Conference Paper · 2020
Best Short Paper in Conference · 2020
Wang, G., & Burton-Jones, A. (2020). Rethinking IT governance structure and action. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–9). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/governance_is/governance_is/1/
Explore the original contribution
Interactive paper explorationStarting point
Its existence alone does not tell us whether it shapes an unfolding decision.
The paper’s insight
Actors jointly establish what is happening, what counts as a problem, and how to proceed.
What changes
Frameworks inform the conversation, while the conversation can sustain or revise what the framework means.
One research line foregrounds pre-existing frameworks; another foregrounds governance actions. Studying either alone leaves their relationship underexplained.
The paper links structures and actions through collective acceptance. Its provisional event-structure model shows actors continually recognising what is happening and agreeing what should happen, making governance frameworks effective in practice.
Concept explorer
Select a concept to see its role in this paper’s contribution.
An existing concept from Searle, applied here to explain how governance structures and actions co-constitute each other.
Actions that monitor ordinary activity while remaining alert to unusual happenings.
Actions through which actors negotiate the meaning of unusual happenings and appropriate responses.
Actions that endorse what happens next, including an agreed postponement for further investigation.
Combines institutional-facts theory with event structure modelling to explain governance as mindful work towards collective acceptance, rather than choosing structure or action as the sole focus.
Theoretical foundation and discussion, PDF pp.4,7; paper pp.3,6.
The paper distinguishes a framework that remains recognised from one actually shaping an IT affair. It proposes that actual effectiveness depends on collective acceptance in the moment.
Discussion, PDF p.8; paper p.7.
The model distinguishes acceptance of normal business, governing principles, the problem, and a solution. These offer concrete points for examining disagreement in governance meetings.
Findings, PDF p.5; paper p.4.
The decisive schedule makes the next step collectively recognisable so participants can derive responsibilities and action plans. This is an implication of provisional findings.
Phases of IT governing, PDF p.7; paper p.6.
Why this matters
Having governance documents is different from establishing a shared understanding that actually shapes decisions about digital innovation.
Discuss this researchResearch-in-progress short paper based on an Australian hospital programme and 76 observed meetings. The authors had analysed only part of their data and explicitly called for further analysis and generalisation.
Event structure modelling, four acceptance topics, and three phases.
Mindful, temporal co-constitution; situated framework effect; explicit research-in-progress limitations.
This exploration is based on the author-supplied full text. It distinguishes the paper’s own contribution from established concepts it draws on. For formal citation, consult the publication.