{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01986408782017773, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.71578947368421, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Deploying Common Systems Globally: The Dynamics of Control

In today's competitive environment, an increasing number of firms are buildingcommon information systems, which will be deployed globally, to support their strategic globalization initiatives. These systems are designed to meet the requirements of a diverse set of stakeholders with different business needs, priorities, and objectives. One managerial tool for addressing and reconciling such differences is control, which encompasses all attempts to motivate individuals to act in a manner that is consistent with organizational objectives. This paper examines two research questions. How do stakeholders exercise control during different phases of large IS projects? Why do control choices change across project phases? Results of two case studies suggest control is exercised differently for each phase. During the initial phase of a project, control is exercised as "collective sensemaking," in which both IS and business stakeholders utilize mostly informal mechanisms of control. During development, "technical winnowing" of mechanisms occurs such that control is vested primarily in IS managers, who structure hierarchical relationships with subordinates and who rely extensively on formal control mechanisms. Both IS and business stakeholders employ formal and informal mechanisms during implementation to exercise control as "collaborative coordinating." The results also suggest that changes in control choices from one project phase to another are triggered by factors in the project, stakeholder, and global contexts. As factors change across phases, so too do control choices. Further, problems that surface in one project phase trigger changes to controls in subsequent phases. These findings are integrated into a model of the dynamics of control. Implications of these results are drawn, and directions for future research are suggested.