diagram/schematic of theory

Originating author(s)
Ronald Coase (1937, 1960), Oliver Williamson (1981, 1985), Klein, Crawford, Alchian
(1978)

Seminal articles
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386.
Coase, Ronald H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 144.

Klein, Crawford, RA Alchian, AA. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the
competitive contracting process.
Oliver, W. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual
relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 233-261.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach.
The American journal of sociology, 87(2): 233.
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism : Firms, markets, relational
contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.

Originating area
Micro-economics

Level of analysis
Firm

IS articles that use the theory

Ang, Soon, & Straub, Detmar W. 1998. Production and transaction economies and IS
outsourcing: A study of the U.S. banking industry. MIS Quarterly, 22(4): 535-552.
Aubert, Benoit A., Rivard, Suzanne, & Patry, Michel. 1996. A transaction cost approach to
outsourcing behavior: Some empirical evidence. Information & Management, 30(2): 51-64.
Bahli, Bouchaib, & Rivard, Suzanne. 2003. The information technology outsourcing risk: A
transaction cost and agency theory-based perspective. Journal of Information Technology
(Routledge, Ltd.), 18(3): 211-221.
Bakos, J. Y., & Treacy, Michael E. 1986. Information technology and corporate strategy: A
research perspective. MIS Quarterly, 10(2): 106.
Bakos, Yannis, J., Brynjolfsson, & Erik. 1993. Information technology, incentives, and the
optimal number of suppliers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2): 37.
Bunduchi, Raluca. 2005. Business relationships in internet-based electronic markets: The
role of goodwill trust and transaction costs. Information systems journal, 15(4): 321.
Cannel, Erran Nicholson, Brian. 2005. Small firms and offshore software outsourcing: High
transaction costs and their mitigation. Journal of global information management, 13(3): 33.
Choudhury, Vivek, & Sampler, Jeffrey L. 1997. Information specificity and environmental
scanning: An economic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 21(1): 25.

Christopher, M. H., & Kemerer, Chris F. 1994. Computerized loan origination system: An
industry case study of the electronic markets.. MIS Quarterly, 18(3): 251.
Ciborra, CU. 1983. Markets, bureaucracies and groups in the information society: An
institutional appraisal of the impacts of information technology. Information economics and
policy, 1: 145.
Clemons, Eric K., & Hitt, Lorin M. 2004. Poaching and the misappropriation of information:
Transaction risks of information exchange. Journal of Management Information Systems,
21(2): 87-107.
Clemons, Eric K., & Reddi, Sashidhar P. 1993. The impact of information technology on the
organization of economic activity: The `move to the.. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10(2): 9.
Clemons, Eric K., & Row, Michael C. 1992. Information technology and industrial
cooperation: The changing economics of coordination and ownership. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 9(2): 9.
Garicano, Luis, & Kaplan, Steven N. 2001. The effects of business-to-business Ecommerce on transaction costs. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(4): 463-485.
Gennotte, Gerard, & Jung, Alan. 1994. Investment strategies under transaction costs: The
finite horizon case. Management Science, 40(3): 385-404.
Grover, Varun, & Cheon, Myun J. 1996. The effect of service quality and partnership on the
outsourcing of information systems functions. Journal of Management Information Systems,
12(4): 89.
Gurbaxani, Whang,. 1991. The impact of information systems on organizations and
markets. Communications of the ACM, 34(1): 59.
Heiman, Bruce, & Nickerson, Jack A. 2002. Towards reconciling transaction cost
economics and the knowledge-based view of the firm: The context of interfirm
collaborations. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 9(1): 97-116.
Hitt, Lorin M. 1999. Information technology and firm boundaries: Evidence from panel data.
Information Systems Research, 10(2): 134-149.
Kambil, Ajit, & van Heck, Eric. 1998. Reengineering the dutch flower auctions: A framework
for analyzing exchange organizations. Information Systems Research, 9(1): 1.
Kauffman, Robert J., & Mohtadi, Hamid. 2004. Proprietary and open systems adoption in Eprocurement: A risk-augmented transaction cost perspective. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 21(1): 137-166.
Kleindorfer, Paul R., & Wu, D. J. 2003. Integrating long-and short-term contracting via
business-to-business exchanges for capital-intensive industries. Management Science,
49(11): 1597-1615.
Kumar, Kuldeep, Van Dissel, Han G., & Bielli, Paola. 1998. The merchant of prato-revisited: Toward a third rationality of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(2): 199-226.

Lacity, Mary C., & Willcocks, Leslie P. 1995. Interpreting information technology sourcing
decisions from a transaction cost perspective: Findings and critique. Accounting,
Management and Information Technologies, 5(3-4): 203-244.
Lee, HG Clark, TH. 1996. Impacts of the electronic marketplace on transaction cost and
market structures. International journal of electronic commerce, 1(1): 127.
Liang, Ting Huang, Jin. 1998. An empirical study on consumer acceptance of products in
electronic markets: A transaction cost... Decision support systems, 24(1): 29.
Lichtenstein, Yossi. 2004. PUZZLES in software development contracting. Communications
of the ACM, 47(2): 61-65.
Malone, Thomas Yates, Joanne Benjamin, Robert. 1987. ELECTRONIC MARKETS AND
ELECTRONIC HIERARCHIES. Communications of the ACM, 30(6): 484.
Monteverde, Kirk. 1995. Technical dialog as an incentive for vertical integration in the
semiconductor industry. Management Science, 41(10): 1624.
Mosakowski, Elaine. 1991. Organizational boundaries and economic performance: An
empirical study of entrepreneurial computer firms. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2):
115-133.
Ngwenyama, K, Ojelanki, Bryson, & Noel. 1999. Making the information systems
outsourcing decision: A transaction cost approach to analyzing outsourcing decision
problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(2): 351.
Novak, Sharon, & Eppinger, Steven D. 2001. Sourcing by design: Product complexity and
the supply chain. Management Science, 47(1): 189.
Qu, Zhonghua, & Brocklehurst, Michael. 2003. What will it take for china to become a
competitive force in offshore outsourcing? an analysis of the role of transaction costs in
supplier selection. Journal of Information Technology (Routledge, Ltd.), 18(1): 53.
Saarinen, Timo, & Vepsalainen, Ari P. J. 1994. Procurement strategies for information
systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2): 187.
Shane, Scott. 2002. Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management
Science, 48(1): 122-137.
Silverman, Brian S. 1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate
diversification: Toward an integration of.. Management Science, 45(8): 1109.
Subramani, Mani. 2004. How do suppliers benefit from information technology use in
supply chain relationships?[1]. MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 45-73.
Teo, Thompson S. H., & Yu, Yuanyou. 2005. Online buying behavior: A transaction cost
economics perspective. Omega, 33(5): 451-465.
Wang, Eric T. G. 2002. Transaction attributes and software outsourcing success: An
empirical investigation of transaction cost theory. Information Systems Journal, 12(2): 153181.

Wareham, Jonathan. 2003. Information assets in interorganizational governance: Exploring

the property rights perspective. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 50(3): 337.
Welty, Bill Becerra-Fernandez, Irma. 2001. MANAGING TRUST AND COMMITMENT IN
COLLABORATIVE SUPPLY CHAIN RELATIONSHIPS. Communications of the ACM, 44(6):
67.
Yannis Bakos, J. (., & Kemerer, Chris F. (. 1992. Recent applications of economic theory in
information technology research. Decision Support Systems, 8(5): 365-386.
Young-Ybarra, Candace, & Wiersema, Margarethe. 1999. Strategic flexibility in information
technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange
theory. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 10(4):
439.
Zaheer, Akbar, & Venkatraman, N. 1994. Determinants of electronic integration in the
insurance industry: An empirical test. Management Science, 40(5): 549-566.
Ziedonis, Rosemarie H. 2004. Don 't fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and
the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science, 50(6): 804-820.

Links from this theory to other theories

Agency theory, Resource dependency theory, Organizational governance

External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost, Wikipedia entry on TCE
http://www.encycogov.com/B11TransactionCostEconomics.asp, An introduction about TCE
together with some useful links

Original Contributor(s)
Hamid Akbari