CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Information Systems Theories and ImplementationAccounting and Organizational ManagementLegal and Labor Studies

Technology-mediated Control: Case Examples and Research Directions for the Future of Organizational Control

Open access
Cram, W. Alec, Wiener, Martin·2020·Communications of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1cais.04604
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores the emerging topic of technology-mediated control (TMC), which refers to an organization’s using digital technologies to influence workers to behave in a manner consistent with organizational objectives. The popular press has discussed many mobile apps, digital sensors, software algorithms, and other technologies that support, or automate, managerial control processes. Building on the rich history of research on organizational and information systems (IS) control and on ubiquitous technology, we explore how TMC approaches have increasingly begun to replace traditional, face-to-face control relationships. In particular, we analyze four illustrative case examples (UPS, Uber, Rationalizer, and Humanyze) to propose a detailed research agenda for future study in this important new topic area.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1cais.04604

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Algorithmic control of platforms is used to control the behaviour of users on platforms to achieve the platform owners' corporate objectives.

    “Algorithmic control of platforms is used to control the behaviour of users on platforms to achieve the platform owners’ corporate objectives”

    From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Cram et al. 2020

    Section 3.3.2 (Uber; page unavailable) says Uber uses its mobile app to direct drivers’ behavior in support of its platform-based business model. This supports the claim for drivers, but the paper does not establish that platform owners use algorithmic control to direct platform users generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Content creators adapt their behaviour by either avoiding or bowdlerising certain content, approaches that can even be interpreted as self-censorship.

    “Our research shows that content creators adapt their behaviour (cf. Cram et al. 2020; Möhlmann et al. 2021; Wiener et al. 2021) by either avoiding or bowdlerising certain content, approaches that can even be interpreted as self-censorship.”

    From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Cram et al. 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Bock, M., & Wiener, M. (2017). Towards a taxonomy of digital business models-conceptual dimensions and empirical illustrations. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems.
  2. Boslaugh, S. (2007). Secondary data sources for public health: A practical guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Cram, W. A., Brohman, M. K., & Gallupe, R. B. (2016a). Information systems control: A review and framework for emerging information systems processes. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(4), 216-266.
  4. Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512.
  5. Davenport, T. H., Barth, P., & Bean, R. (2012). How "big data" is different. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(1), 43-46.
  6. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393-413.
  7. Djajadiningrat, T., Geurts, L., Munniksma, P. R., Christiaansen, G., & de Bont, J. (2009). Rationalizer: An emotion mirror for online traders. In Proceedings of the Design and Semantics of Form and Movement.
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134-149.
  9. Fernandez, J. M. (2011). A stress-awareness approach to safer decision making in the trading process integrating biometric sensor technology (doctoral thesis). Universidad Carlos III De Madrid.
  10. Gal, U., Jensen, T. B., & Stein, M. K. (2017). People analytics in the age of big data: An agenda for IS research. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems.
  11. Galliers, R., Newell, S., Shanks, G., & Topi, H. (2017). Datification and its human, organizational and societal effects: The strategic opportunities and challenges of algorithmic decision-making. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 185-190.
  12. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
  13. Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., & Keil, M. (2013). Control balancing in information systems development offshoring projects. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1211-1232.
  14. Gulati R., & Singh H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781-814. Volume 46 10.17705/1CAIS.04604 Paper · DOI
  15. Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 907-931.
  16. Heumann, J., Wiener, M., Remus, U., & Mähring, M. (2015). To coerce or to enable? Exercising formal control in a large information systems project. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 337-351.
  17. Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39.
  18. Kavadias, S., Ladas, K., & Loch, C. (2016). The transformative business model. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 91-98.
  19. Kim, G. Trimi, S., & Chung, J. (2014). Big-data applications in the government sector. Communications of the ACM, 57(3), 78-85.
  20. Kirsch, L. J. (1996). The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the systems development process. Organization Science, 7(1), 1-21.
  21. Kirsch, L. J. (1997). Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 215-239.
  22. Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374-395.
  23. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
  24. Lindgren, R., Andersson, M., & Henfridsson, O. (2008). Multi-contextuality in boundary-spanning practices. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 641-661.
  25. Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 149-157.
  26. Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Research commentary: The next wave of nomadic computing. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 377-388.
  27. Markus, M. L. (2017). Datification, organizational strategy, and IS research: What's the score? Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(3), 233-241.
  28. Mähring, M., Wiener, M., & Remus, U. (2018). Getting the control across: Control transmission in information systems offshoring projects. Information Systems Journal, 28(4), 708-728.
  29. Michael, K., & Miller, K. W. (2013). Big data: New opportunities and new challenges. Computer, 46(6), 22- 24.
  30. Mills, A. J., Watson, R. T., Pitt, L., & Kietzmann, J. (2016). Wearing safe: Physical and informational security in the age of the wearable device. Business Horizons, 59(6), 615-622.
  31. Mondello, M., & Kamke, C. (2014). The introduction and application of sports analytics in professional sport organizations. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(2), 1-12.
  32. Moody, G. D., Siponen, M., & Pahnila, S. (2018). Toward a unified model of information security policy compliance. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), 285-331.
  33. Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833-848.
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  35. Remus, U., Wiener, M., Saunders, C., Mähring, M., & Kofler, M. (2016). Control modes versus control styles: Investigating ISD project control effects at the individual level. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems.
  36. Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
  37. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber's drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3758-3784.
  38. Sanders, N. R. (2016). How to use big data to drive your supply chain. California Management Review, 58(3), 26-48.
  39. Scheiber, N. (2017). How Uber uses psychological tricks to push its drivers' buttons. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/02/technology/uber-drivers-psycho logical-tricks.html Volume 46 10.17705/1CAIS.04604 Paper · DOI
  40. Sheridan, T., & Parasuraman, R. (2005). Human-automation interaction. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1(1), 89-129.
  41. Stankovic, J. A. (2014). Research directions for the Internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 3-9.
  42. Tarafdar, M., D'Arcy, J., Turel, O., & Gupta, A. (2015). The dark side of information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(2), 61-70.
  43. Uzunca, B., Rigtering, J. P. C., & Ozcan, P. (2018). Sharing and shaping: A cross-country comparison of how sharing economy firms shape their institutional environment to gain legitimacy. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(3), 248-272.
  44. Vieira da Cunha, J., Carugati, A., & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2015). The dark side of computer- mediated control. Information Systems Journal, 25(4), 319-354.
  45. Vodanovich, S., Sundaram, D., & Myers, M. (2010). Research commentary: Digital natives and ubiquitous information systems. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 711-723.
  46. Waber, B. (2013). People analytics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
  47. Waber, B., & Kane, G. C. (2015). "People analytics" through super-charged ID badges. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://mitsmr.com/1JkWntL
  48. Ward, M. J., Marsolo, K. A., & Froehle, C. M. (2014). Applications of business analytics in healthcare. Business Horizons, 57(5), 571-582.
  49. Wiener, M., & Cram, W. A. (2017). Technology-enabled control: Effectiveness, socio-emotional consequences, and ethical dilemmas. In Proceedings of the 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems.
  50. Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., & Saunders, C. (2016). Control configuration and control enactment in information systems projects: Review and expanded theoretical framework. MIS Quarterly, 40(3), 741-774.
  51. Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., Saunders, C., & Cram, W. A. (2019). Moving IS project control research into the digital era: The "why" of control and the concept of control purpose. Information Systems Research.
  52. Wixom, B. H., & Ross, J. W. (2017). How to monetize your data. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(3), 10-13.
  53. Whelan, E., McDuff, D., Gleasure, R., & vom Brocke, J. (2018). How emotion-sensing technology can reshape the workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(3), 7-10.
  54. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: A call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cram, W. A., & Wiener, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • Bentley University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2020
Pages
70-91
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1cais.04604
OpenAlex
W2998823007
Cited by
56
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
Keywords
organizational control, management control, digital technologies, ubiquitous technology, mobile application, digital sensors, software algorithms, automation, employee behavior, UPS, Uber, research agenda

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