Content uploaded by Peter Virag
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Virag on May 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
BEING CONTROLLED: EXPLORING CONTROLLEES’
VIEW ON CONTROL IN IS PROJECTS
Roman Walser
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
roman.walser@wu.ac.at
Peter Virag
Vienna University of Economics and Business
Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
peter.virag@wu.ac.at
ABSTRACT
Control is often implemented in IS projects to increase project success. A typical control relationship involves two
parties: A controller, who is executing control and a controllee, who is being controlled. While there is no doubt that
effective and efficient control can positively influence project success, previous research has mainly focused on the
controller perspective. This primarily includes the managerial aspect of control choice, i.e. creating a set of control
mechanisms for a project. However, it is arguable that also the controllees’ perception of control has a considerable
impact on their behavior and the resulting control effectiveness and efficiency. To close the current gap in research and
get a better understanding of the controllee perspective on IS project control, explorative interviews with experienced IS
project team members in Austria were held. Our summarizing content analysis yields three main findings. First, the
familiarity of the project team members with each other is a crucial factor determining the perceived appropriate amount
of control. Second, controllees prefer control that focuses more on the outcome rather than on their way of working.
Finally, control might have a better connotation than expected and could be even seen as an opportunity to make
achievements visible to supervisors.
KEYWORDS
IS project control, control congruence, control experience, perceived appropriateness
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most important activities to promote value creation from information technology resources is the
control of information systems (IS) projects. Existing literature has shown that both in case of internal and
outsourced projects using different software development methodologies, control mechanisms can have
positive effects on project outcomes (Gopal and Gosain, 2010; Kirsch, 1996, 1997; Tiwana and Keil, 2009).
Experience has shown that IS projects, which are often lengthy and expensive, are more prone to failure
compared to projects in other fields (Irani, 2010). Possible reasons for this could be the uncertain and
changing business requirements (Whyte and Bytheway, 1996), complexity of information systems that often
lead to unforeseen escalations (Mahring and Keil, 2008), intangibility of deliverables (Snow et al., 2007) and
significantly different educational and professional experiences of participants (Tiwana and Keil, 2009). This
high risk of project failure makes control in IS projects essentially important as it can help projects speed up
and stay within budget (Heumann et al., 2015).
In this paper we define control as “any attempt to motivate individuals to behave in a manner consistent
with organizational objectives” (Kirsch, 2004) and IS project control as “the attempt to intentionally affect
the behavior of another person or group as a means to achieve objectives related to designing, developing,
operating, using and managing information systems” (Cram et al., 2016).
There are various control modes, mechanisms and styles available to controllers; the amount and
intentions behind control are also variables to consider. Over the past two decades, a number of studies have
been carried out to advise controllers on how to control IS projects. Nevertheless, data in those studies were
mainly based on controllers’ experiences (Wiener et al., 2016). This focus on the controller’s view on control
is surprising because control is usually seen as a dyadic relationship consisting of both controllers and
controllees (Kirsch, 2004). However, the controllees’ view on control has rarely been examined so far, which
is problematic because a common understanding between controller and controllee can minimize control loss
(Narayanaswamy et al., 2013). We assume that a number of factors influence the controllees’ perceptions and
experiences of control. For example, company culture and size could affect the optimal amount of control,
and, since control in IS projects is generally seen as a tool to fight agency problems such as appropriation and
moral hazard (Eisenhardt, 1989), we presume that control mechanisms are necessarily undesirable for
controllees. Therefore, this research paper is aimed at providing insights into the controllees’ perception of
control. More precisely, we try to find answers to the following research questions:
"How do controllees experience control in IS projects and which factors influence controllees' perception of
control?"
We believe that our study can shape the way of thinking about how controls should be applied in IS
projects. It is relevant for research because it provides novel insights for gaining a better understanding of the
perception of control. In addition, our research can guide practitioners (such as IT project managers) to fine-
tune their control portfolio that may have a positive impact on project performance. The remainder of this
paper is structured as follows. First, we provide an overview of the research on IS project control and
describe the main concepts relevant for this paper. After introducing the chosen research methodology, the
results of our explorative interviews are presented. Subsequently, we elaborate on theoretical and practical
implications. Finally, we reflect on contributions and limitations of the study.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Controllers in IS projects play a crucial role in selecting and implementing control. Most previous research
see control as a dyadic relationship between a controller and a controllee. Controllers are typically middle
managers, an IS project manager for example, and controllees are members of his team. Controllers are
individuals who exercise control in order to regulate the behavior of controllees. Although the analysis of this
paper is at project level, it is important to note that other controller groups might also exist in an organization,
for example senior IT executives exercise control over IS projects. (Wiener et al., 2017).
Controllers can choose specific actions called control mechanisms that help to achieve organizational
goals. Control mechanisms specify who will do what and when. (Cram et al., 2016). For instance, a control
mechanism is when business representatives are asked to provide user stories at the beginning of a software
development project in order to validate requirements.
Control mechanisms can be categorized into different control modes. These control modes represent a
unique collection of actors and techniques to achieve control. Table 1 shows an adapted version from
literature (Cram et al., 2016; Kirsch, 1996; Wiener et al., 2016) to give an overview of the different control
modes and to outline some corresponding control mechanisms. Control modes can be formal and informal.
Formal controls are input, behavioral and outcome controls and they focus on enforcing previously defined
plans and emphasize accountability. Informal controls are clan and self-control and they are used to create
shared values and norms (Gregory and Keil, 2014). A controller can choose from a wide variety of control
mechanisms when creating a project control portfolio.
Table 1: Control modes and exemplary mechanisms
Control modes
- Control mechanism example
Input control: Specifying and monitoring
resource allocation (human, financial, material)
- Recruitment
- Training programs
- Changes in allocation of funding
Formal
Behavioral control: specifying and monitoring
and rewarding actions of subordinates
- Mandated software development methodology
- Regular status meetings
- Weekly progress reports
Outcome/Output control: specifying and
monitoring employees level of output
- Defining project milestones
- Functional specifications
- Number of code lines to be submitted each week
Clan Control: social mechanisms (norms, values)
that motivate goal-oriented behavior
- Ceremonies and rituals
- Working overtime
- Socialization (e.g. Team dinner)
Informal
Self-control: self-monitoring behavior based on
intrinsic motivation, individual standards and
objectives
- Developing elegant code
- Work autonomy
- Self rewarding
A diverse portfolio is important for example because input and behavioral control play a significant role
in successfully enacting clan control (Eng et al., 2012). Another important characteristic of control is how
much it is exercised. In other words, control amount refers to the extent the controller uses control
mechanisms to exercise control over controllees. It reflects the collective influence of controller on controllee
to affect what the latter does. In outsourced settings, Rustagi and his colleagues (2008) found that outsourced
tasks, which are of higher uncertainty call for a larger amount of control. However, technical knowledge on
the client side (controller) or when the client trusts the vendor (controllee) mitigates the necessary amount of
control (Rustagi et al., 2008).
While the configuration of the control portfolio is an important control activity, control consequences are
also determined by control enactment. It describes the interaction between the controller and the controllee
through which the controller implements formal control and promotes informal control. (Wiener et al., 2016).
Control enactment can be conceptualized through control style and control congruence. Control style
describes the interaction between the controller and the controllee. An authoritative control style can be used
to ensure and enforce compliant controllee behavior. It is a top-down control style that emphasizes
bureaucratic norms. Using this control style, the controllee typically has minimal influence over how the
control is configured. In contrast, an enabling control style promotes collaboration and frequent interaction. It
is important to mention that these two styles are conceptualized as end points on a scale and usually one of
them is a dominant but not an absolute choice of style (Gregory et al., 2013). Control congruence is the
degree of similarity between the controller and controllee perceptions of enacted controls. There are two
types of congruence. First, communicational congruence refers to the shared understanding between the
controllee and the controller about the enacted controls. Second, evaluational congruence is defined as the
level of agreement between the controllee and the controller about the appropriateness of the enacted controls
(Wiener et al., 2016).
Finally, the concept of control purpose focuses on why controllers enact control. It is defined as intentions
underlying the controller’s choice and implementation of specific control mechanisms. While the primary
focus of control is the supervision and monitoring of controllees (i.e. appropriation oriented control),
coordination is also an important aspect of control. Such aspect is present because of the complexity of IS
projects and the difficulties associated with managing resource and task interdependencies. Thus, the goal of
coordination oriented control is to maximize the value of project resources unlike in appropriation oriented
control where the purpose is to minimize agency problems such as moral hazards (Remus et al., 2015).
Understanding the differences between control purposes is important because if e.g. the selected control
mechanisms are primarily targeted towards managing appropriation concerns, they can become ineffective as
they ignore the need to coordinate with and among stakeholders. Furthermore, appropriation oriented
controls can become counterproductive as they may diminish the feelings of autonomy and responsibility and
can negatively affect satisfaction and performance of controllees (Donaldson, 2008).
In summary, prior IS control literature conceptualizes control activities from a controller perspective and
focuses on performance effects on a project level. To the best of our knowledge, only one study investigates
control effects on controllees: a study from Remus and his colleagues (2016) focuses on how control modes
and control styles relate to controllee task performance and job satisfaction. The authors found that both
formal and informal controls increase job performance but only informal control has a positive effect on job
satisfaction. While the controllee perspective is present in the control congruence concept, it does not
investigate controllee behavior in case of low level of congruence (Remus et al., 2016). For example,
possible detrimental behavior of controllees (e.g. keeping project information private or distorting
information) is a largely neglected area even though it is arguable that it leads to decreased control efficiency
and effectiveness. Therefore, our study concentrates on controllees’ perception of control and factors
influencing their perception. We expect that control is generally undesirable and that controllees have
preferred control modes.
3. METHODOLOGY
Due to the lack of previous research in the field, explorative interviews were held to better understand the
controllees’ perspective on IS project control. In particular, semi-structured personal interviews were
conducted with a judgment sample of three IS project team members. We chose interview partners who have
been repeatedly working in projects with a clear connection to IS, such as programming or IS consulting
projects. As we wanted to gain a better understanding of the common situation where a (potentially
unexperienced) project team member is controlled by a supervisor, it was important that the interview
partners have never held a leading role within a company or within a project team. This is because people
who have already taken a leading role within the dyadic control relationship might have another view on
control. Our judgment sample included interviewees both with and without a university degree. Each
interview was conducted individually and lasted between 50 minutes and one hour. Two of the interviewees
worked for large and internationally operating organizations (employing more than 25,000 people). The two
organizations covered IT consulting as well as programming activities. The third interviewee worked for a
small- to medium sized programming organization employing approximately 50 people.
To provide our interviewees with some orientation, we started our interviews with a brief introduction.
This included a simplified description of the term ‘control’. For our interviewees, we defined control as any
attempts by supervisors to ensure that employees act in a way that is beneficiary for the project. We chose
this definition because it is easier to understand for practitioners without academic background but still close
enough to the more precise definition given in the introduction of this paper. To keep the direction of the
interview open for as long as possible and to avoid biases, we did not give any concrete examples of control
mechanisms during the first half of the interview. Furthermore, we briefly explained the dyadic control
relationship and the two parties (i.e. controller and controllee) involved. Afterwards, we wanted to investigate
whether control awareness contributes to control congruence. This is arguable because low awareness would
impede the acquirement of a shared understanding of control. The third thematic block was about personal
perception and addressed the controllees’ perceived appropriateness of control. Towards the end of the
interview, we wanted to check the relationship between congruence and the controllees’ attitude towards
control, arguing that either low congruence leads to a negative attitude or vice versa. An overview of the
contents is given in table 2. All interviews were recorded and notes were taken to capture observations like
facial expressions or gestures, which might support the subsequent analysis.
Table 2. Structure of the explorative interviews
Thematic block
Contents
1: Introduction to and information
about the interviewee
- Clarification of roles and responsibilities within a project
- Assessment of experience and competence
- Getting an idea of the person and his/her character
2: Control awareness and assessment
of own concernment
- How does the team ensure project success
- Assessment of extent and importance of control in own environment
- Assessment of own control involvement compared to colleagues
3: General personal perception
of control (regarding appropriateness)
- Impairment due to control mechanisms
- Impact of control on work (what makes control intrusive, disturbing)
- Factors justifying more control
4: Attitude towards control
- How do employees generally see control
- Preferred control characteristics
- Observed impact of control on previous project success
Qualitative research offers a wide range of methods for acquiring knowledge from data. Apart from
hermeneutic approaches, qualitative and content analyzing approaches can be even further subdivided
depending upon the applied techniques and procedures (Mayring, 1991). Considering the purpose of our
research and the length restrictions for this paper, we decided to perform a summarizing content analysis. It
aims to compactly outline the main findings of data (such as interviews) and gives a high level of flexibility.
To avoid individual biases, three researchers were involved in the analysis. We also see it as the appropriate
approach because we made small adaptions to the interview guideline based on learnings from the first run.
We present the results of our interviews in the subsequent chapter, followed by a separate downstream
discussion to clearly separate one from another.
4. RESULTS
Overall, the interview partners fulfilled the requirements of having project experience without ever having
any leading role within the company. The answers to our introductory questions (e.g. work experience,
education, operating role within company) let us believe that our interviewees represent a considerable part
of typical IS project team members.
Control awareness: When asked about control in their environment, all of our interviewees stated that
they are well aware of being surrounded by control within their project setting. However, they had difficulties
to name some exemplary control mechanisms. In general, the importance of control for successful project
completion was acknowledged. The controllees stated that control is particularly important in their industry
because IS projects are typically conducted at fixed prices. This means that their employer has to bear the
costs for any delays or quality issues.
Regarding own concernment, one interviewee observed that employees lower in the hierarchy are less
affected by control mechanisms. He assumed that this is due to the lower hourly rates of younger
professionals resulting in a lower financial impact in case of inefficiencies. Moreover, the interviewee
observed greater acceptance of errors and room for deviations in case of unexperienced employees. For
employees on the same hierarchical level within an IS project team, our interview partners did not experience
any differences regarding control amount.
Perception (regarding appropriateness): Overall, the interviewed controllees found that the control
amount in their project environment is appropriate. Control mechanisms mainly consisted of regular status
meetings or project milestone evaluation. When asked for an estimation, two interviewees stated that they
spend approximately ten percent of their work time for activities that are related to control and coordination.
Both of them observed that this workload related to control is two or three times higher for employees
holding a leading role.
When we asked them about circumstances which would justify the implementation of a larger control set
within a project, they consistently determined the familiarity of the project team members with each other as
the crucial factor. This is because employees who are familiar with each other know what they can expect
from their colleagues and therefore less control and coordinating tasks are necessary. The project size per se
was not seen as a decisive factor because they already experienced situations where “more control than
necessary” was implemented in lager projects although the project team members knew each other very well.
One of the interview partners criticized that some project managers assume that a larger project automatically
requires more control.
Attitude towards control: We found a rather neutral attitude towards control among the interviewed
controllees. One of them even mentioned some positive aspects: according to him, control mechanisms can
help to make own efforts and achievements visible to controllers, who are usually also supervisors.
Moreover, he stated that control mechanisms can also give valuable feedback for personal development and
further (intrinsically motivated) improvement.
All interviewees stated that they prefer control mechanisms which focus on the outcome of their efforts
because they appreciate a high degree of freedom and flexibility during work. For our interviewees, it was
only important that the milestones are clear from the beginning. Automated control throughout the project
(e.g. automated recording of working times) was seen very critically and manual but more time-consuming
control mechanisms were preferred instead. Moreover, the interviewees indicated that they wish for control
mechanisms that don’t make them feel small, even if the controller is superior within the project team.
5. DISCUSSION
Overall, we recognized a considerable level of awareness regarding control. To give an example, all
interviewees acknowledged the importance of regular status meetings and other coordination tasks. However,
already at the beginning of the interviews we saw how hard it was for our interview partners to think of other
concrete control mechanisms. This indicates that existing control mechanisms are not very intrusive for the
interviewed controllees. Another explanation could be that implemented control mechanisms are not too
time-consuming for the controllees. As the employees are usually not directly affected by the negative
consequences of failed projects, we were surprised by the controllees’ empathy for the controllers. One
interviewee remarkably outlined the importance of control in his environment although he has never held a
leading role. In case of employment contracts where overtime is compensated with a flat fee, the situation
might be different and project issues could also have a direct negative impact on the controllees if they have
to do more unpaid overtime. However, we had the impression that the controllers in that case have clearly
justified the implementation of control mechanisms so that the employees understand the situation and
behave as required.
The first main finding we want to highlight is that from the viewpoint of the interviewed controllees, a
higher budgeted project does not automatically justify a greater control amount. Intuitively, for a controller it
might seem reasonable to determine the required control amount based on the size (i.e. budget) of a project.
This is because in many cases, the budget of a project will correlate with the number of employees involved
and also with the overall complexity of a project. Based on the insights we could gain from the interviews, it
might be a good idea to focus more on the familiarity of the project team members instead of the mere
headcount. When our interviewees talked about larger projects they recently participated in, they clearly
indicated a level of annoyance whenever they did not agree with the implemented amount of control. To
increase controllees’ willingness to behave in a way that promotes control efficiency and effectiveness, we
thus suggest reducing the control amount in accordance with the familiarity of the project team members.
Finally, whenever employees have to carry out fewer activities that are only related to control (without
generating project value), additional cost savings might be achieved. This does not mean that there should
never be an extensive control set implemented in an IS project. Instead, the project team members’ level of
familiarity with each other should be considered as one of many factors potentially influencing the
appropriate amount of control in a project.
Second, our interviews have shown that controllees have a quite pronounced understanding regarding the
necessity of control in IS projects. In general, they are willing to cooperate and conduct additional work steps
that are necessary for the control mechanisms to be efficient and effective. Our results indicate that
controllees only behave detrimentally if they find a control mechanism unnecessary or inappropriate.
However, they prefer control mechanisms which focus on their results rather than on their way of working
and this would suggest the implementation of outcome control. IT project management points out the
importance of recognizing deviations as early as possible so that countermeasures can be taken at lower
costs. We are aware that outcome control is usually located later in a project that might make the correction
of deviations more costly. Also, in line with other research pointing out the importance of trust within a
project setting (e.g. Sauer and Reich (2009)), it might be beneficial for project success to focus more on
informal control. This is because control that gives the controllees more freedom and flexibility has the
potential to increase intrinsic motivation and willingness to comply with control mechanisms.
Third, we were surprised by the rather positive attitude towards control that our interviewees have shown.
There might be a prevailing negative connotation of ‘control’ in practice. This is not surprising because
implementation of control is often justified with the almost compelling existence of goal incompatibilities
(Ouchi, 1979), information asymmetries (Dalton et al., 2007) or controllees’ moral hazard (Fama and Jensen,
1983). Moreover, control is said to potentially have negative impacts on aspects such as trust (Mohr and
Spekman, 1994). Contrary to those negative connotations, one of our interviewees even stated that he sees a
big opportunity in control. He said that control is a good means for him to make his personal achievement
visible to his supervisors. Because personal achievements serve as a crucial input for decisions on promotion
within his organization, he rather saw control more as an opportunity than as a burden or harassment.
Seeing control also as an opportunity for controllees comes up with two conflicting implications: on the
one hand, by emphasizing this aspect a controller could increase the controllees’ motivation to behave in a
way that is supporting control effectiveness and efficiency. To give an example, employees might be more
willing to submit desired information regarding working hours or work package progress. On the other hand,
the controller has to keep in mind that the information communicated by the controllee might be glossed over
to gain a better impression of the own work. This could be counterproductive for the purpose of the
implemented control, where objective information is crucial. For controllers to further increase control
effectiveness and efficiency, it therefore might be valuable to consider this two-sided aspect.
6. CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to get a better understanding of how controllees experience control in IS projects
and which factors influence their perception of control. For this, we conducted three explorative interviews
with IS project team members and performed a summarizing content analysis. First, we found that
controllees are highly aware of control mechanisms. Second, we could observe the prevailing assumption that
controllers tend to automatically implement a larger control set in higher budgeted projects. Furthermore, a
key finding of our study is that there is a strong correlation between the level of familiarity amongst the
project team members and the amount of control they find appropriate: our findings suggest that an informal
relationship among controllees makes control more inappropriate. Finally, rather surprisingly our study has
shown that controllees’ attitude towards control can be positive if it makes their efforts more visible. This
finding implies that the agency view of control might be too narrow.
This paper contributes to research by presenting individual level control experiences of controllees. Our
results suggest that the hierarchical position in the organization and familiarity of the project team are key
variables in shaping control experiences, control congruence and thus control performance. For practitioners
these findings are important because they may explain ineffective control modes, mechanisms and reasons
behind employee dissatisfaction and underperformance.
As with any research, our work is subject to limitations. First, we only had one interviewee from each
organization, which could result in a level of subjectivity and personal bias in our data. Second, it was
difficult to investigate causality between some of our research phenomena. For example, it is not obvious that
it is the hierarchical position that determines how much a controllee is affected by control mechanisms. Not
all employees seek leadership opportunities and a specialist role can be attractive to a large set of experienced
employees as well. Therefore, an alternative explanation could be that it is the amount of job experience that
influences how much control mechanisms affect controllees, whereas young professionals may be more
permissive with control mechanisms. Future studies that investigate control from controllees’ perspective
should hence also include individual characteristics, which might influence control perception. For example,
it would be interesting to examine how national culture, educational background or the amount of job
experience shape the sense of control. For this, a longitudinal case study or action research would allow
researchers to have in depth discussions with controllees and explore the dynamics of changes in control
perception.
We hope that our work contributes to the academic discourse and inspires further theoretical progress in
the field of IS project control.
REFERENCES
Cram, W.A., Brohman, K. and Gallupe, R.B. (2016), “Information Systems Control: A Review and Framework for
Emerging Information Systems Processes”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.
216–266.
Dalton, D.R., Hitt, M.A., Certo, S.T. and Dalton, C.M. (2007), “The Fundamental Agency Problem and Its Mitigation”,
The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–64.
Donaldson, L. (2008), “Ethics Problems and Problems with Ethics: Toward a Pro-Management Theory”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 299–311.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No.
1, pp. 57–74.
Eng, C., Chua, H., Lim, W.-K., Soh, C. and Sia, S.K. (2012), “Enacting Clan Control in Complex IT Projects: A Social
Capital Perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 577–600.
Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. (1983), “Separation of Ownership and Control”, The Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 301–325.
Gopal, A. and Gosain, S. (2010), “Research Note —The Role of Organizational Controls and Boundary Spanning in
Software Development Outsourcing: Implications for Project Performance”, Information Systems Research, Vol.
21 No. 4, pp. 960–982.
Gregory, R.W., Beck, R. and Keil, M. (2013), “Control Balancing in Information Systems Development Offshoring
Projects”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1211–1232.
Gregory, R.W. and Keil, M. (2014), “Blending bureaucratic and collaborative management styles to achieve control
ambidexterity in IS projects”, European Journal of Information Systems, Nature Publishing Group, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 343–356.
Heumann, J., Wiener, M., Remus, U. and Mähring, M. (2015), “To coerce or to enable? Exercising formal control in a
large information systems project”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 337–351.
Irani, Z. (2010), “Investment evaluation within project management: an information systems perspective”, The Journal of
the Operational Research Society , Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 917–928.
Kirsch, L.J. (1996), “The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development
Process”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1–21.
Kirsch, L.J. (2004), “Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 374–395.
Kirsch, L.S. (1997), “Portfolios of Control Modes and IS Project Management”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 215–239.
Mahring, M. and Keil, M. (2008), “Information technology project escalation: A process model”, Decision Sciences, Vol.
39 No. 2, pp. 239–272.
Mayring, P. (1991), “Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse”, Handbuch Qualitative Forschung: Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden
Und Anwendungen, Psychologie Verl. Union, pp. 209–213.
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication
behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135–152.
Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V. and Henry, R.M. (2013), “The Impact of Influence Tactics in Information System
Development Projects: A Control-Loss Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 191–226.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), “A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms”, Management
Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833–848.
Remus, U., Saunders, C., Wiener, M., Mähring, M. and Kofler, M. (2016), “Control Modes Versus Control Styles :
Investigating ISD Project Control Effects at the Individual Level”, Thirty Seventh International Conference on
Information Systems, pp. 1–21.
Remus, U., Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Saunders, C. and Cram, A. (2015), “Why do you control? The concept of control
purpose and its implications for is project control research”, International Conference on Information Systems:
Exploring the Information Frontier, ICIS 2015, pp. 1–19.
Rustagi, S., King, W.R. and Kirsch, L.J. (2008), “Predictors of Formal Control Usage in IT Outsourcing Partnerships”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 126–143.
Sauer, C. and Reich, B.H. (2009), “Rethinking IT project management: Evidence of a new mindset and its implications”,
International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier Ltd and IPMA, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 182–193.
Snow, A.P., Keil, M. and Wallace, L. (2007), “The effects of optimistic and pessimistic biasing on software project status
reporting”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 130–141.
Tiwana, A. and Keil, M. (2009), “Control in Internal and Outsourced Software Projects”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 9–44.
Whyte, G. and Bytheway, A. (1996), “Factors affecting information systems’ success”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 74–93.
Wiener, M., Cram, A. and Remus, U. (2017), “The View From the Top – How Senior Executives Exercise Control Over
Information Systems Projects to Enhance Performance”, Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS), No. July, pp. 1423–1438.
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, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp.
741–774.