FROM PLACEBO TO PANACEA: STUDYING THE DIFFUSION OF IT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES WITH AMBIGUOUS EFFICIENCIES – THE CASE OF CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL ABSTRACT In light of the inherent shortcomings of single-perspective approaches in IT diffusion research, in this paper, we develop a multi-perspective framework for studying the diffusion of IT management techniques. The framework is then applied to explain the diffusion of Capability Maturity Model (CMM). This research contributes to the Information Systems theory by (a) illustrating how several different theoretical perspectives (i.e., forced-selection, efficient choice, fashion, and fad) can be used to explain an IT management innovation diffusion, (b) identifying the specific limitations of each perspective, and (c) demonstrating how these perspectives can be reconciled and yield a holistic understanding of the diffusion trajectory. Building on 20+ years of CMM research, the propositions of this paper shed more light on the underlying dynamics driving the adoption decision among software vendors, and will inform IS scholars and practitioners about the types of actions that can foster the dissemination of emerging IT management techniques. Keywords: Diffusion of IT Innovation, Capability Maturity Model, IT Fads and Fashions, Administrative Innovation, Paradoxes in Management INTRODUCTION “Few innovations are widely adopted, by organizations or elsewhere, with most looking more like the sociological characterization of ‘fads’ than social change….” (Zucker 1988: 26) Over the years, the Information Technology (IT) industry has witnessed the emergence, diffusion, and – often – abundance of popular IT management techniques. Structured systems analysis and design method (SSADM), Rational Unified Process (RUP), eXtreme Programming (XP), Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), and Control Objectives for Information and Related Technologies (COBIT) are a few examples of such techniques. While the diffusion of technological innovations has received considerable attention in the IS research (see Jeyaraj (2006) for a meta-analysis of this literature), only a limited number of IS articles have studied the diffusion and adoption of administrative IT innovations (but see, Fichman and Kemerer 1993, Riemenschneider et al. 2002, Weitzel et al. 2006). Moreover, the majority of IT diffusion studies have subscribed to a single dominant paradigm that is based on an economic-rationalistic perspective. This dominant paradigm began to reach a point of diminishing returns after several decades of research (Fichman 2004). In particular, the distinguishing characteristics of administrative IT innovations (aka, IT management techniques), such as ambiguity around their effects, call for employing alternative perspectives that go beyond economic-rational logic and take into account social and psychological drivers of innovation adoption. In light of the above introduction, our paper seeks to go beyond the dominant economicrationalistic perspective, and study the research questions of “if and how different theoretical perspectives can be employed in better explaining the diffusion of administrative IT innovations.” To this end, we first build on extant research in organization theory and develop a framework with four alternative perspectives that can be used in studying diffusion of administrative IT innovations, and then, demonstrate how these perspectives can be applied in explaining the diffusion of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as a representative of such IT management techniques. As pointed out by Lapointe and Rivard (2007), only a limited number of IS studies have explicitly applied different perspectives in studying a single phenomenon (e.g., Markus 1983, Keil 1995; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Even in those studies, the focus has been on determining the best perspective or unified model. In this study, however, we show how different perspectives can be complementary in explaining a full trajectory of CMM diffusion. The rest of the manuscript is structured as follows: the next section provides background on the general theoretical framework developed in this paper. Then, we scrutinize each perspective of the framework and examine their implications for explaining CMM diffusion. Formal propositions are developed from the assumptions of each perspective and from a suggested schema for integrating them. The paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of this study. A MULTI-PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING DIFFUSION OF IT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES A major stream of research in management focuses on the diffusion of managerial and technological innovations. One of the most influential pieces in this stream was put forward by Everett Rogers (1983) who authoritatively reviewed hundreds of diffusion studies and came up with the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory, which identifies five generic innovation attributes that could facilitate the dissemination process (Table 1). Building on these five classical attributes, other researchers added a number of complementary attributes such as cost, communicability, divisibility, profitability, social approval, voluntariness, image, usefulness, ease of use, result demonstrability, visibility – see Fichman (2000) and [reference withheld to ensure anonymity] for a review of this literature. The basic premise behind this stream of studies is that adopters first assess these attributes and then independently make a rational decision to adopt those innovations that show the most promising efficiency gains (Fichman 2004). Table 1. Attributes of Innovation (Rogers 1983, 2003) Attribute Definition Relative Advantage The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor. Compatibility The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters. Complexity The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to use. Observability The degree to which the results of an innovation are observable to others. Trialability The degree to which an innovation may be experimented with before adoption. Over time, the above-mentioned stream has emerged as the dominant paradigm in DOI research. However, this paradigm is subject to certain theoretical biases. Among the main biases are pro-innovation bias, i.e., the assumption that an innovation diffuses because it is efficient/beneficial to adopters, and rational bias, i.e., the assumption that adopters always make rational decisions (Abrahamson 1991; Fichman 2004; Jeyaraj et al. 2006). The documented history of innovations nevertheless provides several examples of inefficient innovations (or those with suboptimal efficiencies) that were subject to “fad-like” diffusion or efficient innovations that were rejected by organizations (Strang et al. 2014; Zucker 1988). As mentioned earlier, since assessing the efficiency gains of administrative IT innovations are particularly challenging, social processes such as fad and fashions cycles are more common for this type of IT innovations. Our proposed approach in this paper for studying the diffusion of administrative IT innovations is to utilize multiple alternative perspectives that can collectively address each other’s limitations. This framework (Table 2) extends Abrahamson’s (1991) seminal classification, which is based on two dimensions: (a) whether or not the perspective acknowledges imitation as a diffusion mechanism, and (b) whether the perspective assumes that organizations within the potential adopters group impel the diffusion or outside organizations are influential in the diffusion process. We extend Abrahamson’s (1991) model in two ways, as described below1. Table 2. Theoretical Perspectives for Studying Diffusion of Administrative IT Innovations Theoretical Perspective Source of Influence Source of Imitation Adoption Decision Theoretical Focus Expected Performance Type Efficientchoice Internal Not Considered Voluntaristic (Proactive) Single Organization Substantive Fad Within Organizational Field Organizational Network Ties Deterministic (Reactive) Population of Organizations Substantive or Symbolic Fashion External FashionSetters Business Discourse Voluntaristic (Proactive) Dyads and Discourse Symbolic Forcedselection External Powerful Organizations Not Considered Deterministic (Reactive) Single Organizations Symbolic Firstly, inspired by a classical multi-perspective study of organizations (Astley and Van de Ven 1983), we studied the following dichotomies in the organizational decisions of adopting an IT management technique: determinism vs voluntarism, and single organization vs populations of organizations. Determinism holds that organizational decisions are caused by exogenous forces 1 We are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. (such as regulations, standards, and peer pressure), i.e., managers have to react to such exogenous pressures. Voluntarism takes the opposite stance, arguing that managers have agency (or ‘‘free will”, as referred to in philosophy) and shape the organizational environment through proactive decisions such as adoption of practices and standards. Likewise, perspectives differ in their focus on single adopting organizations as the main object of study or their inclusion of larger population of adopting organizations and their collective dynamics influential in shaping focal organization’s decisions. Secondly, we added another dichotomy in terms of the expected performance from an adoption decision, i.e., symbolic vs substantive performance. Following the tradition of institutional theorists (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) and building on recent conceptualizations of organizational performance (Heugens and Lander 2009), we distinguish between two types of performance; substantive performance which refers to the extent to which an organization makes accountingbased profits or increases its overall market value, and symbolic performance which is the extent to which an organization generates positive social evaluations. Measures such as return on investment (ROI) and return on asset (ROA) are used for the former (Melville et al. 2004), whereas the latter is measured by regulatory endorsement, media endorsement, agency ratings and alike (Deephouse and Carter 2005). While the substantive and symbolic types of performance are clearly linked and interrelated, yet, the coupling between them is loose (Scott 2005). In the following sub-sections, the four perspectives are introduced and the relevant applicable theories are discussed. The Forced-Selection Perspective The forced-selection perspective focuses on the impact of powerful organizations outside a group of organizations among which an administrative technology diffuses (Abrahamson 1991). This mandate for adopting an innovation can be best described by the notion of coercive pressures in neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powel 1983; Zucker 1987). According to this theory, organizational actors choose to give in to institutional pressures and adopt practices, regardless of their immediate efficiency outcomes, to gain legitimacy, which in turn guarantees their long-term survival in their environment (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Hence, this perspective considers symbolic performance as the main outcome of IT innovation adoption. Zucker (1987) proposes that the impacts of the institutional environment are mainly exerted through the requirements set by a hierarchically superior element of the institutional environment, which is, in general, another organization. There is evidence from the literature supporting the existence of such forced-selection dynamics behind the diffusion of IT innovations. For example, in the case of EDI diffusion, Lyytinen and Damsgaard (2001) posited that push from powerful actors, e.g. government, industry associations, was the main dominant factor affecting the adoption decision. The firms were forced to either “EDI or DIE!” (Kirkley 1992). Hence, in analyzing adoption decisions, this perspective assumes a deterministic stance and focuses on pressures exerted on a single organization, i.e., actions of other adopting organizations remain irrelevant to this perspective. The Efficient-Choice Perspective The efficient-choice perspective, a.k.a. the economic-rationalistic logic (Fichman 2004) or rational-efficiency theory (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1993), focuses on the economic returns gained from adopting an innovation. Simply put, this perspective considers efficiency gains as the main driver for adopting a “better mousetrap”. It assumes that managers take economic factors into account in a normatively rational manner and adopt an innovation if it can efficiently close the performance gap (i.e. a gap between actual and desired performance) in their organizations (Abrahamson 1991). Hence, this perspective has a voluntaristic orientation, and it mainly focuses on a single organizations’ substantive outcomes. As reviewed in Akhlaghpour and Lapointe (2012), the majority of IT innovation studies in the IS field have used this logic to examine the spread of technological innovations among organizations. A few examples include Electronic Data Interchange (e.g. Iacovou et al. 1995), Material Requirements Planning (MRP) (e.g. Cooper and Zmud 1990), smart-card payment systems (e.g. Plouffe et al. 2001), and Group Support Systems (Dennis and Garfield 2003). The same logic can be applied to study the diffusion of organizational strategies, policies, structures, and practices (Strang and Soule 1998). Only a limited number of IS studies have taken this approach in studying administrative IT innovations. For example, Fichman and Kemerer (1993) built on Rogers’ DOI theory and proposed a framework for assessing the diffusion of Object Oriented methods in software development. Riemenschneider et al. (2002) adapted a number of widely used technology adoption models, including Moore and Benbasat’s (1991) extension of Rogers (1983), to study the problem of software development methodology acceptance. Similarly, Mustonen-Ollila and Lyytinen (2003) used DOI for analyzing a longitudinal case study of IS process innovation adoptions in different locales of a company over a 40-year period. Likewise, Wang et al. (2012), studied adoption (assimilation) of agile software development processes using Cooper and Zmud’s (1990) innovation process framework. The Fashion Perspective Abrahamson (1996) and Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999) built on neo-institutional theory and developed a general model of management fashions (Figure 1). They defined fashions as “relatively transitory collective beliefs, disseminated by the discourse of management-knowledge entrepreneurs, that a management technique is at the forefront of rational management progress” (Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999, p.709). According to this perspective, knowledge entrepreneurs (e.g., management gurus, mass media, consultants, and business schools) sense an unmet collective demand among fashion followers. This demand for a management technique is caused by a perceived performance gap. Socio-psychological and techno-economic forces play a key role in shaping such perceptions. The fashion setters then compete for supplying their management techniques aimed at addressing a performance gap. They disseminate these techniques by articulating powerful rhetorics championing certain management techniques. The fashion perspective predicts that adoption occurs when managers confronted with performance gaps on the one hand and stakeholders' expectations concerning the use of the modern and efficient techniques on the other, decide to use the “hot” innovation promoted by fashion-setting networks. Figure 1. The Management-Fashion-Setting Process (adopted from Abrahamson 1996) Although this perspective acknowledges that managers are embedded in webs of institutional arrangements, it does not necessarily portray an under-rationalized image of organizational decision makers (Strang and Macy 2001; Strang et al. 2014). They do have agency in adopting innovations aimed at improving their performance. Thus, this perspective is voluntaristic oriented and does take into account populations of organizations both in demand and supply sides of fashion markets (Abrahamson 1996). Since this perspective deals with transitory waves of popular ideas and arguably deceptive perceptions of novelty, its focus is on the symbolic performance of organizations. This has been confirmed in empirical studies such as Wang (2010) that analyzed published discourse and annual IT budgets of 109 large companies over 10 years and found that firms associated with IT fashions benefited from better reputation (symbolic performance), but not higher accounting (substantive) performance. The Fad Perspective The fad perspective assumes that an adoption decision is highly influenced by the number of neighboring organizations that have already adopted the innovation and not merely its efficiency-improving attributes (Abrahamson 1991). Here, contact with prior adopters is the main driving force behind further diffusion. The fact that late adopters imitate early adopters (a.k.a. innovators) is a consistent theme in the DOI literature. Several theoretical angles have been used to explain such imitation among firms. In Rogers’ original work, and in social contagion theory (Greve 1995; Angst et al. 2010) the emphasis is on the communications among early adopters (innovators) and late adopters (imitators) which help in reducing the ambiguity about an innovation. A different possible explanation comes from Abrahamson and Rosenkopf’s (1993) concept of competitive bandwagon forces. According to this perspective, non-adopters feel the threat of a competitive disadvantage when they observe that most of their rivals have adopted an innovation. Hence, in order to avoid the risk that this innovation might be potentially used by their competitors to gain an edge, they too adopt it although it may not benefit or may even harm their performance. Finally, normative institutional pressures (Tolbert and Zucker 1983) can be another source of fad-like diffusion. According to institutional theory, acceptance and wide-scale adoption of a structural form will lead to its social legitimation and it will become a “taken for granted” norm which results in further adoption. In Tolbert and Zucker’s words, “as an increasing number of organizations adopt a program or policy, it becomes progressively institutionalized, or widely understood to be a necessary component of rationalized organizational structure.” The fad perspective considers the influence of the population of existing adopters on a focal firm’s adoption decision. In contrast to fashion perspective, this population consists of similar organizations within a field (and not fashion-setter institutions). Also, unlike the former, the fad perspective is deterministic oriented and assumes that adoption is automatic and is driven by forces of imitation. Depending on the employed theory, the focus might be on substantive or symbolic performance. For example, competitive bandwagons (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1993) and diffusion of innovation (Rogers 1983) streams are concerned with expected accounting based performance, while studying normative institutional pressures (Tolbert and Zucker 1983) imply a legitimacy seeking goal and hence symbolic performance. In the rest of this study, we use the four perspectives explained above, and apply them to studying the diffusion of CMM. This can be seen as a move towards building a substantive theory (Gregor 2006) applicable to CMM diffusion. APPLYING THE MULTI-PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING DIFFUSION OF CMM Capability Maturity Model (CMM) In the mid-1980’s, facing with a huge cost and time overruns of its major software system contracts, the US Department of Defense (DoD) funded the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), based at Carnegie-Mellon University, to propose a model of a more reliable software development process. The result of this initiative was first released in 1987 as the “Capability Maturity Model (CMM)” (Paulk et al. 1993). Later on, the software CMM was complemented by other CMM tools (for systems engineering, people management, and software acquisition), and the package was re-branded as “CMM-Integration (CMMI)”. Our focus in this paper is on the software CMM (SW-CMM), which offers a framework for software quality and process improvement. CMM is formally defined as a description of stages through which software organizations evolve as they define, implement, measure, control and improve their software process (Paulk et al. 1995). The model defines five successively more “mature” levels of process capability (Table 3). Software process maturity is defined as “extent to which a specific process is explicitly defined, managed, measured, controlled, and effective” (Paulk et al. 1995). Authorized CMM appraisers –trained by the Software Engineering Instituterank software development organizations on the five-level scales illustrated below. Table 3. The Capability Maturity Model Maturity Level Description 1: Initial Little or no formal project management. Software development is adhoc and sometimes even chaotic. Few processes are defined and development is based on individual heroics. 2: Repeatable Basic project management. Formal planning and controls are in place. Process discipline allows repeating earlier successes. 3: Defined Engineering teams are dedicated to specifying and improving the development process. Standardized architectures define technical and management roles, as well as a clear set of methodologies and tools for development. 4: Managed Detailed quantitative data are gathered about software products and processes. Products and processes are controlled using these measures. 5: Optimized Most of the data gathering is automated. Quantitative feedback data are used to continuously improve the development process. The CMM is founded on the premise that as a software development process achieves higher levels of maturity, it becomes more similar to a factory process, with highly disciplined operations and very predictable final outcomes. Hence, organizations with more mature processes are expected to better meet client requirements within the scheduled time and budget constraints (Cusumano 2004; Slaughter et al. 2006). During the 1990’s, the software industry, as a collective, was changing its focus from “software as a product” to “software development as a process” and the ways to improve this process (Yourdon 2004). This reframing was in part inspired by the “quality movement” (Westphal et al. 1997) of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Once at the forefront of this software industry’s reform (Ayres 2003), CMM qualifies as an innovative IT management technique – diffusion of which will be investigated in this paper. Allegedly Paradoxical Diffusion of CMM Although corporate investment in software development and implementation projects has continued to significantly grow in the past 30+ years (Gartner Group 2016), the failure rate of such projects has not changed much, remaining worryingly high at around 70 percent, depending on the source (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. 2014). For example, after examining 1,471 IT projects globally, Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2011) reported an average cost overrun of 27%, with a large number of gigantic overages of 200% in cost and 70% in schedule. The traditional approach to addressing this chaos has been to rely on software “factory processes” such as CMM (Cusumano 2004). These processes, characterized by bureaucratic standardization, formalization, and management control of software development activities, are said to provide architectures that can incorporate needed changes before problems can have a negative impact on the system. A number of empirical studies have shown a positive impact of CMM adoption on certain performance outcomes (Galin and Avrahami 2006; Filbeck et al. 2013; Harter et al. 2000), yet for researchers with an interest in software development, the merits of CMM and its potential outcomes has always been a disputed topic (Bach 1994, 1999; Bapna et al. 2016; Cusumano 2004; Ply et al. 2013). There has been considerable criticism of the model from IS scholars and practitioners alike, who have argued that software development is an innovative, knowledgeintensive activity that requires high degrees of autonomy and cannot be effectively performed by following the highly bureaucratic step-by-step recommendations of disciplined processes (Adler 2005). In addition, these processes are perceived to add significant overhead to development projects that the overall pace of development is slowed down (Jones 2002). It has also been argued that these methods –whose roots reside in Taylorism and assembly line models (Bollinger and McGowan 1991) – overlook the essential role of humans by characterizing them as nonlinear, first-order components in software development (Cockburn 1999). There are also questions regarding the benefits of CMM for small or unstable organizations (Baskerville and Pries-Heje 1999), and time-sensitive “internet-speed” projects (Baskerville et al. 2003). Empirical evidence illustrates mixed results of CMM implementation on IS workers’ attitudes and beliefs, e.g., IS employees in organizations at CMM level 3 reported significantly lower professional efficacy and lower job satisfaction, compared to those working in CMM Level 1 organizations (Ply et al. 2013). Mixed performance outcomes of CMM is echoed in the context of outsourcing relationships as well. For example, Bapna et al. (2016) found that although higher CMM rating was associated with higher vendor revenue, it nonetheless had a negative impact on outsourcing contract outcome (it was associated with contract cancellation or renegotiation). As mentioned earlier, despite these limitations in technical and managerial substance, CMM can be considered a successful innovation in terms of being globally diffused. Explaining this diffusion of an allegedly inefficient IT innovation is the subject of the remainder of this paper. A Review of Existing CMM Literature In order to gain a better understanding of the existing knowledge in this domain, we performed a review of the extant literature on CMM in top IS journals. The goal of this step was to find a reasonable body of evidence relevant to the CMM diffusion phenomena. An exhaustive systematic review of all the literature on CMM is beyond the scope of this paper. We limited our search to the top 6 IS journals as identified by the AIS Senior Scholars Basket of 6 journals (Saunders and Benbasat, 2007), i.e., MIS Quarterly, European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, and Journal of the Association for Information Systems. Using EBSCO’s Business Source Complete database, we searched article title, abstracts, and full texts for combinations of phrases such as “Capability Maturity”, “Maturity Model”, CMM, SW-CMM, or CMMI. As the flowchart in Figure 2 illustrates, the original search results were 117 articles, dated between January 1995 and September 2016. After the initial screening based on reviewing the title, abstract and an overview of the full text, 72 articles were dropped from our set. Most of these articles came in the search results either because they used the term maturity or capability in a different context, or because they cited a paper on capability maturity model, but the authors did not address the model at all. Following Webster and Watson’s (2002) recommendations, during the review of the remaining 45 articles, whenever necessary, we went backward from the bibliographical references of the articles to review the abstracts of relevant studies in other outlets, such as Management Science, or IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. Among these, 20 articles were identified to be particularly useful in our study of CMM diffusion. This yielded a final sample of 65 CMM-related articles that were fully reviewed and informed our theory development. A summary of the main insights derived from these articles can be found in the table presented in Appendix A. As explained in the next section, these articles along with the four perspectives introduced earlier, guided our theory development effort. Potentially relevant references in the AIS basket of 6 journals identified and reviewed, title and abstract (n = 129) Studies excluded after reviewing the title and abstract, and an overview of the full text (n=76) Examples of exclusion criteria: Referencing CMM papers not for reasons directly related to CMM Use of capability and/or maturity terms irrelevant to CMM Potentially relevant studies in the AIS basket of 6 journals identified and reviewed, full text (n=51) Seminal studies added (from outlets other than the AIS basket of 6 journals) after reviewing the full text (n=23) Studies included (n=74) Figure 2 Flowchart of the article selection process Out of the 74 identified articles, only 34 of them had CMM as the main element (e.g., as a central object of study, or included in the model or hypotheses). CMM was peripheral to another topic (e.g., team leadership, or virtual team collaboration) in the rest of the papers. There were 53 empirical (e.g. surveys and case studies), 3 commentaries, 15 conceptual and literature review pieces, 1 design science article, 1 action research, and 1 meta-analysis in our sample. The majority of studies (44 out of 66) in our review, were – explicitly or implicitly – assuming an efficient choice perspective. There were eleven papers with relevance to the fashion perspective and one with forced-selection assumptions. Eight papers were adopting a multi-faceted approach by using more than a single perspective (e.g., a combination of fashion and fad). Six articles in this set were specifically critiquing CMM and questioning the efficiency gains it supposedly provides. In light of our reading of the CMM diffusion literature and DOI literature in general, in the following sub-sections, each of the four perspectives mentioned earlier, i.e. forced-selection, efficient choice, fashion, and fad, will be used to develop an explanation with respect to CMM diffusion. To this end, we put forward formal propositions that reflect the underlying assumptions of each perspective with regards to the antecedents of CMM adoption decision. Then, these perspectives are critically analyzed in order to reveal their respective limitations. Table 4 below provides an overview of our review findings by summarizing relevant studies in each quadrant. Table 4. Illustration of Existing CMM Studies in Each Perspective No. of Articles (incl. those with multiple perspectives) Theories Employed Performance Measures Employed Example Article Forcedselection Institutional isomorphism Compliance (with the goals of the Air Force) Ayres (2003) 2 Efficientchoice Software process improvement (as a model), TQM (as a model), Resourcebased view, Organizational learning, Control Theory, Diffusion of innovation theory Project Success, Project Performance improvement (Error Density, Productivity, Rework, Cycle Time, Schedule Fidelity, Error Detection Effectiveness, ROI), Competitive Performance, Software Quality, Effort, Dynamic Capability, Outsourcing Flexibility (robustness, modifiability, and ease of exit), Predictability, Defects, Lead time, Cooperation, Staff motivation, Reusability, Offshore Software Project Performance, IS employees’ professional efficacy, job satisfaction, role ambiguity Harter et al. (2000) 41 Fashion Signalling Theory Software Export, Inclusion in potential offshoring bids, Firm’s financial performance Gao et al. (2010) 13 Fad N/A (anecdotal) Inclusion in potential offshoring bids Zamiska (2005) 5 Perspective Applying the Forced-Selection Perspective As introduced earlier, this perspective is applicable in cases where an organization is – involuntarily – forced to adopt an IT innovation. CMM was originally developed to address Department of Defense (DoD)’s serious coordination problems with its contractors and the problems associated with software project execution. In this sense, the hierarchically superior element exerting the institutional pressure was the DoD. Considering DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) assertion that coercive pressures arise in an organization's legal environment and through the existence of standards imposed by structures on which the focal organization is dependent, CMM can be seen as a means to exert coercive pressures on software vendors. Such pressures for development process improvement and CMM adoption were originally initiated by the DoD in the form of “policy letters” sent to “subordinate” organizations (Ayres 2003). Coercive pressures were also exerted on potential contractors by making the software capability evaluation a part of source selections. Soon thereafter the model was adopted by other federal and state agencies for their vendor selection and contracting activities. Even non-governmental large enterprises sometimes set CMM certification as a prerequisite for their potential partners (Port 1999). This rationale is often evident in the CMM acquisition announcements when the commercial firms make a reference to the policies of the Department of Defense or other governmental agencies. The following is an excerpt from one of such announcements: “[CompanyName] announced yesterday its [..] subsidiary has been awarded a Level 3 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) certification […] The Defense Department uses CMMI appraisals to assess risks, determine a company's level of process maturity and predict performance. CMMI maturity level ratings are often a prerequisite or discriminator for companies bidding on defense contracts.” (Defense Daily – Dec 9, 2005) As stated by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), organizations can resist the demands of those to whom they are not depending on. Otherwise, coercive pressures built into exchange relationships will result in isomorphic change, i.e. a constraining change process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units. The roots of CMM began in the military agencies and outside the software industry. These types of bureaucratic organizations, which function in highlyinstitutionalized fields, tend to impose their formal bureaucratic structures on software development. For example, enterprises tend to use similar contracts to obtain either software or other types of resources. These fixed-scope, fixed-price, and fixed-schedule contracts might not be pertinent to the innovative nature of a development project (Fowler 2005), but when software development companies are coerced into signing such contracts, they become more inclined toward disciplined factory processes in order to ensure the fulfillment of contract specifications (Cusumano 2004). On the other hand, when software companies target individual end-users as their market segment, such coercive pressure is much less evident. This might well explain the considerably lower CMM adoption rates in industry clusters such as prepackaged software development (SEI 2009; 2012). There is evidence from case studies (Adler 2005) that even in a single organization, those units that serve the commercial sectors invest in structured processes significantly less than the units working with the government agencies. Similarly, large software firms, e.g. Microsoft, Symantec, which hold extensive political power and are not dependent on a few clients, do not typically adhere to CMM recommendations (Bach 1994). This observation further intensifies the commonly raised critique that CMM does not provide firms with improved efficiencies, but it is only a coercion imposed to those firms which serve as contractors to state/military or large enterprise clients (as opposed to individual end-users and SMEs ). Based on the above reasoning we put forward the following proposition: Forced Selection Proposition: The higher the dependency of a software vendor on agencies of the state/military and on large enterprise clients, the greater its propensity to obtain CMM certification. Limitations of the forced selection perspective Proposition 1 may appear sufficient for predicting the diffusion of CMM among military/government contractors. However, it falls short in terms of its power to explain why in recent years, military/government agencies or their contractors no longer account for the majority of CMM adopters. According to SEI (2012), of all the organizations that reported appraisal results, only 3.7% and 15.9% were military/government agencies and their contractors, respectively, while 80.4% fell in the commercial/in-house category (Figure 3). These numbers raise questions vis-àvis the assumption that the main driver of CMM adoption is the coercive forces created by state regulations, and suggests that the adoption decision is, in fact, voluntary2. This failure of the forced-selection perspective to predict diffusion brings us to consider the following alternative perspective. Figure 3 Reporting organizational categories – based on appraisal of 4,657 organizations (SEI 2012) 2 CMM appraisal results do expire in 3 years. We are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for pointing out the relatively lower number of RE-appraisals (as illustrated in Figure 6) and the possibility that only military/government agencies and their contractors continue to perform mandatory reappraisals. Although the data is inconclusive, this is a plausible explanation and reinforces the fact that – as discussed later – fashionability and use of CMM as a “marketing tool” can be a driver of CMM diffusion, particularly among “commercial/in house” organizations. Applying the Efficient-Choice Perspective This perspective assumes each organization voluntarily decides to adopt an IT innovation based on its relative advantage. CMM is essentially a quality improvement approach. From an economic point of view, it is expected that CMM adoption can benefit the organization by reducing product cost and improving the quality and timeliness of development processes (Adler 2005). A survey of key decision makers in organizations has revealed that they expect that their CMM adoption decision will lead to increased productivity, greater predictability, fewer defects, and reduced lead time (Trienekens et al. 2007). Similarly, the promotional presentations and white papers issued by SEI suggest that executives should consider adopting CMM if their organizations suffer from symptoms such as quality problems, customer complaints, spiraling costs, and late delivery of projects. Announcements and reports on successful adoptions of CMM often included statements about the pre-CMM challenges that firms were facing: "[Before CMM adoption,] even though there was some attempt to organize the development process, in certain areas of the bank, it was also evident that there were significant problems with documentation” (quality specialist in an adopting bank, quoted in GRafP (2006)) Figure 4 Example of promotional slides from SEI explaining the rationale for adopting CMM (CMMI Executive View 2006) Hence, deficiencies in the proper execution of software projects impel managers to consider voluntary adoption of CMM. On the other hand, if a company is already running smoothly, it will have little motivation to adopt CMM because, based on the efficient choice perspective, the “relative advantage” (a.k.a. performance expectancy) of CMM would be – at best – marginal. This explanation is consistent with Cyert and March’s (1992) behavioral theory of the firm, which proposes that it is the performance problems that provide managers with an incentive to search the environment and adopt innovations that claim to solve those problems efficiently, i.e. fill the performance gap. Since CMM specifically addresses the operational performance of a software vendor, based on the above, the efficient-choice perspective implies the following proposition: Efficient-Choice Proposition: The less efficient the software vendor’s development process, the greater its propensity to obtain CMM certification. Limitations of the efficient choice perspective Proposition 2 is based on the premise that adopting CMM can actually improve the software vendor's performance. There are a number of studies that have shown such a positive correlation between CMM adoption and increases in some measures of performance such as higher product quality (although often at the expense of increased development efforts) (Subramanian et al. 2007; Harter et al. 2000) and project performance (Subramanian et al. 2007). However, critics have advanced several arguments and empirical findings that are at odds with the findings of these studies. It has been argued that researchers might be more inclined to report success stories and withhold failures. The prominence of success stories is a salient empirical feature of business discourse on innovations, i.e. compared to failures, successes of managerial innovations gain higher visibility in the business discourse; managers also pay more attention to these stories (Strang and Macy 2001). The roots of this effect lie in what social psychologists call a “confirmation bias”, present in most human decision makings (Nickerson 1998). In addition, there could be a social bias in the availability of positive and negative news about an innovation, i.e. those managers blessed with success are more likely to broadcast their performance gains from CMM. In the case of a similar quality improvement practice, i.e. TQM, Zbaracki (1998) examined how managers were influenced by a rhetoric of success about TQM, used the rhetoric to implement the program in their organizations, and then “filtered” the implementation results to broadcast their own rhetoric of success. The model explains how this process has resulted in an “overly optimistic” view of TQM in management discourse. Similar evidence can be found with regards to CMM. In a meta-analysis of the literature, Galin and Avrahami (2006) found that “all” the academic manuscripts and white papers reported solely CMM success stories. Similarly, Hansen et al. (2004) suspected a bias in the findings, since most of the CMM data was provided by SEI-affiliated individuals, consultants who were themselves promoting CMM, and companies that had already invested large amounts of money in acquiring CMM and needed to market themselves. These authors claimed that CMM is, at best, found to be successful in “large American software companies writing software for defense contractors” (p. 467) and expressed doubt that the same results would be found in other cultures and environments. Another major criticism stems from the fact that most CMM performance studies do not consider alternatives (e.g., adaptive agile methods); effectively assuming that complying with CMM is better than having no process at all. There are also some controversies about the efficiency of specific CMM levels. For example, Cusumano (2004) report on a case study in an IBM facility with a 5 level maturity ranking, yet suffering from very high development costs. Thus, one might claim that adopting CMM is beneficial at some levels, yet after a certain threshold, it imposes too much process to the software organization. Finally, as mentioned earlier, the considerable success of many software vendors (such as Microsoft, and Symantec) that provide “shrink wrap” software and are definitely not considered “mature” according to CMM standards, raise questions regarding the validity of CMM-type practices. Based on these arguments and on the ample evidence of practitioners’ skepticism about CMM, it can be argued that CMM cannot be considered an objectively efficient innovation. Hence, the efficient-choice perspective might not always be applicable in explaining the “hype-like” (Koch 2004) popularity of CMM. This brings us to consider the next theoretical perspective. The Fashion Perspective Fashion perspective studies voluntaristic IT innovation adoption decisions, however, in this perspective the drivers of adoption are not immediate economic gains, but the expected positive image of the IT innovation and its signaling capabilities. Several characteristics of a fashion-driven adoption cycle can be observed in the special case of CMM. The original fashion setter in this case was SEI at Carnegie Mellon University. The school is particularly well-known for its IS-related programs and research, and it has the required status to act as a legitimate fashion setter. Of course, later on, other IT consultants, practitioners, and scholars continued to disseminate the new fashion through academic and industry discourse. These fashion setters make performance gaps more salient and bring them to the followers’ collective attention (Abrahamson 1996; Baskerville and Meyers 2009). A well-known example of such attempts is the “CHAOS report” (Standish-Group 2011), which has become a touchstone for researchers concerned with IT project management. Although serious doubts have emerged over the validity and rigor of these statistics (Reich et al. 2007) and whether or not the Standish Group's data is systemically over-inflated (Jørgensen & Moløkken-Østvold 1994), the report has been very successful at bringing the low performance of IS projects to the field’s collective attention, clearing the way for process improvement techniques such as CMM. Also, certain characteristics of CMM make it particularly appropriate for a fashion-type dissemination. According to Abrahamson (1991), adoption of “administrative” innovations is more likely to be driven by fashion hypes because, unlike pure technical innovations, their direct outputs are difficult to observe. Hence, ambiguity about the effects of an innovation makes it more appropriate for fashion-driven diffusion (Fichman 2004). Although there are some technical elements in the CMM specifications, CMM is an IT management technique that is by its very nature an administrative – and not purely technical – innovation. Moreover, without much rigorous empirical evidence to prove that CMM is effective and provides cost savings to businesses, there is an ambiguity of effects. Fashionable innovations are usually those that are falsely encouraging one-size-fits-all, and easy to cut-and-paste (Miller and Hartwick 2002). In Bach’s (1999) words, “[CMM] gives hope, and an illusion of control, to management. Faced with the depressing reality that software development success is contingent upon so many subtle and dynamic factors and judgments, the CMM provides a step by step plan to do something unsubtle and create something solid” (p. 6). It should be noted that the fashiondriven diffusion per se does not necessarily portray CMM as a worthless innovation. The perspective “does not imply that a fashion either is or is not dysfunctional” (Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999). On the contrary, it may illustrate SEI's effective involvement in the creation and dissemination of a new fashionable IT innovation. The fashion perspective seems to be a particularly relevant and interesting perspective for explaining CMM diffusion. We, therefore, analyze this perspective in more detail by looking into the two distinctive aspects of fashion perspective, i.e. the impact of management discourse on the diffusion process, and the signaling role of fashions. The impact of discourse: The dominant paradigm in DOI focuses on the characteristics of the innovation itself or the innovating organizations (Fichman 2000; 2004). Other scholars who have studied the life cycles of new innovations have mainly focused on interorganizational relationships and networks (e.g., Tolbert and Zucker 1983). However, Strang and Meyer (1993) criticized this literature for overlooking the impact of discourse on the diffusion process. They argue that discourse affects diffusion through “theorization”: "both the development and specification of abstract categories, as well as the formulation of patterned relationships [among these categories] such as chains of cause and effect" (p. 104). Management fashion theory seeks to explain how rhetorics and discourses (written or oral) about management beliefs originate, disseminate, and eventually persuade managers to adopt administrative techniques. Abrahamson (1991) postulated that a positive feedback loop exists between the amount of the positive discourse about an innovation and its diffusion. On one side, the adoption of an innovation alerts knowledge entrepreneurs and fashion setters to a market for discourse promoting this innovation and prompt them to produce more of such discourse. On the other side of the loop, the amount and contents of the discourse prompt more managers to adopt this innovation. The same feedback loop can take place with regards to discontinued use or rejection of innovations and the debunking rhetorics around it. Just as an example, publication of a skeptical article titled “Software Quality: Bursting the CMM Hype” (Koch 2004) in a highly-visible outlet like the CIO Magazine could have an adverse impact on IS executives’ attitude toward adoption or continued use of CMM. Likewise, discontinued use would result in further negative press for CMM, which in turn could intensify the downward cycle of CMM adoption. Interestingly, data hints to the presence of a relationship between CMM discourse and its actual adoption by organizations. Figure 5 charts the adjusted3 annual counts of articles indexed by ABI/Inform that discuss the capability maturity model. The number of CMM appraisals reported to SEI is shown in Figure 6. As seen in the figures, both of the graphs follow a very similar bell shape, peaking in 2003. Deriving a rigorous conclusion would require further investigation of the data, e.g. a content analysis of the discourse for discriminating between articles with positive and negative tones, and is out of the scope of this paper. However, by taking into account the “prominence of success story” in business discourse (Strang and Macy 2001), the close resemblance of the two graphs can be interpreted as a preliminary supporting evidence. The rise of popularity of other alternative IT management techniques such as agile development (whose famous “manifesto” was established in 2001) could be a complementary explanation for the decline in the number of appraisals since 2003. As explained in the discussion section, this could represent replacement of the existing IT fashion with the next one4. 3 Following Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999) and Wang (2009), we multiplied the number of CMM articles in Year X by the ratio between the total number of articles indexed in 1986 and the total number of articles indexed in Year X. 4 We are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point. Figure 5. Popularity of CMM Discourse in ABI/Inform Collection Figure 6. Number of CMM Appraisals Reported to SEI by Year (Source: SEI (2006)) In other disciplines, a number of studies have examined the presence and attributes of the above cyclical relationship from an empirical perspective. Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999) showed that in the early stages of quality circle fashion, the discourse made up of positive arguments about the technique coevolved with the actual adoption of the innovation. Also, empirical studies confirmed the existence of a positive association between the level of discourse and the adoption of certain workplace safety initiatives (Spell and Blum 2005). Building on the above theoretical argument and studies from organization theory research, we put forward the following proposition: Fashion Discourse Proposition: The more the positive discourse about CMM, the greater the firm’s propensity to obtain CMM certification. The signaling role of adopting a fashion: Abrahamson (1996) extended the sociopsychological theories of aesthetic fashion demand (Simmel 1957) to the domain of management fashion, positing that adopting a fashion can respond to managers’ desire for status differentiation. Just as an aesthetic fashion serves to discriminate between high- and lowstatus individuals, a management fashion can distinguish a high-reputation, more efficient, or wealthier organization from others. In other words, adopting a fashionable innovation might do little to boost the performance of the organization, but it will fulfill the function of “signaling” the higher status of the organization (Abrahamson and Fombrun 1994). Extant literature (McAdam and Fulton 2002; Westphal et al. 1997) provides evidence that vendors do in fact see quality management methods more or less as a “marketing tool”. This seems to be particularly true for CMM levels 4 and 5; attaining these levels requires rather considerable resource allocations despite the fact that line staff believe that it “adds a lot of cost but not much value” (Adler 2005). There are several CMM acquisition announcements in which adopting company executives highlight their desire to send a message to their existing or potential customers: “The certification offers confidence to our prime contracting partners and government customers that we are continuing to meet, and many times exceed, the requirements of our contractual obligations” (executive VP of an adopting company quoted in Defense Daily – Dec 23, 2005) Dawson et al.’s (2010) interviews with consultants confirm that “IS consulting firms often advertise their CMMI (capability maturity model integration) maturity level as a signal of their ability to deliver high-quality work”. Likewise, having the certification allows companies to charge a premium in comparison to other competitors. As mentioned by the CEO of a CMM Level 5 organization: “After accreditation, […] rate shot up to $20 an hour [increased from $14]. In wooing new clients, CMM is the first thing we mention and the last thing we mention.” (Zamiska 2005) Signaling theory (Spence 1973) suggests that when parties in an exchange experience conditions of information asymmetry (i.e. when information about an exchange is distributed unequally), they provide signals that help reduce such asymmetry (Rindova et al. 2006). The idea that CMM certification can serve as a mean to reduce information asymmetry, is based on the premise that it can be considered as a signal for the outstanding quality of the software vendor. In other words, we expect that first, a significant correlation exists between acquiring a CMM certification and the vendor’s actual quality of software development process and second, the barriers (i.e. cost) for acquiring such certification is significantly higher for a vendor with low-quality software development process. Levina and Ross’s (2003) case study documents that it was a firm’s “long history of methodology development” which led them to adopt higher levels of CMM efficiently (they were able to adopt CMM and move from level 1 to 3 in less than a year, while at the time, such move took 45 months on average). In management literature, similar evidence has been found regarding the adoption of ISO 9000 (Anderson et al. 1999) and ISO 14001 environmental standards (King et al. 2005), by firms with higher competency. The above premise can be seen as a point of differentiation between management fashion theory and neo-institutional theory. Neo-institutional theory, in its strong form, asserts that firms adopting formal structures are often merely looking for “symbolic” legitimacy and seek to preserve their current practices by buffering/decoupling their technical core from such constraining bureaucracy (Meyer and Rowan 1977, Westphal et al. 1997), i.e., they continue to perform the same technical activities inside the organization but create a layer to hide this from external contacts (Oliver 1991). However, based on the signaling role of the fashion, we assume that there is a degree of coupling between the actual practice of software development and the development process prescribed by CMM. This is consistent with the extant literature, which states that when an actual inspection by an external agency exists at the operational level, “complete decoupling” is not possible (Scott 2005). In the case of CMM, these inspections are CMM appraisals performed by third-party intermediaries. Hence, in such situations, firms’ strategic response cannot simply be to “avoid” the institutional pressure through buffering, but they have to show at least some level of “acquiescence” in their actual operations (Oliver 1991). Since CMM aims at having a more efficient development process, the signaling argument, depicted above, leads us to the following proposition which essentially states that firms with more efficient processes will find it easier to acquire CMM certification: Fashion Signaling Proposition a: The more efficient the software vendor’s development process, the greater its propensity to obtain CMM certification. In addition to the above general proposition, we further investigate the signaling role of CMM by looking into the characteristics of vendor-client relationships. The literature on certification states that a firm seeks to obtain a certificate when it senses that its customers lack sufficient information (Gopal and Gao 2009; King et al. 2005). A factor that can lead to a lack of sufficient information is distance. We examine this factor in the following sub-section. Geographical distance and offshoring - Geographical distance can be used as a proxy for information asymmetry among firms. Several studies have shown the adverse effect of physical distance on the transfer of credible information among exchange partners (King et al. 2005). Greater distances between partners may be associated with higher information transfer costs. Based on media richness theory (Daft et al. 1987), we would expect that a client’s visits to the vendor’s facilities and face-to-face meetings with the managers and developers can convey rich information about the capabilities of the vendor and guide the contracting decision. The client can also expect frequent meetings with the vendor’s team as an effective means for controlling project progress. Rich communication can, therefore, reduce both the ex-ante information and negotiation costs as well as the ex-post running costs (Williamson 1991). We, hence, expect geographical distance to increase information asymmetry by increasing the cost of rich information exchange between parties. The conceptualization of distance is not necessarily confined to geographical distance – social, cultural, and institutional distance can also hinder effective information transfer (King et al. 2005). Shared national culture and belief system is proved to facilitate the processing of information transferred (Hofstede 1980), which in turn leads to less information asymmetry among parties from the same nation/culture, ceteris paribus. Hence, we can expect that the information asymmetry that comes along with geographical distance and locating in different countries (i.e., offshoring arrangements), increases the value of CMM certification for the exchange parties. This is reflected in the industry discourse explaining the outsourcing process; Zamiska (2005) quotes a Western manager stating: “No one in his group has ever traveled to India to meet the software developers working on the project, and […] no one needs to, because the quality of [the vendor’s] work has been certified.” Likewise, several articles in our set reported that companies relied heavily on CMM for whittling down the lists of offshore service providers (Gregory et al. 2013; Koch 2004; Rai et al. 2009; Tanriverdi et al. 2011) – despite the fact that CMM impact on mitigating the challenges of offshore software development remained largely ambiguous (Ramasubbu et al. 2008). Data shows that in recent years, the highest percentage of reported CMM appraisals have been from outside the USA. In 2005, 80 out of the world’s 117 CMM level 5 holders resided in India (Ramasubbu et al. 2008). Likewise, according to SEI (2015), the numbers of CMMI certification appraisals are higher in China than in the USA (respectively, 4256 and 2566 appraisals between 2008 and 2015).Thus, based on the above discussion on information asymmetry, we propose the following: Fashion Signaling Proposition b: The larger the geographical distance between the firm and its potential clients, and the more its dependency on offshoring contracts, the greater its propensity to obtain CMM certification. Limitations of the fashion perspective The above discussion portrays fashion theory as a promising perspective for explaining CMM diffusion. Nevertheless, it has its own limitations in explaining every aspect of the phenomenon. Following the fashion can initially uphold the “prestige” of the adopters, however as explained by Strang and Soule (1998), after a while, “lower ranking community members aspire to be like prestigious others, [and] find it useful to resemble powerful leaders” (p. 275). According to Abrahamson and Fombrun’s (1994) “trickle-down fashion process,” the signaling role of a fashion will last until the fashion becomes widely adopted by both low-status and high-status organizations. After this point, following the fashion does not convey much unique information about the status of organizations. With regard to CMM, this condition may have already been met: IS executives have been quoted as saying that CMM “was once a differentiator, but now it is a condition of getting into the game” (Koch 2004). Moreover, as we will see in the next section, although the fashion perspective considers fashion-setter communities, journal publications, and mass media as the main factors of influence, there is evidence that in making an innovation adoption decision, managers assign more weight to the information received from interorganizational/interpersonal networks. These two limitations of the fashion perspective suggest that the following alternative, the fad perspective, must also be taken into account. The Fad Perspective Both fashion and fad perspectives consider imitation as the main underlying driver of diffusion of innovations. But while fashion relies on the influences of outside entities, the fad perspective assumes that firms’ decisions are affected by other organizations within their field, i.e., all the organizations that are connected to a focal firm through network ties or have structurally equivalent network positions (Burt 1976). Departing from the fashion perspective and focusing on norms “within” the field seems to have support in the existing empirical findings from previous studies. Granovetter (1973) has asserted that public sources of data, e.g., advertisements, are not typically taken seriously and “people rarely act on mass-media information unless it is also transmitted through personal ties” (p. 1374). Brancheau and Wetherbe’s (1990) found that mass media channels are rarely effective for persuading a potential user to adopt. Likewise, McDonald and Westphal (2003) showed that executives assign greater weight to information and advice received from personal sources (informal conversations with colleagues, suppliers or clients) than from impersonal sources (such as white papers and executive journals, which are the main conduits of diffusion according to the fashion perspective). Based on the above discussion, the fad perspective predicts that: Fad Perspective Proposition: The higher the number of organizations in the software vendor’s organizational field that have adopted CMM, the greater its propensity to obtain CMM certification. Limitations of the fad perspective There are some inherent limitations associated with the fad perspective. Firstly, this perspective is not applicable in explaining the very early phases of diffusion where the IT management innovation cannot be considered as a popular phenomenon that automatically diffuses because of its earlier success records or “taken-for-granted”ness. Secondly, and related to the previous point, this perspective might overlook the actual efficiency-improving merits of IT management innovations. One can pose the dilemma that if an innovation is a gimmick, why a large number of early adopters (adequate to initiate a herd-like dynamic) decide to use it in the first place. Finally, it has been argued that some diffusion perspectives suffer from an “underrationalized” view of managers (Strang and Macy 2001). In other words, they portray managers as individuals who pay too much attention to what others do, while not caring enough about the consequences of their own decisions and actions. However, this picture might not be valid, especially in business settings where performance –and not popularity– is the central concern of managers (Strang et al. 2014). Because of these limitations, the fad perspective can be taken into account only along with the other previously mentioned perspectives. In the next section, we propose an integrative model to consolidate these different perspectives. Complementarity of Perspectives The extant models of DOI mainly distinguish two different phases as the diffusion process unfolds. In the early stages, managers take a rational perspective and make their adoption decision by considering calculative efficiency-based factors. However, as time passes, imitation and symbolic aspects will eventually replace the rational and technical rationales of adoption. In their diffusion models, Rogers (1983) and Bass (1969; Mahajan, Muller, and Bass 1995) discuss “S-curves” that differentiate between early adopters (innovators) and late adopters (imitators). The institutional theory posits that unlike early adopters who follow their local rationality, late adopters of an organizational innovation will only symbolically conform to it while they preserve their technical core through buffering (Tolbert and Zucker 1983; Westphal et al. 1997). While this study embraces the above-mentioned two-stage DOI process (Figure 7), we extend that dichotomous model by incorporating all the four different perspectives and applying them to the case of diffusion of CMM certification. Scholars have criticized the two-stage model for not clearly explaining what happens between the two phases (Wang 2007), e.g., what causes an inefficient innovation or one with suboptimal efficiency to reach a “critical mass” (after which the diffusion process would be driven mainly by imitation forces). Figure 7. Two-stage Diffusion Process and the Gap in Theoretical Explanation Departing from the dominant perspective in DOI literature and incorporating alternative perspectives helps in presenting a better explanation of the diffusion process, including the middle stages. While any of the four theoretical perspectives (forced selection, efficient choice, fashion, and fad) introduced in this paper add to our knowledge about the diffusion of CMM, there are certain limitations to the explanatory power of each perspective, as summarized in Table 5. The first perspective, forced selection, states that CMM is adopted when powerful clients coerce their contractors into adopting it. This is supported by the history of CMM being enforced by the US Department of Defense. However, forced selection perspective falls short in explaining the widespread adoption of CMM by organizations other than military/government agencies or their contractors. This shortcoming is addressed by the second perspective, efficient choice, which posits that CMM is adopted by vendors with severe performance gaps in their software development processes. However, efficient choice perspective cannot be used to explain either CMM’s further diffusion despite the ambiguity of the performance outcomes, or the higher CMM adoption rates within certain geographical regions/countries such as India and China as compared to North America. The third perspective, fashion, can help in explaining the mentioned limitations of the efficient choice perspective. According to fashion perspective, CMM is adopted if fashion setters promote it through positive discourse and if it can send a signal to clients about the vendor’s higher status. But, this perspective itself fails to explain further diffusion despite the fact that adopting CMM has become a taken-for-granted norm and no longer sends a signal to clients. It also downplays the overwhelming evidence from previous studies stating that executives make the adoption decision based on information received through interpersonal/interorganizational ties as opposed to public sources such as journals and mass media. These observations are taken into account by the fourth perspective, fad, which postulates that CMM is adopted by an organization if its suppliers, partners, or competitors adopt it. The theoretical limitations of this perspective are explaining adoption decision by early adopters, and underestimating managers’ rational focus on performance (instead of popularity). Interestingly, these two limitations can be addressed by taking into account either perspective one (forced selection) or two (efficient choice). Hence, our analysis illustrates how these four perspectives together complete the cycle of explaining an IT management technique diffusion trajectory Table 5. Summary of CMM diffusion explanation accounts and their limitations Perspective Diffusion Explanation Forced selection CMM is adopted when powerful clients coerce their contractors into adopting it. - Widespread adoption of CMM by organizations other than military/government agencies or their contractors CMM is adopted by vendors with severe performance gaps in their software development processes. - Further diffusion despite the ambiguity of the performance outcomes and the mixed results found when examining previous adopters - Higher adoption rates within certain geographical regions/countries such as India as compared to North America Fashion Fashion CMM is adopted if fashion setters promote it through positive discourse and if it can send a signal to clients about the vendor’s higher status. - Further diffusion despite the fact that adopting CMM has become a taken-forgranted norm and no longer sends a signal to clients - Overwhelming evidence from the previous studies that executives make the adoption decision based on information received through interpersonal/interorganizational ties as opposed to public sources such as journals and mass media Fad Fad CMM is adopted if the vendor’s partners or competitors have already adopted it. - Adoption decision by early adopters - Managers rational focus on performance, and not popularity Efficient choice Failure to Explain Complementing Perspective Efficient choice Forced-selection or Efficientchoice As explained above, while each perspective is helpful in explaining the diffusion phenomenon, for each perspective, there are certain circumstances in which the empirical evidence contradicts the perspective's explanations. In a study of IS implementation, Lapointe and Rivard (2007) suggested that the use of alternate models may provide a better understanding of seemingly paradoxical outcomes, i.e., alternate models compensate for a given model’s prediction failures and overcome its limits. We adopt a similar approach and propose that in each stage of CMM diffusion one particular perspective, i.e., a salient perspective, provides the best explanation. The narrative structure of this paper reflects this assertion. For each perspective, we first presented its implications and propositions, followed by its limitations, which are accordingly addressed and resolved by the next perspective (see Table 5). Depending on the particular stage of an IT innovation diffusion life cycle, one of these perspectives (i.e., a salient perspective) can provide a better explanation of the diffusion process. For example, as discussed earlier, efficientchoice perspective can better explain the adoption of CMM by US commercial firms that experienced difficulties with their software projects in the early years of CMM diffusion. While fashion perspective can better explain the later adoption by offshoring firms (particularly Indian and Chinese firms) who wanted to use CMM for showcasing their already efficient development processes. General Proposition: Diffusion of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) can be better explained by adopting a multi-perspective view, which acknowledges each perspective (forced selection, efficient choice, fashion, and fad), and their limitations. CONCLUDING REMARKS This research provides contributions to the IS field by considering several theoretical perspectives and applying them to explaining the diffusion of a single IT management innovation. In this sense, it represents a response to Poole and Van de Ven’s (1989) call for using paradoxes in management research and Robey and Boudreau’s (1999) suggestion for employing the logic of opposition in IS research. The approach also addresses recurring calls to consider alternative perspectives and depart from the dominant paradigm in DOI research, which may have reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of its capacity to continue generating interesting and innovative insights (Fichman 2004). The propositions of this manuscript were mainly inspired by the theoretical perspectives and the paradoxes that could be observed in the lifecycle of CMM as an administrative IT innovation. We used our literature view as a secondary mechanism to firstly, gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study, and secondly, to assess if, and how often, different perspectives have been employed in IS research on CMM. The results revealed that the studies have predominantly employed an efficient-choice perspective, and to a lesser extent, they have taken fashion perspective into account – hinting at the possibility of future research using alternative perspectives introduced in this paper. Conducting an exhaustive systematic review of the CMM literature was outside the scope of this theory-driven manuscript. We acknowledge this limitation and invite future research to build on our traditional literary review (Boell and Cecez-kecmanovic 2015), and apply systematic literature review methodology to the large body of CMM and Software Process Improvement (SPI) research. Another limitation of this study is not “testing” the propositions. We used existing theory and stories from the academic and practitioners’ literature to develop propositions based on abductive reasoning (Mantere and Ketokivi 2013). Future research can use empirical data, simulation, or deductive meta-analysis to test the propositions developed in this paper. In our review of published CMM studies, we found very few articles with an explicit theoretical focus, or with clear theory development agenda. Paradoxes can be employed as powerful tools for theorizing in management research (Poole and Van de Ven 1989; Smith and Lewis 2011). From a basic economic-rationalist perspective, diffusion of an “inefficient” IT innovation (or, non-diffusion of an efficient one) does seem unlikely and paradoxical. In this manuscript, we incorporated several different theoretical perspectives and analyzed this seemingly paradoxical phenomenon. In particular, we sought to theorize about the diffusion of CMM as a representative of a class of IT management techniques that are aimed at improving software and IS development processes. On the one hand, judging from the large body of criticism by both academics and practitioners (see Adler 2005; Bach 1999; Cusumano 2004), CMM might be seen as a rather inefficient innovation or one with suboptimal efficiency at best. Yet, on the other hand, CMM’s widespread adoption by organizations across the globe portrays it as a successful and supposedly efficient administrative innovation – according to the SEI (2006; 2016), 61 countires reported CMM appraisals in 2006, the number is 98 countries in 2015 for CMMI. We introduced to this problem a diverse set of theoretical perspectives that have not been extensively employed in DOI and particularly in IS research. Our study showed how a multi-perspective approach can be helpful in making sense of a supposedly paradoxical IS phenomenon. It should be noted that in explaining the CMM diffusion (or other similar administrative IT innovations), we showed that none of the mentioned four alternative perspectives could be completely ruled out. It would be naïve to consider an administrative IT innovation as a “panacea”, whose remarkable benefits drive its diffusion as the efficient-choice perspective proposes. Similarly, it is unlikely that a successful IT management technique is just a “placebo” that has no technical benefits and is being adopted just because of forced-selection, fads or fashions. This paper acknowledges that each of the four perspectives misses out on certain elements of CMM diffusion (e.g., fashion perspective overlooks the “improvement” outcomes of CMM and only focuses on ceremonial “certification”)5. Thus, we propose that taking all of these diverse perspectives into account and comparing their predictive power can give researchers a more thorough and holistic picture of the diffusion of IT management techniques. As shown in this paper, one approach can be breaking down the diffusion trajectory of IT innovations into different time periods (or stages of diffusion) and explaining the diffusion in each period with a salient theoretical perspective. This approach can also help in improving the low explanatory power of the traditional efficient-choice diffusion of innovation models in IS (meta-analyses of this type of research show R-squares constantly less than 40% (Lyytinen and Damsgaard 2001)). This paper can also have implications for practitioners. The IT landscape is characterized by IT buzzwords, hypes, and rapid succession of new techniques. One of the challenging tasks of managers is to make sense of new IT innovations and adopt the ones that will not be transient fads. Managers can use the four perspectives discussed here as a toolkit for such sensemaking and analysis of new administrative IT innovations. Table 2 can be used as a template to analyze IT innovations from different perspectives. Managers can ask questions about different elements in this template, e.g., regarding the sources of influence (whether there are powerful organizations coercing the adoption from a forced-selection perspective, or whether there are prestigious institutions promoting and supporting the innovation from a fashion perspective), or the expected performance type (whether there is evidence of substantive performance gains, and in addition to that whether there are any symbolic performance gains such as a status signal from adopting this innovation). If analyzing an administrative IT innovation from different perspectives (and not focusing merely on hype and enthusiastic business discourse) point to a potential success, then managers can make more informed decisions about its adoption. In the case of CMM, assuming 5 We are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point. that it is now primarily an innovation applied in providing a feeling of control in offshore development6, software vendors in developing countries should constantly assess the signaling value of CMM. Based on the fashion perspective, if the business discourse becomes too critical of CMM or if several similar organizations in the same geographical region have adopted CMM, these organizations should actively look for adopting alternative mechanisms that can serve as a new quality signal to their potential foreign clients. For example, Langer et al. (2014) showed that project managers’ “practical intelligence” can be used, in addition to a CMM Level 5 rating, to attract new and continued client engagements. Likewise, regarding the supply side of IT innovations, our review of Software Engineering Institute’s successful approaches in establishing CMM and promoting its adoption can inform and inspire IS scholars and practitioners who wish to play a more active role in developing new administrative IT innovations, as suggested by Baskerville and Myers (2009). One practical implication of this study is that the creators and sponsors of a new IT innovation should not merely focus on a single framing and rationale for adoption. Our analysis in this essay revealed that over the years, organizations at different times and in different parts of the world have adopted CMM based on very different rationales of efficiency, coercion, fad, or fashion. Creators and promoters of new IT management techniques should take all of these perspectives into account and try to embed mechanisms that correspond to these different rationales. 66 We are thankful to the anonymous reviewer for raising this point. REFERENCES Abrahamson, E. (1991) “Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations,” Academy of Management Review (16) 3, pp. 586-612. Abrahamson, E. (1996) “Management fashion,” Academy of Management Review (21) 1, pp. 254286. Abrahamson, E. and C. J. Fombrun (1994) “Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences,” Academy of Management Review (19) 4, pp. 728-755. Abrahamson, E. and G. Fairchild (1999) “Management fashion Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly (44) 4, pp. 708-740. Abrahamson, E. and L. Rosenkopf (1993) “Institutional and competitive bandwagons: using mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion,” Academy of Management Review (18) 3, pp. 487-517. Adler, P. S. (2005) “The evolving object of software development,” Organization; The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organizations and Society (12) 3, pp. 401. Akhlaghpour, S. and L. Lapointe (2012) “Towards a Typological Theory of Organizational IT Innovation Adoption,” Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development Workshop. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems (12) 9. http://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/496 Anderson, S. W., J. D. Daly, and M. F. Johnson (1999) "Why firms seek ISO 9000 certification: regulatory compliance or competitive advantage?," Production and Operations Management (8) 1, pp. 28-43. Angst, C. M., R. Agarwal, V. Sambamurthy, and K. Kelley (2010) "Social contagion and information technology diffusion: the adoption of electronic medical records in US hospitals," Management Science (56) 8, pp. 1219-1241. Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly (28) 2, pp. 245-273. Ayres, B. J. (2003) "Institutional influences and control of software development projects: an examination of air force software project teams," Florida State University. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 9. Bach, J. (1999) "The immaturity of the CMM Postscript," http://www.satisfice.com/articles/cmm.shtml). Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015) “On being ‘systematic’in literature reviews in IS,” Journal of Information Technology 30(2), pp. 161-173. Bapna, R., Gupta, A., Ray, G., & Singh, S. (2016) “Research Note—IT Outsourcing and the Impact of Advisors on Clients and Vendors,” Information Systems Research (27) 3, pp. 636-647. Baskerville, R., B. Ramesh, L. Levine, J. Pries-Heje et al. (2003) "Is internet-speed software development different?," IEEE Software (20) 6, pp. 70-77. Baskerville, R. and J. Pries-Heje (1999) "Knowledge capability and maturity in software management," The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems (30) 2, pp. 26-43. Baskerville, R. and M. D. Myers (2009) "Fashion Waves in Information Systems Research and Practice," MIS Quarterly (33) 4, pp. 647-662. Bass, F. M. (1969) "New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science Series a-Theory (15) 5, pp. 215-227. Bollinger, T. B. and C. McGowan (1991) “A Critical Look at Software Capability Evaluations,” IEEE Software (8) 4, pp. 25-41. Brancheau, J. C. and J. C. Wetherbe (1990) “The adoption of spreadsheet software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing,” Information Systems Research (1) 2, pp. 115-143. Burt, R. S. (1976) "Positions in networks," Social Forces (55) 1, pp. 93-122. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. (2014). Reframing Success and Failure of Information Systems: A Performative Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 38 (2), 561-588. Cockburn, A. (1999) “Characterizing people as non-linear, first-order components in software development,” In International Conference on Software Engineering 2000. Cooper, R. and R. W. Zmud (1990) “Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technology Diffusion Approach,” Management Science (36) 2, pp. 123-139. Cusumano, M. A. (2004) The business of software: what every manager, programmer, and entrepreneur must know to thrive and survive in good times and bad. New York: Free Press. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1992) A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel, and L. K. Trevino (1987) “Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems,” MIS Quarterly (11) 3, pp. 355-366. Dawson, G. S., Watson, R. T., & Boudreau, M. C. (2010) “Information asymmetry in information systems consulting: toward a theory of relationship constraints,” Journal of Management Information Systems (27) 3, pp. 143-178. Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies (42) 2, 329-360. Dennis, A. R. and M. J. Garfield (2003) “The adoption and use of GSS in project teams: Toward more participative processes and outcomes,” MIS Quarterly (27) 2, pp. 289-323. DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review (48) 2, pp. 147-160. Fichman, R. G. (2000) “The Diffusion and Assimilation of Information Technology Innovations,” in R. W. Zmud (ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management Research. Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources. Fichman, R. G. (2004) "Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (5) 8, pp. 314-355. Fichman, R. G. and C. F. Kemerer (1993) “Adoption of Software Engineering Process Innovations: The Case of Object-Orientation,” Sloan Management Review (34) 2, pp. 722. Filbeck, G., M. Swinarski, and X. Zhao (2013) "Shareholder reaction to firm investments in the capability maturity model: an event study," European Journal of Information Systems (22) 2, pp. 170-190. Flyvbjerg, B., and Budzier, A. (2011) “Why your IT project may be riskier than you think,” Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 601-603. Fowler, M. (2005) "The New Methodology," http://martinfowler.com/articlesnewMethodology.html (October 1, 2016). Galin, D. and M. Avrahami (2006) "Are CMM program investments beneficial? Analyzing past studies," IEEE Software (23) 6, pp. 81. Gao, G., A. Gopal, and R. Agarwal (2010) "Contingent effects of quality signaling: Evidence from the Indian offshore IT services industry," Management Science (56) 6, pp. 1012-1029. Gartner Group (2016) " Gartner Says Worldwide IT Spending is Forecast to Grow 0.6 Percent in 2016," http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3186517 (Feb 20, 2016). Gopal, A., & Gao, G. (2009) “Certification in the Indian offshore IT services industry,” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, (11) 3, pp. 471-492. GRafP (2006) "Case Study of CMMI implementation at Bank of Montreal (BMO) Financial Group," http://www.grafp.com/Pdf/BMO_case-study_2006.pdf (March 1, 2012). Granovetter, M. S. (1973) “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology (78) 6, pp. 1360-1380. Gregor, S. (2006) “The nature of theory in information systems” MIS quarterly (30) 3, 611-642. Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., & Keil, M. (2013) “Control Balancing in Information Systems Development Offshoring Projects,” MIS Quarterly, 37(4), pp. 1211-1232. Greve, H. R. (1995) "Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategy abandonment," Administrative Science Quarterly (40) 3, pp. 444-473. Hansen, B., J. Rose, and G. Tjørnehøj (2004) "Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field," International Journal of Information Management (24) 6, pp. 457-472. Harter, D. E., M. S. Krishnan, and S. A. Slaughter (2000) "Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development," Management Science (46) 4, pp. 451-466. Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (1), 61-85. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Iacovou, C. L., I. Benbasat, and A. S. Dexter (1995) “Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology,” MIS Quarterly (19) 4, pp. 465-485. Jeyaraj, A., J. W. Rottman, and M. C. Lacity (2006) "A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research," Journal of Information Technology (21) 1, pp. 1-23. Jones, C. (2002) "Defense software development in evolution," Crosstalk-The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. Jørgensen, M., & Moløkken-Østvold, K. (2006) “How large are software cost overruns? A review of the 1994 CHAOS report,” Information and Software Technology (48) 4, pp. 297-301. Keil, M. (1995) “Escalation of commitment in information systems development: A comparison of three theories,” Academy of Management Proceedings 1995, No. 1, pp. 348-352. King, A. A., M. J. Lenox, and A. Terlaak (2005) "The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certification with the ISO 14001 management standard," Academy of Management Journal (48) 6, pp. 1091-1106. Kirkley, J. L. (1992) "EDI in action," Business Week, pp. 85-92. Koch (2004) "Software Quality: Bursting the CMM Hype," http://www.cio.com/article/print/32138 (March 1, 2012). Langer, N., Slaughter, S. A., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2014) “Project managers' practical intelligence and project performance in software offshore outsourcing: A field study,” Information Systems Research 25(2), pp. 364-384. Lapointe, L. and S. Rivard (2007) "A triple take on information system implementation," Organization Science (18) 1, pp. 89-107. Levina, N. and J. W. Ross (2003) “From the vendor's perspective: exploring the value proposition in information technology outsourcing,” MIS Quarterly (27) 3, pp. 331-364. Lewis, M. W. (2000) "Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide," Academy of Management Review (25) 4, pp. 760-776. Lyytinen, K. and J. Damsgaard (2001) “What's Wrong with the Diffusion of Innovation Theory: The Case of a Complex and Networked Technology,” in M. A. Ardis and B. L. Marcolin (eds.) Diffusing Software Product and Process Innovations. pp. 1-20. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press. Mahajan, V., E. Muller, and F. M. Bass (1995) "Diffusion of New Products - Empirical Generalizations and Managerial Uses," Marketing Science (14) 3, pp. G79-G88. Mantere, S., and M. Ketokivi (2013). Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), pp. 70-89. Markus, M. L. (1983) “Power, politics, and MIS implementation,” Communications of the ACM, (26) 6, pp. 430-444. McAdam, R. and F. Fulton (2002) "The impact of the ISO 9000: 2000 quality standards in small software firms," Managing Service Quality (12) 5, pp. 336-345. McDonald, M. L. and J. D. Westphal (2003) "Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs' advice networks and firms' strategic responses to poor performance," Administrative Science Quarterly (48) 1, pp. 1-32. Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004) “Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value,” MIS Quarterly (28) 2, pp. 283-322. Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan (1977) “Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony,” The American Journal of Sociology (83) 2, pp. 340-363. Miller, D. and J. Hartwick (2002) "Spotting management fads," Harvard Business Review (80) 10, pp. 26-27. Moore, G. C. and I. Benbasat (1991) “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perception of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research (2) 3, pp. 192-222. Mustonen-Ollila, E. and K. Lyytinen (2003) "Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using Diffusion of Innovation theory," Information Systems Journal (13) 3, pp. 275-297. Nickerson, R. S. (1998) "Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises," Review of General Psychology (2) 2, pp. 175. Oliver, C. (1991) “Strategic responses to institutional processes,” Academy of Management Review (16) 1, pp. 145-179. Paulk, M. C. (1993) “Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1,” IEEE Software (10) 4, pp. 18-27. Plouffe, C., J. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch (2001) “Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions--Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System,” Information Systems Research (12) 2, pp. 208-222. Ply, J. K., J. E. Moore, C. K. Williams, and J. B. Thatcher (2012) "Is employee attitudes and perceptions at varying levels of software process maturity," MIS Quarterly (36) 2, pp. 601624. Poole, M. S. and A. H. Vandeven (1989) "Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories," Academy of Management Review (14) 4, pp. 562-578. Port, O. (1999) "Will Bugs Eat Up the US Lead in Software?," Business Week, Dec. 1999 Rai, A., Maruping, L. M., & Venkatesh, V. (2009) “Offshore information systems project success: the role of social embeddedness and cultural characteristics,” MIS Quarterly (33) 3, pp. 617-641. Ramasubbu, N., S. Mithas, M. S. Krishnan, and C. F. Kemerer (2008) "Work dispersion, processbased learning, and offshore software development performance," MIS Quarterly (32) 2, pp. 437-458. Reich, B. H., A. Gemino, and C. Sauer. (2007) “Myths about information technology project performance,” Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 2007 conference proceedings, p. 28. Riemenschneider, C. K., B. C. Hardgrave, and F. D. Davis (2002) "Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (28) 12, pp. 1135-1145. Rindova, V. P., T. G. Pollock, and M. L. A. Hayward (2006) "Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity," Academy of Management Review (31) 1, pp. 50-71. Robey, D. and M. Boudreau (1999) “Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications,” Information Systems Research (10) 2, pp. 167-185. Rogers, E. M. (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edition. New York: Free Press. Saunders, C. and I. Benbasat (2007) "A Camel Going Through the Eye of a Needle," MIS Quarterly (31) 3, pp. iv-xviii. Scott, W. R. (2005) "Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program," in Ken G. Smith and Michael A. Hitt (eds.) Great minds in management: The process of theory development, pp. 460-484. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SEI (2006) "Software Engineering Institute’s Process Maturity Profile of the Software Community, 2005 End-Year Update," http://www.sei.cmu.edu (September 1, 2012). SEI (2009) "Performance Results of CMMI," http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/research/results/ . SEI (2012) "CMMI for SCAMPI Class A Appraisal Results 2011 End-Year Update," http://cmmiinstitute.com/assets/presentations/2012MarCMMI.pdf. SEI (2016) "CMMI Maturity Profile Report," http://partners.cmmiinstitute.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Maturity-Profile-Ending-Jun-30-2016.pdf. Simmel, G. (1957) "Fashion," American Journal of Sociology (62) 6, pp. 541-558. Slaughter, S. A., L. Levine, B. Ramesh, J. Pries-Heje et al. (2006) "Aligning software processes with strategy," MIS Quarterly (30) 4, pp. 891-918. Smith, W. K. and M. W. Lewis (2011) "Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing," Academy of Management Review (36) 2, pp. 381-403. Spell, C. S. and T. C. Blum (2005) "Adoption of workplace substance abuse prevention programs: Strategic choice and institutional perspectives," Academy of Management Journal (48) 6, pp. 1125-1142. Spence, M. (1973) “Job Market Signaling,” in Quarterly Journal of Economics (87) 3, pp. 355-374. Standish-Group (2011) "CHAOS Manifesto," http://blog.standishgroup.com/cm2011 (October 1, 2012). Strang, D. and J. W. Meyer (1993) "Institutional Conditions for Diffusion," Theory and Society (22) 4, pp. 487-511. Strang, D. and M. W. Macy (2001) “In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation,” American Journal of Sociology (107) 1, pp. 147-182. Strang, D. and S. A. Soule (1998) "Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills," Annual Review of Sociology (24) 1, pp. 265-290. Strang, D., David, R., Akhlaghpour, S. (2014) “Coevolution in Management Fashion: An AgentBased Model of Consultant-Driven Innovation,” American Journal of Sociology (AJS), (120) 1, pp. 226-264. Subramanian, G. H., J. J. Jiang, and G. Klein (2007) "Software quality and IS project performance improvements from software development process maturity and IS implementation strategies," Journal of Systems and Software (80) 4, pp. 616-627. Tolbert, P. and L. G. Zucker (1983) “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structures of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform,” Administrative Science Quarterly (28) 1, pp. 22-39. Trienekens, J. J., R. J. Kusters, M. J. van Genuchten, and H. Aerts (2007) "Targets, drivers and metrics in software process improvement: Results of a survey in a multinational organization," Software Quality Journal (15) 2, pp. 135-153. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly (27) 3, pp. 425-478. Wang, P. (2007) "Launching professional services automation: Institutional entrepreneurship for information technology innovations," Information and Organization (17) 2, pp. 59. Wang, P. (2009) "Popular concepts beyond organizations: Exploring new dimensions of information technology innovations,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems (10) 1, pp. 1-30. Wang, P. (2010) “Chasing the hottest IT: effects of information technology fashion on organizations,” MIS Quarterly (34) 1, pp. 63-85. Wang, X., K. Conboy, and M. Pikkarainen (2012) "Assimilation of agile practices in use," Information Systems Journal (22) 6, pp. 435-455. Webster, J. and R. T. Watson (2002) “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review,” MIS Quarterly (26) 2, pp. 13-23. Weitzel, T., Beimborn, D., & König, W. (2006) “A unified economic model of standard diffusion: the impact of standardization cost, network effects, and network topology,” MIS Quarterly (30) Special Issue on Standard Making, 489-514. Westphal, J. D., R. Gulati, and S. M. Shortell (1997) "Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption," Administrative Science Quarterly (42) 2, pp. 366-394. Williamson, O. E. (1991) "Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives," Administrative Science Quarterly (36) 2, pp. 269-296. Yourdon, E. (2004) Death march. Prentice Hall Professional. Zamiska, N. (2005) "Quality lures software outsourcing," The Wall Street Journal (May 5, 2005). Zbaracki, M. J. (1998) "The rhetoric and reality of total quality management," Administrative Science Quarterly (43) 3, pp. 602-636. Zucker, L. G. (1987) “Institutional theories of organization,” Review of Sociology (13) 1, pp. 443464. Zucker, L. G. (1988) “Where Do Institutional Patterns Come From? Organizations as Actor in Social Systems,” in L. G. Zucker (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organizations: 23-52. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. APPENDIX A A list and a brief summary of CMM-related articles reviewed for this study (1995-2016). The abbreviation used for the top IS journals: MIS Quarterly (MISQ), European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), Information Systems Journal (ISJ), Information Systems Research (ISR), Journal of Information Technology (JIT), Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS), and Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS) Type Theory Empirical (Interviews) Multiple (contingency theory, institutional theory; cultural‐historical activity theory) This study of the CMM’s impact on the object of software development yields a complex image. The technical dimensions of the object were transformed so as to reduce task uncertainty and to facilitate the mastery of complexity and interdependence. The symbolic dimensions of the object acquired greater importance owing to the pressure to achieve formal certification, and this both hindered and helped efforts to improve on the technical dimensions. The social‐ structural dimensions of the object continued to express the fundamental contradictions of commodity production, and the CMM served to deepen rather than resolve those contradictions. CMM ‐> emergent changes in technical, symbolic, and social‐structural dimensions By applying 3 theories (contingency theory, neo‐ institutional theory, and cultural‐historical activity theory) the paper explores how the CMM affects the object of software developers’ work and thereby affects organization structure. Rationale Excerpt quoted from the articles Multifaceted (acknowledges elements from each perspective) Relevance to CMM Perspective(s) Main Organization The evolving object of software development Main/Peripheral Journal Adler 2005 Authors Year No. 1 Title Empirical Context Fours cases in a large US‐based professional service information technology firms The dissertation uses three case studies of US Air Force software project teams to assess the impact of institutional forces on the use of control mechanisms. The formal control mechanism assessed in this study is CMM. The case data provides relevant background information on development and adoption of CMM in US Air Force. The findings provide support for an important relationship between institutional profiles and the adoption of formal control mechanisms by software project teams. First, different institutional profiles will support different types of adoption of formal control mechanisms. Second, when the enacted profile of a software project team is consistent with a dominant institutional profile, the use of formal control mechanisms will be faithful to this profile. Third, when the enacted profile is conflicted, the use of formal control mechanisms will be mixed with both ceremonial and faithful appropriations. Fourth, the higher the tenure of the software project team, the more likely the enacted profile will be consistent with the older institutional context. Finally, the level of congruence of software project managers with a particular institutional profile will be positively related to the adoption of formal control mechanisms consistent with that profile. Multifaceted (studies regulative, normative, cognitive elements) Different institutional profile ‐> Different types of CMM adoption Empirical (Case study) Institutional Theory software project teams within the United States Air Force Main The article (which is widely cited in academic and practitioners discourse) is skeptical of CMM’s efficiency and suggests several “problems with CMM”. ‐ [CMM] gives hope, and an illusion of control, to management. Faced with the depressing reality that software development success is contingent upon so many subtle and dynamic factors and judgments, the CMM provides a step by step plan to do something unsubtle and create something solid ‐ If an organization s it for its own sake, rather than simply as a requirement mandated by a particular government contract, it may very well lead to the collapse of that company's competitive potential. Multiple (Fashion, Forced‐ Selection) CMM ‐> Loss of software development productivity Conceptual N/A N/A Peripheral The maturity of the business processes is one of the three components for measuring strategic alignment. This item is inspired by earlier maturity models such as CMM. The idea of strategic alignment being sustained over time was first explored when the Capability Maturity Model was extended into IS research to develop the “Strategic Alignment Maturity Model”(SAMM) Rational‐choice Maturity is a measure of Strategic Alignment Conceptual Dynamic Capabilities Framework JAIS Conceptualizing the dynamic strategic alignment competency Main American Programmer Baker et al. The Immaturity of CMM 2011 Dissertation Bach 4 Institutional influences and control of software development projects: An examination of Air Force software project teams 1999 Ayres 3 2003 2 N/A CMM is mentioned as an incomplete criterion for selecting vendors Many client firms focus on the technical capabilities of a potential vendor and may even utilize the capability maturity model (CMM) as a key criterion for selecting vendors CMM is not sufficient for vendor selection, degree to which organizational values are shared across the client and vendor affects strategic IS b f Rational‐Choice Empirical (survey) Information Processing Theory Field survey data collected from 141 IS managers in client firms, responsible for IS development outsourcing arrangements. Peripheral CMM is used for developing the construct of “process maturity” in the model. Process maturity is used as a control variable. Empirical data shows a positive impacts of process maturity on product quality, development cost, design cycle time, and collaboration. We defined the process maturity construct based on the capability maturity model—integrated product development (IPD) framework. Process maturity is measured as a function of four items: integration and concurrency of planning and design, quantitative targets for project management, standardized integration practices, and standard practices for work reviews. Rational‐choice Process maturity ‐> Product development cost Empirical (survey) media richness theory Collaboration in 71 firms Main although higher CMM rating was associated with higher vendor revenue, it nonetheless had a negative impact on outsourcing contract outcome (it was associated with contract cancellation or renegotiation). The analysis suggests that CMM ratings are positively associated with vendor revenue. This is consistent with prior research that CMM ratings reduce information asymmetry about the maturity of vendors’ software development methodology and thus are positively related with vendor revenue. However, CMM rating has a negative impact on contract outcome. Though prior research suggests that CMM ratings are associated with lower error rates, CMM ratings are also associated with longer development time and effort (Harter et al. 2000). It is plausible that a longer development time and effort may lead to contract cancellation or renegotiation. Nevertheless, this finding warrants further investigation. Fashion CMM ‐> vendor revenue (+), outsourcing contract outcome (‐) Empiritcal (archival) Information Asymmetry ISR Research Note—IT Outsourcing and the Impact of Advisors on Clients and Vendors Peripheral ISR Bapna et al. Understanding the Impact of Collaboration Software on Product Design and Development 2016 ISR Banker et al 7 Lateral Coordination Mechanisms and the Moderating Role of Arrangement Characteristics in Information Systems Development Outsourcing 2006 Balaji and Brown 6 2014 5 753 large IT outsourcing contracts Context (size): CMM (NOT)‐> Project Success Empirical (case study) Knowledge management (as theory) ‐ Current software development methods and software process improvement approaches (ISO 9000, Capability Maturity Models, SPICE, and BOOTSTRAP, for example) are typically effective in large‐scale, long‐term development efforts with stable and disciplined processes. In contrast, Internet‐speed software development involves rapid requirement changes and unpredictable product complexity. Such environments require software development approaches that balance flexibility and disciplined methodology. NOT Rational‐choice (focus on NOT Rational‐choice (focus on limitations) limitations) Context (time): CMM (NOT)‐> Project Success Empirical (Mixed method – Qualitative) Theory Development Internet software development at 10 companies + open‐ forum search techniques (creative abrasion) in a colloquium Asserts that CMM has not applied to virtual organizations Although much research and current business lore focuses on process improvement [19,20], we have found no work besides Engelbart's [25] that studies systematic, continuous meta improvement. The closest concepts are total quality management [35] and the SEI Software Capability Maturity Model [40]. The former lacks the emphasis of a continuous(and recursive) meta‐improvement of an organization's improvement processes, whereas the latter is focused on traditional organizations, and thus far has not been applied to virtual communities of the kind CKESS supports N/A CMM not relevant to virtual community Conceptual N/A a vision and an architecture for a community knowledge evolution system CMM as an ingredient of the “Professional Context” in the shared meaning context of virtual teams ‐ a conglomeration of pieces ‐ In 2002, they launched a capability maturity model based software process improvement (SPI) program. The initial mandate of the project was the development of common software processes. The two teams we studied were involved with different initiatives related to the SPI program. ‐ People from the same professional background have an occupational vocabulary for interaction [(SPI)]. Fad CMM (constitutes Professional Context) ‐> Shared meaning Empirical (Case study) Theory Dev. 2009 The authors build on the claim that CMM is not appropriate for time‐ sensitive internet‐speed projects. They propose eight practices characterizing the Internet‐speed software development process. Peripheral 2002 ISJ Virtual team collaboration: building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence ‐ In a manner similar to total quality management (TQM), software process improvement schemes like SPICE and the CMM brings the benefits of precision engineering into project management. ‐ [I]nnovation management and existing CMM KPAs may be suitable for different organization settings. The existing CMM structure may be most appropriate for large, stable enterprises, while knowledge capability management may be more appropriate for unstable or small organizations. Peripheral JMIS Bjørn and Ngwenyama Toward Virtual Community Knowledge Evolution The authors critically review the applicability of CMM to different organizational context, especially to unstable and small organizations. They develop a set of key process areas for a supplement to the CMM in SMEs. Peripheral 10 Bieber et al IEEE Software Main Is internet‐speed software d l diff Baskerville et al. Knowledge Capability and Maturity in Software Management 2003 The DATA BASE for Advances i I f i S Baskerville and Pries‐Heje 9 11 1999 8 virtual teams a small Danish company, Proventum. Proventum designs, develops, and operates Internet Web sites to support the electronic commerce initiatives of their client companies. Rational‐choice CMM (NOT)‐> Software Quality Conceptual N/A N/A CMM not reflected in process innovation measures Empirical (survey) technology ecology Rational‐choice CMM ‐> development productivity, product quality Conceptual (simulation) Model Building Software Development ‐ In the title, I refer to people as “components”. That is how people are treated in the process / methodology design literature. The mistake in this approach is that “people” are highly variable and non‐ linear, with unique success and failure modes. Those factors are first‐order, not negligible factors. Failure of process and methodology designers to account for them contributes to the sorts of unplanned project trajectories we so often see. ‐ [N]one of the engineers who had been instructed in PSP techniques was using them on the job ‐ “PSP is extremely rigorous, and if no one is asking for my data, it’s easier to do it the old way.” NOT Rational‐choice CMM NOT‐> productivity Empirical (case studies) N/A Software Development A Fault Threshold Policy to Manage Software Development Projects CMM is mentioned as one of the two “prominent approaches to improving software development productivity”. CMM’s emphasis on proper process to facilitate team coordination is highlighted. Characterizing people as non‐ linear, first‐order components in software development Peripheral Two prominent approaches to improving software development productivity are the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) from the CMU Software Engineering Institute (Paulk et al. 1993), and Recommended Approach to Software Development from the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory (NASA1992) ‐ The CMM is a process‐centric effort created out of the realization that, unless the underlying software process is properly managed, any attempt to improve development productivity and product quality will be futile. CMM is briefly mentioned as a process innovation. Peripheral 121 software firms that adopted internet computing Peripheral Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Main (concerns a d f CMM ISR Cockburn Our study differs from earlier innovation research of software organizations that have focused primarily on singular process innovations like CASE tools (Orlikowski, 1991), programming paradigms (Fichman & Kemerer, 1997; Ihlsoon & Young‐Gul, 2001) or process improvements [Capability Maturity Model (CMM)] (Yoo et al., 2006) but neglected their technological antecedents and interactions with other innovations. Internet computing as a disruptive information technology innovation: the role of strong order effects 1999 ISJ Chiang and Mookerjee 15 N/A 2004 IEEE Software Carlo et al. 14 ‐ The current [CMM] grading system is so seriously and fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned rather than modified. ‐ It appears unlikely that such [CMM] ratings have any meaningful correlation to the actual abilities of organizations to produce high‐quality software on time and within budget. A Critical Look at Software Capability Evaluations 2011 Bollinger and McGowan 13 One of the earliest articles criticizing the Software Engineering Institute’s software capability evaluation (SCE) method. The 5‐level SCE (developed in 1987) informed the development of CMM in 1991 by SEI. 1991 12 The article emphasizes the importance of including human factors in methodology design. It cites a CMM 5 organization that is trained in PSP (Personal Software Process), but almost nobody was using it, their reason was “PSP is extremely rigorous, and if no one is asking for my data, it’s easier to do it the old way.” CMM is mentioned as an innovation with signaling and screening value. Signaling and screening are approaches to the problem of information asymmetry [1].In signaling, the party with the information advantage, often in hopes of inducing a higher price, conveys meaningful information about itself to the other party [36]. For example, IS consulting firms often advertise their CMMI (capability maturity model integration) maturity level as a signal of their ability to deliver high‐quality work. By signaling, the consulting firm aims to induce clients to pay a higher price for services based on the expectation that CMMI maturity level has a relationship with project success. Multiple (Fashion, Fad) CMM ‐> Signaling Value (for vendors) CMM ‐> Screening Value (for clients) Theory development (extension to agency theory and The principal– professional L ) Empirical (Qualitative ‐ Interviews) IS implementation and strategy projects consultants/government agents Main Software process characteristics are derived from CMM. There are mixed results with regards to impact on project performance. ‐ Software process assessments using the CMM have been conducted at over 260 sites. Of these sites. 75 percent were classified at the initial, or chaotic, level ‐ Processes were also chosen for which some variation in responses could be anticipated. This last criterion eliminated most process areas at the higher maturity levels of the CMM, because these are practiced in relatively few organizations. Rational‐choice CMM ‐> Software Process ‐> Project Performance Empirical (Survey) N/A a survey of senior practitioners at the 1993 Software Engineering Process Group National Meeting Main The paper studies market reaction to CMM investment. Stocks of firms successfully completing CMM appraisals generally outperform the S&P 500 index over longer‐holding periods, although they do not outperform a matched sample. We find support that firms from the information technology industry, firms that are larger, firms of higher CMM maturity levels, and firms completing multiple appraisals are more likely to experience both short‐term and long‐term benefits from their investing in the CMM. Multiple (Fashion, Rational‐choice) Empirical (event study) Resource‐based view The case study illustrates that CMM can co‐exist with sophisticated and successful agile development. It should be mentioned that the organization had only “Level 2” CMM certification. While the move to CMM certification was driven more as a top‐down mandate within the organisation, in marked contrast, Scrum and XP were introduced at a grassroots engineering level as optional techniques. As such, their adoption has grown organically over time. Rational‐choice CMM ‐> short‐term CMM is compatible benefits (signaling) with agile methods CMM ‐> long‐term benefits (productivity) Stock Market Main Empirical (case study) Theory building EJIS Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon Peripheral EJIS Fitzgerald et al. Shareholder reaction to firm investments in the capability maturity model: an event study 2002 JMIS Filbeck et al. 19 Software Processes and Project Performance 2013 JMIS Deephouse et al 18 Information Asymmetry in Information Systems Consulting 1995 Dawson et al 17 2010 16 Software development The paper finds that “all” the academic manuscripts and white papers reported solely CMM success stories. Through a meta‐analysis of 19 papers (400 projects), It finds positive impact of CMM on 7 metrics. ‐ […] some readers might claim that researchers prefer to publish success stories and avoid failure stories. They might also claim that the fact that all the published results are positive and that none mention failure might serve as proof of the bias in the available data. ‐ We believe that the actual bias is small, doesn’t really affect our analysis, and doesn’t change our main conclusion: that investment in CMM programs leads to improved software development and maintenance. Rational‐choice CMM ‐> Performance improvement (Error Density, Productivity, Rework, Cycle Time, Schedule Fidelity, Error Detection Effectiveness, ROI) Meta‐analysis N/A N/A Main The study further examines signaling value of CMM adoption. It uses panel data from Indian software companies to investigate the moderating factors in the relationship between CMM adoption and their exports. ‐ a software service provider gains more from certification in terms of its software exports when its service offerings are diversified, when it chooses to locate away from a cluster of other software service firms, and when the extent of CMM penetration in the competition is low. Fashion Empirical (panel data) Signaling theory The case study shows the positive impacts of CMM on learnability, which leads to knowledge creation and deployment at the individual level. Infosys' CMM Level 5 induced organizational routines are analogous to learnability, which drives knowledge creation and deployment at the individual level. Over time, Infosys has adopted the CMM framework not just for software development, but also for all other organizational initiatives. Infosys' implementation of CMM illustrates how organizations might leverage routines as sources of both continuity and change (Feldman and Pentland 2003) to develop dynamic capabilities over time. Rational‐choice CMM ‐> Firm Export CMM ‐> Dynamic Capability (Mediating variables: CMM penetration, Service diversification, Firm location) Indian software firms Main Empirical (case study) Theory Building (Grounded Theory) longitudinal study at Infosys Technologies Main The study uses empirical data to test three competing theories (signaling, efficiency gains, and institutional theory) for explaining CMM acquisition, and also for predicting its impact on firms’ exports and cost structure. Signaling proves to be the most promising explanation of CMM acquisition (with mixed support for the other two theories). “[Results show] certification may be more influential as a signal of vendor quality and, therefore, as a differentiator in risky markets than as a sign of legitimacy. In addition, our analysis shows that the impact on exports is the strongest in the year after certification but does not appear to be significant in later years” Multiple (rational‐choice, fashion, fad) Operation Cost, Export ‐> CMM ‐> Operation Cost, Export Empirical (archival data) Signaling theory, Institutional theory Certification in the Indian Offshore IT Services Industry Main MISQ Manufacturing & Service Operations M Gopal and Gao Vicious and Virtuous Circles in the Management of Knowledge: The Case of Infosys Technologies 2008 Management Science Garud and Kumaraswamy 23 Contingent Effects of Quality Signaling: Evidence from the Indian Offshore IT Services Industry 2005 IEEE Software Gao et al. 22 Are CMM program investments beneficial? Analyzing past studies 2010 Galin and Avrahami 21 1999 20 Indian software firms The bank outsourced approximately 60 percent of the project work to a CMMI‐5 (Capability Maturity Model Integration) certified offshore service provider from India that was contracted on a fixed‐price basis. N/A Absent The paper provides a review of the Software Process Improvement (SPI) field. It is shown that the field is rather dominated by CMM, and that it is a rather prescriptive (to tell SPI professionals what to do) and non‐reflective field (non‐theoretically analytical). "Whilst acknowledging the very many successes and innovations of the SEI with CMM, it has never been clear that it is widely appropriate or successful outside its natural habitat (though it is very widely known)” Fashion (debunking) Discourse <‐> CMM Main The paper investigates the impact of higher CMM levels (only levels 1 to 3 are studied) on three measures of software quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development. It finds positive overall outcomes from CMM across all the measures, i.e., the reductions in cycle time and effort due to improved quality outweigh the increases from achieving higher levels of CMM. ‐ Conventional beliefs hold that processes to improve software quality can be implemented only at the expense of longer cycle times and greater development effort. However, an alternate view is that quality improvement, faster cycle time, and effort reduction can be simultaneously attained by reducing defects and rework.” ‐ It should be noted that the relationships between process maturity, quality, cycle time, and development effort are valid only in the ranges observed in this application domain (custom software development of an algorithmically intense system in a COBOL, mainframe development environment). Rational‐choice CMM‐>software quality, cycle time, effort Empirical (archival data) Software Process Improvement (as a theory) IS development (MRP development) Peripheral Mentions that IS development methodologies play a role in the move toward a more disciplined development process. It is generally believed that higher quality is achieved through a more disciplined development process, leading to considerable research and industry interest in software process maturity and improvement. Rational‐choice CMM‐>software quality Conceptual Model development Theory N/A Development (Grounded Th ) Empirical Literature Review (Qualitative ‐ Case Mentions that the offshoring IT vendor has CMMI‐5 accreditation. Main JMIS A Dynamic Framework for Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches Peripheral Management Science Iivari et al. Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development 2000 Harter et al. 27 Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field 2000 MISQ International Journal of I f i M Hansen et al. 26 Control Balancing in Information Systems Development Offshoring Projects 2004 Gregory et al. 25 2013 24 IS development methodologies ISD offshoring projects SPI‐related publications (with an admitted Scandinavian bias) CMM based assessment of Software Process Maturity was part of a Collaborative Practice Research (CPR) project. It led to the main study which is on understanding and managing risks in SPI teams and in IS development. The IT department’s software process maturity was assessed initially by the SEPG through a systematic data collection and analysis approach(Iversen et al. 1998). The assessment report pointed to seven improvement areas. SPI teams subsequently addressed several of these areas. The request for appropriate risk management support emerged in autumn 1997 as part of these efforts and resulted in this study. Rational‐choice CMM implementation management Empirical (action research) Software Process Improvement (as a theory) Peripheral CMM is mentioned as an example of software frameworks and methodologies Many best‐practice frameworks and methodologies such as Application Services Library (ASL), Capability Maturity Model (CMM), IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL), and Microsoft Operations Framework, have been proposed to guide IT operations and services. Rational‐choice* Cites: CMM‐>IT service quality Conceptual Climate theory Main The paper compares software development in the defense sector and a number of other domains. Most of the defense software project organizations do have CMM certification. Their products show higher quality, but they rank low in terms of software project productivity. ‐ Organizations at or above CMM Level 3 are more likely to be successful on large systems [larger than 10,000 function points or 1,000,000 source code statements] than those at Levels 1 or 2. ‐ For small applications below 1,000 function points or 100,000 source code statements, the level achieved on the CMM by the development team does not lead to major differences in successes or failure rates. Rational‐choice CMM‐>Quality(+), Productivity(‐) Empirical (archival data) Software Process Improvement (as a theory) Main The paper introduces a multi‐perspective (the individualist, the structuralist, and the interactive process perspective) approach to SPI implementation, and through two cases illustrates how these perspectives supplement each other. While the first [individualist] focuses on leadership, champions and change agents, the second [structuralist] focuses on organization size, departmental and task differentiation and complexity, and the third [interactive] perspective views the contents of the innovation, the social context and process of the implementation as related in an interactive process. Rational‐choice* CMM implementation management Action research Multiple process perspectives (individualist, structuralist, interactive) Understanding the implementation of software process improvement innovations in software organizations Main Defense software development in evolution 2004 Kautz and Nielsen IT service climate: An extension to IT service quality research 2002 JAIS Crosstalk‐The Journal of Defense S f E i i Jones 31 Managing Risk in Software Process Improvement: An Action Research Approach 2008 MISQ Jia et al 30 2004 Iversenet al. 29 ISJ 28 Four Danish software organizations (Danske Bank as the main site) Inside the IT function Military and civilian software organizations CMM implementation in two software organizations ‐ Acknowledges presence of fads and fashion in ISD, but rejects a revolutionary change in this domain ‐ CMM as a proxy for Structure in IS development ‐ Information systems development is a rapidly changing area prone to fads, fashion and frequent claims about the revolutionizing nature of the latest developments in IT, business opportunities and development methods. ‐ Structure is perceived and established differently at different contextual levels. At the business environment level, there is increased demand for more formalization, methodical discipline and software process improvement according to software capability maturity models, quality standards, etc. (Fitzgerald et al., 2002) But there is also a growing opposition that proposes competing theoretical ideas and conceptualizations about amethodical development (Truex et al., 2000), agility (Cockburn, 2002; Highsmith, 2002), complex adaptive systems development (Highsmith, 2000), etc. ‐ The perceived need for formalization and methodical structure varies greatly. Web development is, for example, seen by some as an innovative, noncritical application area performed by smaller organizations and teams and therefore with less need for structure (Baskerville & Pries‐Heje, 2004), while other ‘software markets’ for defense and medical systems are perceived as high‐risk applications domains with much formalization required. Multiple (Rational‐choice, Fashion) CMM (structure) ‐> development success Literature Review N/A Peripheral Suggests research on applying CMM based models to software reuse ‐ To date, there has been little experience of CMM in the reuse area. However, if such models can be validated, practitioners and researchers will have a valuable tool to determine the overall state of reuse in individual organizations and in the software industry as a whole. Rational‐choice Conceptual Model development The article questions the usability of CMM, especially for offshoring projects and suggest that CIOs should not trust and rely on CMM certification for selecting their partners and contractors. ‐ CMM is a "snapshot in time," says the SEI, and it encompasses only the projects that were assessed. Furthermore, if the snapshot was taken more than two years ago, most experts say, it will have yellowed so badly that the company is probably no longer at the same maturity level. ‐ Problems like those [stories mentioned in the article] can damage CIOs’ credibility inside IT and with the business especially if they used a CMM level to defend a decision to move development offshore or use a particular outfit. Fashion (debunking) CMM applications CMM applications IS development Main Commentary Anecdotes from case studies CIO Software Quality: Bursting the CMM Hype Peripheral JMIS Koch Software Reuse: Survey and Research Directions 2004 ISJ Kim and Stohr 34 Persistent problems and practices in information systems development 1998 Kautz et al. 33 2007 32 IS development IS development (multi‐ level) The paper extends CMM model by proposing a new frequency scale that accounts for prior limitations of CMM adoption measurement. The empirical analysis shows a positive impact of “consistent” CMM adoption (measured with the new model) on reducing product defects. In a practical setting, due to various reasons such as schedule pressure and human error, the practices defined in the CMM may not always be followed in a project even if the intention was to follow them carefully. Serious consequences, in terms of project and product characteristics, may result from such inconsistent implementation of good practices. Rational‐choice CMM‐> Quality, Productivity Empirical (survey) IS development projects Peripheral CMM is mentioned as a maturity model applicable to assessing organizations capabilities. From a practice perspective, there are several maturity models that have been proposed to help organizations measure maturity, such as the capability maturity model (CMM). Rational‐choice N/A Model development Organization under study is CMM Level 5 certified. ‐ The vendor […] has been assessed at capability maturity model (CMM) level 5; as a CMM level 5 organization, the company collects numerous measures of projects, project personnel, and performance Rational‐choice and Fashion CMM + project managers’ “practical intelligence” ‐> project performance Empirical (survey) Empirical (archival) Health‐care security Peripheral Information Processing Theory longitudinal data collected in an in‐depth field study of a leading software vendor organization in India. Data include project and personnel level archival data on 530 projects completed by 209 PMs. Peripheral CMM is mentioned as an example of software quality approach ISO 9000 standards and the capability maturity model are examples of an overarching approach to increased software quality. Rational‐choice N/A Peripheral Methodology Development and Dissemination is listed as one of the three core competencies of an outsourcing vendor. This led to firm’s adoption of CMM. ‐ [The IT vendor] invested heavily in proving its reputation for quality, for example, by investing in CMM compliance certification on many of its engagements. Fashion CMM‐>Reputation Empirical (qualitative Empirical (Qualitative – Case – case study) Theory Development Theory development MISQ From the Vendor's Perspective: Exploring the Value Proposition in Information Technology Outsourcing Main ISJ Levina and Ross The role of modeling in achieving information systems success: UML to the rescue? 2003 ISR Larsen et al 39 Project Managers' Practical Intelligence and Project Performance in Software Offshore Outsourcing: A Field Study 2007 JMIS Langer et al. 38 Health‐Care Security Strategies for Data Protection and Regulatory Compliance 2014 Management Science Kwon and Johnson 37 An empirical analysis of productivity and quality in software products 2013 Krishnan and Kriebel 36 1999 35 IS development IS Outsourcing CMM is criticized for its focus on internal aspects of software production, such as cost, budget, and quality, thereby favoring the identification of symptoms rather than causes. ‐ Many currently popular approaches to process improvement in ISD provide formats for gathering process data and performing such assessments (e.g. Paulk, Curtis & Chrissis, 1995). Unfortunately, most of these focus on internal aspects of software production, such as cost, budget and quality, thereby favoring the identification of symptoms rather than causes. Rational‐choice (debunking) CMM applications Conceptual Model development IS development Main Applies CMM to the ‐ The aim of the paper, by way of this discussion, is to introduction of CASE tools in explicate the strengths and limits of software process organization. maturity as a framework for CASE introduction, and to identify the most important supplementary issues. Rational‐choice CMM applications Conceptual Model development IS development Peripheral ‐ CMM is mentioned as an example of standardizability ‐ Standardizability facilitate service disaggregation For example, the capability maturity model (formerly CMM, now CMMI), developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Melon University, is a process management standard to achieve greater consistency in software development (Paulk 1995). A vendor’s CMMI certification provides assurance about its capability to work effectively in a spatially dispersed manner and has greatly facilitated the growth of outsourcing for software development (Davenport 2005). Rational‐choice Empirical (primary and archival data) Theory development Uses Roger’s DOI model to study 200 adoptions of information system process innovations. Limited support is found but a large number of IS process innovation adoptions followed no discernible pattern ‐ the DOI model should be extended to incorporate resource restrictions and time as important factors. ‐ external adoption mechanisms, which are not accounted for by the DOI theory Rational‐choice Implicit: CMM DOI factors‐>CMM adoption (standardizability)‐>offshoring 300 U.S. service occupations Main Empirical (multiple case studies) Diffusion of Innovation Theory ISJ Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using Diffusion of Innovation theory. Peripheral ISR Mustonen‐Ollila and Lyytinen Is the world flat or spiky? Information intensity, skills, and global service disaggregation 2003 ISJ Mithas and Whitaker 43 The capability maturity model and CASE 2007 ISJ Mathiassen and Sørensen 42 Learning failure in information systems development 1996 Lyytinen and Robey 41 1999 40 IS process innovations SW‐CMM implementation is Rational persuasion was used to convince the product the context of the study managers of the merits of the CMM‐based project management practices to the overall management of ITC’s software product line, as well as the importance of ensuring that project managers develop the relevant competence via the education initiative Rational‐choice N/A Empirical Organizational Influence Process An IS implementation Team implementing SW‐CMM Main Supports SEI’s assertion that developing a customizable software development process is an important objective of software process maturity which leads to high‐performing organizations. Rational‐choice CMM‐(Predictability)‐>Competitive Performance Empirical (Survey) Software Process Improvement (as a theory) MISQ The Effects of Customizability and Reusability on Perceived Process and Competitive Performance of Software Firms Main JIT Nidumolu and Knotts Using organizational influence processes to overcome IS implementation barriers: lessons from a longitudinal case study of SPI implementation 1999 Ngwenyama and Nielsen 45 2014 44 100 software firms The CMM additionally describes several characteristics that establish the level of software process maturity (Paulk et al. 1993). It is difficult in practice to explicitly consider a long list of process‐ oriented characteristics to clearly describe the extent to which a software development approach is process‐oriented. In order to study the performance impacts of process oriented approaches, this study therefore focuses instead on some important objectives of process orientation that link the characteristics with perceived process and competitive performance. Performance is enhanced by establishing uniform performance criteria across projects (standardization of performance criteria) while giving each project team the authority to make decisions with respect to methods {decentralization of methods). ‐ IS research also suggests that software development teams are more effective if team members have greater control over how they undertake their work, especially if their task requires high levels of technical expertise[27, 62]. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one reason for Microsoft's effectiveness in developing software is the significant discretion that functional experts such as program managers, developers, and testers have over development methods in projects ‐ The work of Orlikowski148] is an exception that takes a critical view of the deployment of universal standards. She quotes a manager in a software development firm that had instituted a very standardized development approach as joking that "they send you halfway around the world and because of the common way of doing things and the common training and knowledge, your only requirement is to be shown the coffee machine and the toilet, and you're productive" Clearly, this approach overlooks the presence of contextual differences and affects outcomes by assuming a one size fits all approach. ‐ Software development process performance is positively related to competitive performance Rational‐choice CMM (predictable, flexible processes)‐>competitive performance Empirical (survey) Control literature 56 software firms Peripheral CMM is mentioned as an example of engineering principles applied to system development systems development have been dominated by the view that the application of engineering principles will lead to a more manageable, predictable, and disciplined systems development process with consistent performance outcomes. Rational‐choice N/A Empirical (survey) Model development 60 software organizations Peripheral CMM is mentioned as an example of software development methods Today we find refined methods with different strengths (for example, the process‐centered Unified Software Process, Jacobson et al. 1999, and the more comprehensive and more formal Capability‐Maturity‐ Model, CMMI, Paulk et al. 1995 and Ahern et al.2001, which covers virtually all organizational aspects of IT development). Rational‐choice CMM applications (as incremental and iterative methodology) Design Infrastructuring JAIS Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology Main JAIS Pipek and Wulf Managing the Complementarity of Knowledge Integration and Process Formalization for Systems Development Performance 2009 JMIS Patnayakuni et al. 48 The Matrix of Control: Combining Process and Structure Approaches to Managing Software Development 2006 Nidumolu and Subramani 47 2004 46 Implementation of groupware infrastructure in a German state government Mixed results in terms of employees’ attitudes and perceptions. Examples of counter‐intuitive results were lower professional efficacy and lower job satisfaction in organizations at CMM Level 3, in comparison with organizations at CMM Level 1. ‐ Although anecdotal reports and the scant empirical studies to date suggest job attitudes and perceptions are more positive for employees in organizations at higher levels of software process maturity, we found evidence of a more complex picture. ‐ Our findings challenge prevalent beliefs and therefore position the IS community for needed research regarding realities of software process innovation for the IS professional. Rational‐choice CMM‐>IS employees’ professional efficacy, job satisfaction, role ambiguity Empirical (survey) Control Theory 736 IS professionals in 10 organizations at varying levels of the CMM Main The article makes an analogy between United State’s loss of market share in hardware manufacturing, and a possible similar scenario in software development. ‐ Promotes adoption of CMM within the USA. In 1987, he unveiled a system for assessing and improving software quality. Called the capability maturity model (CMM), it has proved its value time and again. For example, in 1990 the cost of quality at Raytheon Electronics Systems was almost 60% of total software‐production costs. It fell to 15% in 1996, thanks to CMM, and has since dipped below 10%. Rational‐choice CMM‐>Software Quality Commentary N/A US software firms Peripheral CMM is mentioned in the literature review as an enabler of offshoring. It is also used in describing sample characteristics. ‐ These offshoring decisions have been triggered not only by lower labor costs but also by Six Sigma quality control systems and process capabilities, such as Level‐5 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) certifications, of leading offshore vendors (Kaiser and Hawk 2004). ‐ We empirically test our hypotheses using a sample of 155 strategic IS projects that were offshore by U.S. firms to a major Indian vendor with Level‐5 CMMi certification. Fashion CMM ‐> Offshoring decisions Cites extant literature agency theory a longitudinal field study of 155 offshore IS projects managed by 22 project leaders Peripheral Sample Characteristic given that all the projects Included in our sample come from a single vendor that remained certified as capability maturity model (CMM) level 5 […] it is reasonable to assume that the level of risk management is controlled for in our setting. Rational‐choice CMM‐>risk management Empirical behavioral decision theory JMIS Managers' judgments of performance in IT services outsourcing Main MISQ Ramachandran and Gopal Offshore information systems project success: the role of social embeddedness and cultural characteristics 2010 Business Week Rai al. 52 Will Bugs Eat Up the US Lead in Software 2009 MISQ Port 51 IS Employee Attitudes and Perceptions at Varying Levels of Software Process Maturity 1999 Ply et al. 50 2012 49 85 outsourced software development projects The paper proposes a learning mediated the effect of the CMM processes on offshore software development productivity and quality. The authors describe how the key process areas of CMM could be potentially utilized as a platform to launch beneficial learning routines in an offshore software development context. ‐ Although software process improvement initiatives based on normative process maturity models, such as the CMM, have been widely deployed by offshore software firms, the efficacy of such initiatives to counter the challenges of work dispersion in offshore software development remains an open empirical question. ‐ Results indicate that investments in structured processes mitigate the negative effects of work dispersion in offshore software development. We also find that the effect of software process improvement initiatives is mediated through investments in process‐based learning activities. Rational‐choice CMM Investment‐>Learning Investment‐ >Offshore Software Project Performance Empirical (archival data) Organizational Learning 42 offshore software projects of a large firm that operates at the CMM level‐5 process maturity. Main A quality‐oriented organizational system for software development is developed. The proposed system addresses some of the shortcomings of CMM, identified in the paper. ‐ Anecdotal evidence suggests that organizations implementing CMM‐based software process improvement have realized gains in development cycle time and programmer productivity. Reports also suggest that organizations face difficulties in adhering to the sequence, as recommended by CMM, in which changes to the development process needs to be implemented (Card 1991: Pfleeger 1996;Saiedian and Kuzara 1995) ‐ The lack of theory informing the conceptualization of the CMM stages raises questions about the rationale for the suggested sequencing to develop process capabilities. Limited attention has been devoted to define process management, identify and define its constitutive dimensions, and develop reliable and valid measurement instruments for each of these dimensions. ‐ IS developers could perceive process based approaches as deskilling their job and increasing managerial control over systems development tasks. Rational‐choice (debunking) Alternative to CMM Empirical (survey) TQM as a theory 105 federal and state government agencies Main Key constructs and a measurement model are developed for quality management in IS development. Similar to Ravichandranand Rai (2000), a critical assessment of CMM is performed. ‐ we believe that the difficulties encountered by organizations in implementing CMM‐based process improvements can be partly attributed to the limited attention paid in the CMM model to the organizational drivers of quality including the management infrastructure of IS units and IS management leadership. Rational‐choice (debunking) Alternative to CMM Empirical (survey) TQM as a theory JMIS Total Quality Management in Information Systems Development: Key Constructs and Relationships Main MISQ Ravichandranand Rai Quality Management in Systems Development: An Organizational System Perspective 1999 MISQ Ravichandranand Rai 55 Work Dispersion, Process‐Based Learning, and Offshore Software Development Performance 2000 Ramasubbu et al. 54 2008 53 105 federal and state government agencies CMM is mentioned as a Academic evidence on commonly used reputation mechanism for rating metrics to rate vendors such as capability maturity vendor (with mixed findings) models and ISO certification is also mixed (Banerjee and Duflo 2000, Gopal and Gao 2009). Evaluating trading partners through a network perspective may provide an alternate metric for vendor evaluation. Rational‐Choice CMM is not sufficient for vendor selection Empirical (archival) CMM is mentioned as a symbol of quality Four years prior to the start of our fieldwork, Indshore was certified to be at level five of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software development, an achievement carrying much weight within the global IT offshoring environment and commonly interpreted as a ‘top‐quality’ benchmark for vendor organizations. ‐ “I find it irritating that they don’t even seem to recognize us as a legitimate entity. We are CMM Level‐5 for god’s sake.” Fashion CMM + other symbols (knowledge management project system) ‐> quality signal Empirical Social Capital Theory postcolonial theory 22,039 outsourcing contracts implemented between 1989 and 2008 Peripheral Peripheral The paper uses five theoretical models ‐ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), TAM2, Perceived Characteristics of Innovating (PCI), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and the Model of Personal Computer Utilization (MPCU)‐ to explain individual‐level adoption and acceptance of software development methodologies. CMM is mentioned as an under‐ utilized framework in software engineering. ‐ Because the CMM assessment process is generally voluntary and the participants are self‐selected, it is projected that the true industry percentage of Level‐1 organizations is closer to 75 percent. ‐ More than 75 percent of organizations assessed at Level‐1 never return to have a reassessment, suggesting the initial attempt to adopt/develop a methodology may have been abandoned. Rational‐choice Empirical (survey) Several IT adoption theories CMM is characterized as a SW‐CMM model they studied defines only a generic method that needs tailoring set of practices that reflect “best” organizational practices of organizations that develop large software systems for government agencies. Yet, in order to appropriate these practices, organizations must significantly tailor them prior to their application (Ginsberg and Quinn, 1995). Rational‐choice Implicit: Method adoption‐>CMM (higher maturity) N/A 128 developers from a Fortune 100 company Peripheral Conceptual (with example Model development JAIS Managing Evolutionary Method Engineering by Method Rationale Peripheral IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Rossi et al. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models 2004 EJIS Riemenschneider et al. 59 Information technology offshoring in India: a postcolonial perspective 2002 ISR Ravishankar et al. 58 Social Capital and Contract Duration in Buyer‐Supplier Networks for Information Technology Outsourcing 2013 Ravindran et al. 57 2014 56 IS development one Indian vendor organization CMM concepts inspired refining the research model Rational‐choice CMM inspirations Empirical (multiple case studies) Product–Process Matrix Internet application development in nine varied firms including both start‐ups and established “brick and mortar” companies Peripheral CMM is only mentioned as a Sample: All the chosen contextual factor in vendors had capability maturity model (CMM) level 5 selecting the sample. certification Rational‐choice N/A Control Theory The paper challenges linear representation of time in process models like CMM ‐ Intrinsic to ‘line’ [in the straight‐line perspective of time] is sequence and linearity; notions evident in threshold process models such as the Capability Maturity Model and stage‐wise structured development methodologies ‐ If all development activities are predefined, as advocated in various process models, this may leave little room for opportunity and the creative fruits that flow from opportunity, such as enhanced features, aesthetics and learning. Rational‐choice Alternative to CMM Empirical (survey) Empirical (case study) 160 offshore ISD projects executed by Indian vendors Peripheral Structuration Theory A computer games studio in Singapore Peripheral CMM was seen as important Beta’s business model was based on rigorous for winning client trust and software development processes. To achieve securing orders technical excellence, it invested a great deal of resources and manpower in Capability Maturity Model Integrated certification, which was seen as important for winning client trust and securing orders. Fashion CMM ‐> client trust, securing orders Empirical (multiple case study) Resource Dependence Theory JIT How do IT outsourcing vendors respond to shocks in client demand? A resource dependence perspective Peripheral ISJ Su et al A temporal perspective of the computer game development process 2014 JMIS Stacey and Nandhakumar 63 Contract Performance in Offshore Systems Development: Role of Control Mechanisms 2009 MISQ Srivastava and Teo 62 Aligning Software Processes with Strategy 2012 Slaughter et al 61 2006 60 ‐ Software development can test and challenge the general theories derived from the experience of making physical products. Indeed, there is a long tradition of considering software development from the perspective of manufacturing (e.g., TQM and CMM, software factories, component‐based development) […] from manufacturing to examine and understand software development issues. ‐ We further refined the development process category using software development reference models, such as the CMM™ to help identify people‐ related, practices‐related, and architecture‐related concepts. five pairs of relationships between Chinese vendors and their Japanese clients CMM (different levels)‐>IS implementation strategy, IS project outcomes (software quality, project performance) Empirical (case study) Software Process Improvement (as a Theory) ‐ In prior IT outsourcing arrangements, methodologies such as structured requirement definition and frameworks such as the capability maturity model (CMM) were used to describe complex processes and articulate business requirements, thus achieving a demarcation of task and knowledge boundaries. That is, the client has the knowledge about the organization while the provider understands the technological aspects of the system, and each knows where expertise resides in the other organization. CMM‐> demarcation of task and knowledge boundaries Empirical (survey) 154 respondents from 23 software providers SaaS providers ‐ Process maturity is one of the central constructs. ‐ Propositions predict enhancing process maturity leads to higher outsourcing flexibility. Higher process maturity is positively associated with an organization’s outsourcing flexibility in terms of robustness, with an organization’s outsourcing flexibility in terms of modifiability, and an organization’s outsourcing flexibility in terms of ease of exit. CMM ‐> Outsourcing Flexibility (in terms of robustness, df bl d Rational‐choice Conceptual N/A CMM related measures are Maturity ensures that the process is documented, used as a proxy for business managed, measured, controlled, and continually process modularity improved (CMMI 2002). ‐ Many of the offshore service providers in India are now at Level 4 or 5 in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which reflects processes optimized for cost and quality (Prahalad and Krishnan 2004). ‐ Process modularity (MOD). The measures of this construct are grounded in the modular systems theory (Baldwin and Clark 1997, Malhotra et al. 2005, Sanchez and Mahoney 1996, Schilling 2000, Simon 1962) and the literatures on product/process life cycle and maturity (Anderson and Zeithaml 1984, Benner 2002, CMMI 2002, Harter et al. 2000). CMM (modularity) ‐> choice of sourcing mechanism Empirical (survey) Modular Systems Theory, Transaction Cost Economics Rational‐choice ‐ Mentioned as relevant factor in literature review and qualitative items ‐ Investment in process standardization such as the CMM, ISO is among the contract choices in the provision of SaaS Fashion 2007 Rational‐choice ISR The choice of sourcing mechanisms for business processes 212 IEEE Computer Society members with an expressed interest in software engineering Peripheral 2006 67 Our research study findings are that CMM levels do have different impacts on IS implementation strategies, software quality, and software project performance. Higher CMM levels are associated with differing IS implementation strategies and improved software quality and project performance. We also conclude that certain IS implementation strategies have a significant impact on software quality and project performance. Main 2010 JAIS Managing Flexibility in Outsourcing The paper empirically examines the impact of organization’s CMM level on the selection of certain IS implementation strategies and how CMM and the IS implementation strategies impact software quality and project performance. Overall, the results illustrate positive impacts of CMM on (subjective measures of) IS project performance. Peripheral 2007 JMIS 66 Tanriverdi et al. 65 Main Journal of Systems and Software Multitask agency, modular architecture, and task disaggregation in SaaS Tan and Sia Subramanian et al Software quality and IS project performance improvements from software development process maturity and IS implementation strategies Susarla et al. 64 Outsourcing 93 medium and large U.S. firms CMM is used as a control variable We controlled for vendor capability maturity level (CMM level), which is a proxy for vendor project management capability Rational‐choice CMM‐>project management capability Empirical (survey and archival data) Control theory 120 outsourced systems development projects Peripheral CMM mentioned as a method used by US firms instead of engaging in sophisticated decomposition of projects to be outsourced [US Firms] write more comprehensive formal contracts for outsourced projects, and enforce sophisticated process controls and formal capability maturity model (CMM) process guidelines in outsourced development work. Therefore, requirements specificability might not influence their outsourcing decisions as it did for Japanese firms. Forced‐selection US firms enforce CMM Empirical (conjoint analysis) agency theory, knowledge‐based theory, transaction cost economics 1,008 project‐level decisions collected from 33 Japanese and 55 U.S. managers. Main The paper reports on the perceived performance outcomes of CMM adoption among software groups in a multinational organization. Perceived positive outcomes in CMM level 3 groups include increase predictability, reduce defects, increase productivity, and reduce lead time. [S]tatistical analysis shows that moving across the CMM‐levels is, seen from the point of view of improvement drivers, not a continuous process. Somehow CMM‐level three seems to be different and seems to require more attention. This might be explained by the complexity inherent to the higher CMM‐levels, as opposed to e.g. the more basic project management skills required to obtain level two. Rational‐choice CMM‐> Predictability(+), defects(‐), productivity(+), lead time(‐), cooperation(+), staff motivation(‐), reusability(+) Empirical (survey) Software Process Improvement (as a theory) Peripheral The consulting company involved used CMM guidelines The ICT was implemented by a CMM (Capability Maturity Model) level‐5 certified information technology (IT) consulting firm in India. The consulting firm followed a standard formal implementation strategy and methodology following the guidelines of CMM level‐5. Rational‐choice N/A Empirical (case study) Theory development ISR Implementation of an Information and Communication Technology in a Developing Country: A Multimethod Longitudinal Study in a Bank in India Peripheral Software Quality Journal Venkatesh et al. Targets, drivers and metrics in software process improvement: Results of a survey in a multinational organization 2016 JMIS Trienekens et al. 71 A Comparison of Transaction Cost, Agency, and Knowledge‐ Based Predictors of IT Outsourcing Decisions: A U.S.– Japan Cross‐Cultural Field Study 2007 JMIS Tiwana and Bush 70 Systems development ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive roles of formal and informal controls 2007 Tiwana 69 2010 68 49 software group managers of a multinational organization (Philips) In‐depth interviews of approximately 40 members of top management, 160 line employees, and 200 customers CMM mentioned as an example of process goals ‐ UTILCO embarked on a process improvement program with the objective of improving its processes on the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW‐CMM) scale. ‐ The two organizations studied were also concerned about process goals due to their interest in maintaining and improving process maturity. Rational‐choice CMM implementation Empirical (two case studies) Theory development (Grounded theory) Main The paper develops a unified model of ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI, which can be used to help ISO‐certified organizations implement CMMI. ‐ If an ISO‐certified organization wishes to improve its processes continuously, implementing CMMI would be a good choice, as it provides more detailed practices for process improvement than the ISO standards. Rational‐choice CMM ‐> Process improvement Conceptual Software Process Improvement (as a theory) Main The article provides an overview of widespread adoption of CMM not only among Indian firms but also in other countries such as China, Chile, Egypt, and Vietnam. ‐ "If you don't have [the quality certification], you're not even considered," says Dion Wiggins, a Hong Kong‐based analyst at the Stamford, Conn., consultancy Gartner Inc. "It's a must‐have." ‐ Now the company is profitable and looking to expand. When Bamboo began, it found it could bill its customers at only $14 an hour. After accreditation, its rate shot up to $20 an hour. In wooing new clients, Mr. Kim says, CMM is "the first thing we mention and the last thing we mention." ‐ Critics of CMM complain that companies boast of being CMM‐rated when perhaps only one or two divisions have earned the distinction. Multiple (Fashion, Fad) CMM‐>Export Commentary N/A Quality lures software outsourcing Peripheral A unified model for the implementation of both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI by ISO‐ certified organizations 2005 Zamiska Software Process Tailoring: An Empirical Investigation 2006 JMIS The Journal of Systems dS f Yoo et al. 74 2007 Xu and Ramesh 73 The Wall Street Journal 72 an e‐business systems development division in a public organization and a large IS development organization in a utility company Review of existing frameworks (ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI) Anecdotes from international software companies