Information Systems Development: Can There be Conflict?

Information Systems Development: Can There be "Good" Conflict? Kenneth J. Trimmer Rosann Webb Collins Richard P. Will J. Ellis Blanton Information Sys...
Author: Lydia Carter
0 downloads 0 Views 466KB Size
Information Systems Development: Can There be "Good" Conflict? Kenneth J. Trimmer Rosann Webb Collins Richard P. Will J. Ellis Blanton Information Systems and Information Systems and Information Systems and Information Systems and Decision Sciences Decision Sciences Decision Sciences Decision Sciences University of South Florida University of South Florida University of South Florida University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CIS 1040 CIS 1040 CIS 1040 CIS 1040 Tampa, Florida 33620 Tampa, Florida 33620 Tampa, Florida 33620 Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-6767 (813) 974-6754 (813) 974-6757 (813) 974-6758 trimmer @ coba.usf.edu rcolllins @ coba. usf.edu eblanton@ rwill@ coba.usf.edu coba.usf.edu

Abstract the systems development life cycle (Curtis, Krasner & Iscoe, 1988). Curtis, et al., (1988) discuss the use of teams in a field study that presents a layered behavioral model for software development. In their model, Curtis, et al., (1988) position the development team between the individual and the project. The authors state "when the development task exceeds the capacity of a single software engineer, a team is convened" (p. 1269). Furthermore, in larger software projects, multiple teams are present, representing system life cycle phases of proposal, definition, development, delivery and maintenance (Curtis, et al., 1988). In addition, conflict regarding system requirements can be exacerbated when a variety of organizational functions are represented on the development team (Curtis, et at., 1988).

Successful information systems development (ISD) is a perennial concern of both practitioners and researchers. As the scope of ISD expands to provide enterprise-wide and web-based systems, the set of individuals involved in ISD includes many whose responsibilities and experiences cross organizational functions. The involvement of this diverse set of individuals in ISD can lead to increased levels of conflict within the development group. However, not all conflict is detrimental to organizational tasks. This paper presents conflict and the resulting conflict resolution as a facet of team development. Conflict can take two general forms. The first form of conflict, interpersonal, has a negative or dysfunctional impact on group tasks and relations, and can lead to turnover. The second form, task conflict, has a positive impact on group tasks. The need for ISD teams to recognize different types of conflict and successfully resolve them is presented within the context of an overall model of team and systems development.

1. INTRODUCTION Issues pertaining to information systems development (ISD) are an ongoing concern for both IS managers and researchers (Brancheau, Janz & Wetherbe, 1996). Many of the issues have been cited in each SIM study since the initial survey in 1980 (Brancheau, et al., 1996). One continuing issue in the SIM studies is the effectiveness of systems development. This paper presents an existing framework (Pelled, 1996) to examine the potential impact of conflict on ISD teams. Teams are used to develop and deliver ISs along the continuum of Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed tbr profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the thll citation on the first page. To copy other,~4se, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. SIGCPR 2000 Evanston Illinois USA Copyri ght ACM 2000 1-58113-212-x/00/04...$5,00

ISD teams generally contain a mix of IS professionals (such as designers and programmers) and organizational representatives (ranging from managers to users) (Curtis, et al., 1988). ISD teams with members representing different organizational functions have been investigated by a number of IS researchers (Powers & Dickson, 1973; Mills, 1976; Henderson & Lee, 1992; Jones & Harrison, 1996; Janz, Wetherbe, Davis & Noe, 1997; and Guinan, Cooprider & Faraj, 1998). In a recent study, Mirani and Lederer (1998) provide evidence for the use of project development teams containing a wide range of functional and technical expertise. As the scope of ISD expands to include a variety of stakeholders, the composition of development teams becomes more diverse, involving users and management from throughout the organization (Mirani & Lederer, 1998). Organizational units with a varied functional composition among team members are frequently referred to as cross-functional teams (CFTs) (Pinto, Pinto & Prescott, 1992; Parker, 1994). One characteristic of CFTs is the existence of conflict (Pinto. et. at., 1994; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995). The conflict between user departments discussed by Curtis, et at. (1988) has also been identified as a risk factor in software development, particularly in projects outside of the United States (Keil, Cule, Lyytinen & Schmidt, 1998). Furthermore, 1SD is

174

negatively impacted by conflict and positively influenced by conflict resolution (Robey, Smith and Vijayasarathy, 1993).

example, ISD projects typically have non-IS professional involvement early and late in the SDLC (Zmud & Cox, 1979; White & Leifer, 1986).

Over time, ISD teams improve their ability to successfully resolve conflict (Robey & Farrow, 1982). The ability to successfully resolve conflict is a requirement of teamwork (Stevens & Campion, 1994) and a characteristic of effective teams (Sundstrom, DeMeuse & Futrell, 1990). Because ISD teams develop similar to other small groups (McGrew, Bilotta and Deeney, 1999), the issue of conflict and conflict resolution and 1SD will be presented within the fi-amework of a model of team development.

The model represents team effectiveness with two dimensions: performance and viability. Performance of the ISD team can be measured by efficiency, effectiveness, and timeliness (Jones & Harrison, 1996) with evaluations performed by stakeholders and/or team members (Guinan, Cooprider & Faraj, 1998). Viability of the team is represented by changes in the dimensions of team development. Clear roles, well-understood norms, and high levels of cohesion typify a team that has a viable group structure (Sundstrom, et al., 1990). Interpersonal dimensions of team viability include quality communications, cooperative problem solving, and resolving interpersonal conflicts, the interpersonal dimensions of teamwork (Stevens & Canapion, 1994).

2. A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING ISD TEAM DEVELOPMENT Models of team development illustrate the changes that occur in teams over time (McGrath, 1991; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Gersick, 1988, 1989). This time oriented model of teanl development has been adapted to ISD (McGrew, et al., 1999, Janz, 1999). Team development has a moderating effect on ISD work outcomes (Janz, 1999).



The development of a team is conditioned by its organizational context (Sundstrom, et al., 1990). This context includes culture, tasks, mission clarity, autonomy, a performance/feedback loop, rewards / recognition, training and the physical environment (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Within this context, each team develops based upon interdependent relationships with other organizational units at its boundary and team effectiveness• The relationship between boundaries, ISD team development and ISD team effectiveness, adapted from the model of Sundstrom and his colleagues (1990) is presented in Figure 1.

Boundaries • ISD Team Differentiation • ISD Team Integration

E r

I

The reciprocal interdependence between boundaries, effectiveness and team development illustrates the dynamics involved as the team evolves over time. Sundstrom et al. (1990), consider team development to occur over sequences of time, embracing both Tuckman (1965) and Gersick's (1988, 1989) research. As a team develops, it should become more effective. Sundstrom et al., (1990) depict the structural aspect of team development as containing three constructs, norms, roles, and cohesion. Barker (1993) argues that workers essentially create their own sense of norms, which become a shared value consensus. The norms of the team may supercede those of the organization, causing team members to potentially identify more strongly with the team than the principal organization (Barker, 1993). The second component of team structure, roles, is basic to small

"l

ISD Team Effectiveness • Performance • Viability

F.-[ ISD Team Development

[~



Interpersonal Processes • Group Structure

"1

Figure 1 Revised Model of Team Development group research (Alderfer, 1987). Clarity among team member roles is an element of Gladstein's (1984) team structure. In the team context, an individual's role is the set of personal and group expectations for the individual's performance (Pandey & Kumar, 1997). ISD team members fill a wide range of roles, such as managers, designers, domain reps, stakeholders, programmers, programmer/analysts, other analysts, and users (Henderson & Lee, 1992; Jones & Harrison, 1996; Purvis & Sambamurthy 1997, Janz et al. 1997; Guinan et al., 1998; Janz, 1999).

Figure 1 represents the ISD team as having reciprocal interdependence (Thompson, 1967) with organizational boundaries and team effectiveness• Boundaries impact team development in two ways. First, because the team is a subset of the overall organization, it must satisfy the needs of a larger organizational system. This relationship between the team and external units of the organization exists on a continuum, which, depending on the impact of the task upon the organization and the integration between the 1SD team and external units can range from high to low (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Likewise, the differentiation of the team, can vary by the "degree of specialization, independence, and autonomy ... in relation to other work units" (Sundstrom et al., 1990, p. 124), causing the team to potentially have a wide range of diverse individuals. For

Cohesion, the final aspect of team structure (Sundstrom, et al., 1990), has been theorized to impact ISD outcomes (Jones & Harrison, 1996). Jones & Harrison (1996) discuss two dimensions of cohesion. The first is defined as the individual

175

decision-making conferences in 1949. They defined affective conflict as "deriving from the emotional, affective aspects of the group's interpersonal relations" (p. 369). Conversely, substantive conflict is "rooted in the substance of the task which the group is undertaking" (p. 369). Pelled's (1996) model of conflict as an intervening process presents two forms of conflict, affective and substantive. These two types of conflict correspond to the dimensions discussed by Deutsch (1969). Research is providing support for types of conflict represented in the model and their corresponding outputs (Jehn, 1997). In addition, relationships exist between classes of organizational diversity and conflict (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997).

perception of the degree to which they belong to a team (merely a member, part of, or belonging to the team). The second dimension discussed by Jones & Harrison (1996) is emotional the members' happiness and excitement about the team. The two factors indicate that a cohesive team 'hangs together'. Like the structural dimension of teams, the interpersonal dimension also develops over time (Sundstrom, et al., 1990). Stevens and Campion (1994) provide insight into interpersonal dimensions with their knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) needed for teamwork. Their construct of teamwork has a dimension for interpersonal relations. This dimension consists of communication, collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution, all discussed as part of team development by Sundstrom, et al., (1990). Sundstrom et al., (1990) consider maturation of the four dimensions as a form of team effectiveness viability.

Deutsch (1969) envisioned conflict as multi-dimensional construct, specifically discussing constructive and destructive conflict. Productive conflict benefits from cooperative problemsolving at a group level, or what Deutsch refers to as 'cooperative conflict resolution' (p. 23). Instead of cooperation, competition is a driving force behind destructive conflict in Deutsch's schema, causing the disagreement to escalate.

-

The model (Figure 1) illustrates the real world dilemma in investigating the team in an organization. By using the concept of reciprocal interdependence (Thompson, 1967), Figure 1 represents the complexity inherent in clearly measuring the impact of boundaries on team development and team effectiveness - they are correlated with each other. To investigate the impact of diversity of CFTs and ISD team performance, a more focused framework will be utilized. The next section presents a discussion of the role of diversity, conflict and performance.

Pelled and Adler (1994), in a field study of multifunctional product development teams, focused on the intergroup conflict between the different groups represented by team members. Examining processes and the resulting conflict induced by functional diversity, Pelled and Adler (1994) developed a model that proposed task and emotional conflict impacted functional and dysfunctional outcomes respectively.

3. CFTS AND CONFLICT There is a tendency for high levels of diversity due to specialization to exist at the early and late phases of the SDLC (White & Leifer, 1986). Organizational units with high levels of diversity, or CFTs are suited to complex tasks (Pelled, 1995), such as ISD (Borovits, et al., 1990; Parker, 1994). Because they frequently contain sets of members with different organizational perspectives, the climate in CFTs is ripe for the development of conflict (Pinto, Pinto and Prescott, 1992; Parker, 1994; Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996). The resolution of conflict is contained in the interpersonal dimension of team development, as represented in Figure 1.

Five teams in three companies provide the basis for the grounded theory provided by Pelled and Adler (1994). In discussing the impact of functional diversity on conflict, Pelled and Adler (1994) provide an example of an incident regarding the initial stages of an R&D project. In this project, the contrast between the engineers and customers perceptions of initial strategies is presented. The engineers could rapidly make design changes. This caused them to create an initial design and then modify it based on customer input. The customers, on the other hand, believed that their initial input was essential. This was caused, in part, by the customers' experience with how their stakeholders responded to initial designs.

The resolution of conflict is considered as a requirement of teamwork (Stevens & Campion, 1994), and evidence of a viable team (Sundstrom, et al., 1990). One of the dimensions of conflict resolution identified by Stevens and Campion (1994) addresses "The knowledge, skills and abilities to recognize the type and source of conflict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy" (p. 508). The next section focuses on the discussion of conflict and its impact on ISD.

Incidents such as this are causes of task conflict. Ideally, task conflict is resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties through the process of group consensus. A large body of small group literature addresses the issue of group conflict (Pruitt, 1998; Levine & Moreland, 1998; Brewer & Brown, 1998; van de Vliet, 1998). Harnessing the separate dimensions of conflict can provide the cross-functional ISD team with the opportunity to improve its performance. The next section provides a discussion of the impact of conflict on ISD performance.

4. CONFLICT

5. ISD and CONFLICT

What is conflict? van de Vliert (1998) considers it a situation between two parties (individuals and/or groups) in which one party "feels it is being obstrucated or irritated by the other" (p. 351). Conflict is interpreted by individuals based upon their prior experiences with individuals and situations (Pinkley, 1990). Conflict is commonly viewed as a behavior, such as arguments, or source of behavior, such as opposing preferences (Pruitt, 1998).

Robey's investigation of conflict and ISD began with an international study of 130 users in eight different organizations (Robey & Farrow, 1982). Perceptions of four variables: participation, influence, conflict and conflict resolution, were each measured by Robey and Farrow (1982). The respondents in this study were questioned about projects they were involved with and that had recently been implemented over the prior two years.

4.1. Types of Conflict

Robey & Farrow (1982) cited the work of Deutsch (1969) as the source for their concept of conflict. They focused on one dimension of conflict, what Deutsch (1969) called constructive

Guetzkow and Gow (1954) identified two forms of conflict, affective and substantive, in a study of business and government

176

Figure 2. This model is a subset of the team development and effectiveness dimensions shown in Figure 1.

conflict. Subsequent development of this model, and its impact on ISD was performed by Robey and his colleagues (Robey, Franz and Farrow, 1989; Robey, et al., 1993).

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the types of conflict, viability and ISD Performance. Relationship conflict has a negative impact on team viability, ultimately culminating in turnover. The first research proposition addresses the relationship between relationship conflict and turnover:

Extending the initial research, Robey et al., (1989) performed a longitudinal study of a company developing an auto insurance system. Using multiple methods, they collected data eight times over a twenty-two month period. In the original study, conflict resolution was the dependent variable (Robey & Farrow, 1982). Robey et al. (1993) expanded this perspective with an investigation of the impact of participation-influence-conflictand conflict resolution on systems success (Robey et al., 1993).

Research Proposition 1: ISD teams with high levels of relationship conflict will have high levels of turnover.

The measures of conflict were adapted by Barki and Hartwick (1994) in their study of influence, user participation, conflict and conflict resolution. In their analysis, Barki and Hartwick (1994) state "it quickly became apparent that the three-item measure of conflict used by Robey et al., was multidimensional in nature (p. 433)." Barki and Hartwick (1994) identified one of Robey's dimensions as disagreement. They argue that disagreements are the "divergence of interests, opinions and goals" (p. 434), and may not develop into conflict. In response to Barki and Hartwick, Robey (1994) called for further investigation of the team process and conflict.

Research Proposition 2: ISD teams with high levels of unresolved task conflict will have high levels of turnover.

Task conflict also has an impact on ISD team turnover. Unresolved task conflict can also lead to turnover, resulting in the second research proposition:

Turnover of the ISD team negatively effects overall team effectiveness. Abdel-Hamid (1989) and Abdel-Hamid and Madnick (1991) have discussed the impact of turnover on ISD. This leads to the third research proposition: Research Proposition 3: ISD teams with high levels of turnover will have lower team effectiveness. The resolution of task conflict can provide the team with improved outputs. Positive associations between task conflict and team performance have been observed by Jehn (1995, 1997), Pelled et al., (1997, 1999), and Jehn et al., (1997). Task conflict, when resolved in a win-win environment, can add enhancements to ISD and help insure project success by developing stakeholder involvement and acceptance.

To gain a better understanding of the impact of conflict on ISD, the multidimensional nature of conflict will be discussed. The next section presents a discussion of the different dimensions of conflict (Guetzkow & Gow, 1954; Deutsch, 1969; Pelled & Adler, 1994), and their potential impact on ISD.

Relationship Conflict

Lack of Team Viability • Turnover

+

flict I Team Effectiveness [ • Quality of ISD Outputs d • Qnantitative Measures

+ Task Conflict

[ I

Conflict Resolution

r l

Figure 2: Impact of Types of Conflict on ISD Performance However, there is a non-linear relationship between task conflict and performance. Too much task conflict, and the team can become embroiled in it, losing sight of overall ISD goals. In the worst situation, this can lead to total project failure - over capital budget, over time budget, and lacking functionality if delivered at all. Jehn (1997) represents the impact of task conflict on performance as a convex relationship. Too little and the conflict has little or trivial impact. Too much and the team becomes

6. PROPOSITIONS FOR RESEARCH ON CONFLICT IN ISD The impact of ISD performance will be considered in two dimensions, effectiveness and viability. To better identify the impact of the two types of conflict on the two dimensions of performance, a model adapted from Pelled (1996) is presented in

177

dysfunctional. The ability to resolve moderate levels of task conflict leads to the final research proposition:

Curtis, B., H. Krasner, and Iscoe. N. "A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems", Communications of theACM, 31(11), 1998, pp. 1268-1287.

Research proposition 4: ISD teams with moderate levels of task conflict will be more effective than ISD teams with either low or high levels of task conflict.

Deutsch, M. "Conflicts: Productive and Destructive." Journal of

Social Issues, (25:1), 1969, pp. 7 - 41. Gersick, C.J. "Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development," Academy of Management Journal, (31:1), 1988, pp. 9 - 41.

Both types of conflict can be reduced by the passage of time (Pelled, 1996). The longer team members are together, the lower their relationship conflict. However, over time, task conflict can also be reduced, with results similar to the impact of groupthink (Janis, 1971). As teams develop, so do their norms. Jehn (1997) found associations between the tolerance (or lack of tolerance) of different forms of conflict and performance. Essentially, teams that encourage the development of task conflict and discourage the development of relationship conflict are more successful.

Gersick, C.J. "Marking Time: Predictable Transitions in Task Groups," Academy of Management Journal, (32:2), 1989, pp. 274-309. Gladstein, D. L. "Groups in Context: A model of Task Group Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, (29:4), 1984, 499-517.

7. Conclusion

Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954). "An Analysis of Conflict in Decision-Making Groups," Human Relations, (7), 1954, pp. 367382.

This paper presents a new perspective on conflict and ISD. ISD professionals and managers need to be able to recognize the different forms of conflict in order to either harness its power, or defuse it. The focus has been on conflict in teams with diverse personnel, responsible for inter-departmental coordination, but can be extended to all ISD teams that work on complex tasks.

Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J.G., Faraj, S. "Enabling Software Development Team Performance During Requirements Definition: A Behavioral Versus Technical Approach," Information Systems Research, (9:2), 1998, pp. 101-125.

Researchers need to investigate the ability of 1SD professionals to distinguish between the different forms of conflict and resolve them. The impact of conflict on ISD, as well as the factors that contribute to the existence should also be considered in the investigation of the different forms of conflict.

Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. "Managing US Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective," Management Science, (38:6), 1992, pp. 757-777. Janis, I.L. "Groupthink," Psychology Today, (5:11), 1971, p. 71.

8. REFERENCES

Janz, B. Self-directed teams in IS: Correlates for improved systems development outcomes, Information & Management, (35), 1999, 171-192.

Abdel-Hamid, T. "A Study of Staff Turnover, Acquisition, and Assimilation and Their Impact on Software Development Cost and Schedule," Journal of Management Information Systems (6:1), 1989, pp. 21-40.

Janz, B.D., Wetherbe, J.C., Davis, G.B., and Noe, R.A. "Reengineering the System Development Process: The Link between Autonomous Teams and Business Process Outcomes", Journal of Management Information Systems, (14:1), 1997, pp. 41-68.

Abdel-Harnid, T. and Madnick, S.E.. Software Project Dynamics : An Integrated Approach, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1991.

Jehn, K. A., "A Multimethod Examination fo the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict", Administrative Science Quarterly, (40), 1995 256-282.

Alderfer, C.P. (1987). "An Intergroup Perspective on Group Dynamics," in J. Lorsch, (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, pp. 190 - 222, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Jehn, K.A., "A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups", Administrative Science Quarterly, (42), 1997, pp. 530-557.

Barker, J.R. "Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, (38), 1993, pp. 408-437

Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C, and Thatcher, S.M.B. "To Agree or not to Agree: The Effects of Congruence, Individual Demographic Dissimilarity, and Conflict on Workgroup Outcomes", The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8:4, October, 1997, pp. 287-305.

Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. "User Participation, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution: The Mediating Roles of Influence" Information Systems Research. (5:4), 1994, pp. 422-438. Borovits, I., Ellis, S., and Yeheskel, O. "Group Processes and the Development of Information Systems: A Social Psychological Perspective" Information & Management, (19:2), 1990, pp. 6572.

Jones, M.C. and Harrison, A.W. "IS project team performance: An empirical assessment," Information & Management, (31:2), 1996, pp. 57-65. Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., and Schmidt, R.C. "A Framework for Identifying Software Project Risks," Communications of the ACM, (41 : 11), 1998, pp. 76 - 83.

Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B.D., and Wetherbe, J.C. "Key Issues in Information Systems Management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi Results," MIS Quarterly, (20:2), 1996, pp.225-242.

Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. "Small Groups" in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. II, eds. Gilbert,D, Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1998, pp. 415-469.

Brewer, M. B. and Brown, R. J. (1998) "Intergroup Relations". in Gilbert, Daniel T., Ed. Fiske, Susan T., Ed., et al The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Mcgraw- Hill, Boston, MA, 1998, p 554-594

178

McGrath, J.E. "Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups," Small Group Research, (22:2), 1991, pp. 147174.

Purvis, R. and Sambamurthy, V. "An Examination of Designer and User Perceptions of JAD and the Traditional IS Design Methodology" Information & Management, (32:3), 1997, pp. 123-135.

McGrew, J.F., Bilotta, J.G., and Deeney, J.M. "Software Team Formation and Decay: Extending the Standard Model for Small Groups," Small Group Research,(30:2), 1999, pp. 209-234.

Robey, D. "Modeling Interpersonal Processes During System Development: Further Thoughts and Suggestions," Information Systems Research, (5:4), 1994, pp. 439 - 445.

Mills, H.D. "Software Development," IEEE Transactions on

Software Engineering, (2:4) 1976.

Robey, D. and Farrow, D.L. "User Involvement in Information System Development: A Conflict Model and Empirical Test," Management Science, (28:1), 1982, pp. 73-85.

Mirani, R. and Lederer, A.L. "An Instrument for Assessing the Organizational Benefits of IS Projects" Decision Sciences, 29(4), 1998, pp. 803 - 838.

Robey, D., Farrow, D.L., and Franz, C.R. "Group Process and Conflict in System Development," Management Science, (35:10), 1989, pp. 1172-1191.

Pandey, S., and Kumar, E.S. "Development of a Measure of Role Conflict," The International Journal of Conflict Management, (8:3), 1997, pp. 187-215.

Robey, D., Smith, L.A. and Vijayasarathy, L.R. "Perceptions of Conflict and Success in Information Systems Development Projects," Journal of Management Information Systems, (10:1), 1993, pp. 123-139.

Parker, G.M. Cross-Functional Teams : Working with Allies, _Enemies, and Other Strangers, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1994. Pelled, L.H. "Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory," Organization Science, (7:6), 1996, pp. 615 - 631.

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A., "The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management (20: 2), 1994, pp. 503-530.

Pelled, L.H. and Adler, P.S. "Antecedents of Intergroup Conflict in Multifunctional Product Development Teams: A Conceptual Model," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (41:1), 1994, pp. 21 - 28.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. "Work Teams: Applications And Effectiveness," American Psychologist (45:2), 1990, pp. 120 - 133.

Pelled, L.H. , Eisenhardt, K.M, and Xin, K.R. "Exploring the Black Box: An analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance," Administrative Science Quarterly, (44:1), 1999, pp. 1-28.

Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action. New York, McGrawHill, 1967. Tuckman, B.W. "Developmental sequence in small groups," Psychological Bulletin, (63), 1965, pp. 384 - 399.

Pmkley, R.L. "Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict" Journal of Applied Psychology, (75:2), 1990, pp 117-126

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M. "Stages of Small-group Development," Group and Organizational Studies, (2), 1977, pp. 419 - 427.

Pinto, J.K and Kharbanda, O. "Project Management and Conflict Resolution" Project Management Journal, (26:4), 1995, pp. 4554.

van de Vliert, E. "Conflict and Conflict Management. in Drenth, Pieter J. D., Ed; Thierry, Henk, Ed; et al Handbook of work and organizational psychology (2nd ed.), Vol. 3: Personnel psychology. Handbook of work and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Psychology Press/Erlbaum (Uk) Taylor & Francis, Hove, England UK 1998, p 351-376

Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K, and Prescott, J.E. "Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team Cross-functional Cooperation," Management Science, (39:10), 1992, pp. 1281 - 1297. Powers, R.F. and Dickson, G.W. "MisProject Management, Myths, Opinions, and Reality," California Management Review, (15:3), 1973, pp. 147- 156.

White, K.B. and Leifer, R. "Research Methodology Information Systems Development Success: Perspectives from Project Team Participants" MIS Quarterly, (10:3), 1986, pp. 214-223.

Pruitt, D., "Social Conflict" in Gilbert, D.T.ed, Fiske, Susan T., Ed; et al. The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Boston, McGraw- Hill, 1998, pp. 470-503.

Zmud, R.W. and Cox, J.F.. "The Implementation Process: A Change Approach," MIS Quarterly, (3:2), 1979, pp. 35-43.

179

Suggest Documents