摘要

近來研究指出，為提升提高資訊系統開發成功率，管理人員需要投入更多的心力在控制專案進行上。大部分的研究都指出控制對有助於提升個人以及團隊的工作績效。但是有些研究亦指出，任何目的性得行為都可能會帶來非預期或負面的結果。因為缺乏對於此議題進行系統性的研究，目前對於控制可能帶來的負面效果並不十分清楚。有鑒於此，本研究著重在探討資訊系統開發專案控制是否會產生負面的影響。
由於相關研究較為缺乏，本研究採用適合現象探索的質性方法，在兩個月中訪談位於三個公司的八位受訪者，並依據訪談結果進行更進一步資料分析。研究發現，控制的進行的確會產生負面的影響，而且不同的控制模式會產生特定的負面效果，此外這些負面的效果會在特定的狀況下更加強烈。依據本研究的結果，建議企業在實施控制時需特別注意可能伴隨而來的負面影響，並及早做好因應措施。另外未來的研究亦應著重於控制所產生的負面影響。
關鍵字：資訊系統開發、 結果控制、行為控制，群體控制，自我控制、負面影響

ABSTRACT
Recent studies point out that the exercising of control mechanisms, including outcome, behavioral, clan, and self-control, can enhance the success rate of information system developing projects. However, it is noticeable that any intended behavior may lead to unexpected or unwanted outcomes. Unfortunately, most of the control studies solely focus on the positive effect of four controls modes. It is reasonable to suspect that control may generate side effects, in addition to enhancing the level of positive effects on the teams’ performance. However, a lack of systematic investigation leaves this question unanswered.
Draws on this issue, the purpose of the study is to explore the side effects of control in the context of information system development (ISD). This study adopts exploratory approaches and interviewed eight individuals within three companies. The results show that control indeed leads to certain side effects. In addition, stronger side effect may be observed under certain conditions. Therefore, practitioners are encouraged to take those side effects into consideration while determining their control mechanisms. Future research is also encouraged to include possible side effects from their research models while attempting to examine the possible outcomes of control.
Keywords: information system developing, control mode, outcome control, behavior control, clan control, self-control, side effects

Thesis verification letter i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract in Chinese iii
Abstract in English iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 3
1.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 AGENCY THEORY 5
2.2 CONTROL MODES: 6
2.2.1 Formal Control 7
2.2.2 Informal Control 8
2.3 CONTROL IN INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 10
2.4 THE ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF CONTROL MODES: 14
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 17
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH AND STUDY 17
3.2 QUALITATIVE APPROACH 18
3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD 19
3.3.1 In-depth Interview 19
3.4 THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH DESIGNS 20
3.5 CASE STUDY WITH COMPANY AND INTERVIEWEE BACKGROUND 21
3.5.1 Interviewees’ background, position in their company department 21
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS 25
4.1 CASE 1 25
4.1.1 Control methods used in Case 1: 25
4.1.2 Case 1 contingent effects 36
4.2 CASE 2 42
4.2.1 Control methods used in Case 2: 42
4.2.2 Case 2 of contingent effects 52
4.3 CASE 3 59
4.3.1 Control methods used in Case 3: 59
4.3.2 Case 3 contingent effects 67
4.4 SUMMARIZE 70
4.5 OVERALL CONTINGENT EFFECTS 72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 77
5.1 RESEARCH FINDING 77
5.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH 78
5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE 79
5.4 LIMITATION: 82
APPENDIX 88
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 CONTROL IN ISD STUDIES 12
TABLE 3.1 CASE 1 OF INTERVIEWEE A, B, C, D POSITION AND JOB DESCRIPTION 22
TABLE 3.2 CASE 2 INTERVIEWEE E, F 23
TABLE 3.3 CASE 3 INTERVIEWEE G, H 24
TABLE 4.1 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CONTROL MODES IN CASE 1 36
TABLE 4.2 THE SIDE EFFECTS ON EACH CONTROL MODE IN CASE 2. 52
TABLE 4.3 THE SIDE EFFECTS ON EACH CONTROL MODE IN CASE 3 67
TABLE 4.4 SIDE EFFECTS OF CONTROLS – CASE1 70
TABLE 4.5 SIDE EFFECTS OF CONTROLS – CASE3 71
TABLE 4.6 OVERALL SIDE EFFECTS 72

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 RESEARCH PROCEDURE 4
FIGURE 4.1 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF OUTCOME CONTROL SE1 OF CASE 1 38
FIGURE 4.2 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF OUTCOME CONTROL SE2 OF CASE 1 39
FIGURE 4.3 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF OUTCOME CONTROL SE3 OF CASE 1 40
FIGURE 4.4 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEHAVIOR CONTROL SE4 OF CASE 1 41
FIGURE 4.5 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF SELF- CONTROL SE5 OF CASE 1 42
FIGURE 4.6 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF OUTCOME CONTROL SE1 OF CASE 2 54
FIGURE 4.7 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF OUTCOME CONTROL SE 2 OF CASE 2 55
FIGURE 4.8 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEHAVIOR CONTROL SE 3OF CASE 2 56
FIGURE 4.9 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CLAN CONTROL SE4 OF CASE 2 57
FIGURE 4.10 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF SELF- CONTROL SE 5 OF CASE 2 58
FIGURE 4.11 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEHAVIOR CONTROL SE1 OF CASE 3 68
FIGURE 4.12 THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CLAN CONTROL OF SE2 OF CASE 3 70
FIGURE 4.13 OVERALL CONTINGENCY EFFECTS 76

REFERENCE
Barki, H., J. Hartwick. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management
in information system development. MIS Quart. 25(2), 195–228.

Choudhury, V., and Sabherwal, R. (2003). Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research, 14, 3, 291–314.

Das, T. K., & Teng, Bing-Sheng. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy Of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134-149.

Eng Huang Chua, C., Lim, W., Soh, C., & Kien Sia, S. (2012). Enacting clan control in complex it projects: A social capital perspective. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 577-600.

Gopal, A., and Gosain, S. (2010). The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Information System Research, 21(4), 960-982.

Harris, M. L., Hevner, A. R., and Collins, R. W. (2009). Controls in flexible software development under uncertainty. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(43), 757-776.

Henderson, J. C., S. Lee. 1992. Managing I/S design teams: A control
theories perspective. Management Science. 38(6), 757–777.

Jaworski, B. J. 1988. Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental
context, control types, and consequences. J. Marketing, 52, 23-39.

Kirsch, L. J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process. Organization Science, 7(1), 1-21.

Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V. V., Dong-Gil, K., & Purvis, R. L. (2002). Controlling information systems development projects: The view from the client.
Management Science, 48(4), 484-498.

Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374-395.

Kohli Rajiv, and Kettinger William J. (2004). Information the clan: Controlling physicians’ costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 363-394.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy Of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.

Lewis, M., and Sundaramurthy, C. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy Of Management Review, 28(3), 397-415.

Lee, G., W. Xia. (2005). The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: A study of flexibility measures. Eur. J. Inform. Systems, 14, 75–92.

Liu, S., Keil, M., Rai, A., Zhang, J,. and Chen, T. (2008). How user and requirement risks moderate the effects of formal and informal controls on IT project performance. International Conference on Information Systems. Paris, France. ,1-19.

MacCormack, A., Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-141.

Mao, J-Y., and Zhang, X. (2008). End-to-end user participation in information systems development: A case study based on a control perspective. International Conference on Information Systems.

Maruping, L.M., Venkatesh, V.,and Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20, (3), 377–399.

Robert K. Merton (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, (6), 894-904.

Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833-848.

Ramaswami, A., & Dreher, G. F. (2010). Dynamics of mentoring relationships in India: A qualitative, exploratory study. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 501-530.

Ross, S. (1973), The economic theory of agency: The principal's problem, Amer. Econom. Rev., 63 (1973), 134-139.

Srivastava, S. C., & Teo, T. H. (2012). Contract performance in offshore systems development: Role of control mechanisms. Journal Of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 115-158.

Sinkovics, R., & Alfoldi, E. (2012). Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in qualitative Research. Management International Review (MIR), 52(6), 17-845.

STANDISH GROUP (1994) The chaos report. The Standish Group.

STANDISH GROUP (2001) The chaos report. The Standish Group.


Tiwana, A., & Keil, M. (2009). Control in internal and outsourced software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 9-44.

Tiwana, A. (2010). Systems development ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive roles of formal and informal controls. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 87-126.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. Mis Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.

Vivek Choudhury and Rajiv Sabherwal (2003). Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research, (14), 291-314.

Wallace, L., Keil, M., and Arun, R. (2004). How software project risk affects project performance: An investigation of the dimensions of risk and exploratory model. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 289-321.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (Applied social research methods series) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (Applied social research methods series) (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study research: Design and methods. (Applied social research methods series) (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.