The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group Process and Conflict in System Development
Abstract
Information system development projects engage organizational members in a process with potential for conflict. Managing such conflicts in project groups is an important but often neglected aspect of systems development. This research assesses group process during the development of an information system in an insurance company, using questionnaires, recorded transcripts of group meetings, interviews, and archival data. We describe the relationships among four variables in a model of conflict—participation, influence, conflict, and conflict resolution—at five different periods over a 22-month period. Our results show that in every time period participation positively affected influence and that influence positively affected both conflict and conflict resolution. These findings are supported by an analysis of communication patterns within four project meetings and by qualitative data collected during the project. The practical implications of conflict and group processes in system development are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Cited by
Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440 · Cited by 1,540
Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · Cited by 1,288
Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams
Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726709355657 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Robey, D., Farrow, D. L., & Franz, C. R.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1989-10
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1172-1191
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W1971341376
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
