Governing+Enterprise+2.0+

Transcription

1 Governing+Enterprise+2.0+ Cand.Merc.IMM+ Master+thesis + + Hand%in'date:'December'7 th '2012' Defense'date:'January'14 th '2013' Grade:'12'(A)' Thesis'advisor:'Robert'D.'Austin' ' Authors:' Cecilie'Hoffmann%Petersen' Henrik'Kærsgaard'Hansen' '

2 Preface' Throughout the process of writing this thesis, we have received a number of highly appreciated contributions. We would like to especially acknowledge the help of the following. For providing feedback on our writings, we thank Christina Donslund Steen, Erik Hoffmann- Petersen and Martin Larsen. For participating in expert interview, we thank Professor Niels Bjørn- Andersen. For participating in practitioner interviews, we thank Mona Håkansson, Bo Falkenberg, Respondent X, Jonas Andersen, Christoffer Malling and Martin Sønderlev Christensen. And for clear, wise and inspiring counseling, we thank Dean Robert D. Austin. We hope readers will find this thesis inspiring. Cecilie Hoffmann-Petersen & Henrik Kærsgaard Hansen

3 Executive)summary) The purpose of this thesis is to study the governance challenges facing organizations implementing Enterprise 2.0 systems, resulting in a best practice framework answering the research question: How should organizations govern their employees, to allow the freedom and autonomy necessary to benefit from the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, while maintaining a level of control in order to minimize the risks concerned with Enterprise 2.0 systems? Empirical data for this thesis have been collected via qualitative interviews with an expert from CBS and 6 practitioners from 5 organizations IBM, Company X, Podio, Wemind and Socialsquare - all specializing in developing, implementing and/or consulting on Enterprise 2.0 systems. The thesis contains 3 primary parts. First, a literature review of Enterprise 2.0 literature provides insight into the mechanisms driving Enterprise 2.0 benefit realization. We found that the fundamental design principles of Enterprise 2.0 systems are network effects, authoring, freeform, emergent structure and an architecture of participation and transparency, which among other things result in an improved collective intelligence and -creativity in the organization. Second, as the act of governing is essentially an execution of power, we performed an analysis of the power structure within Enterprise 2.0 systems improving our understanding of the power basis for executing governance. With an outset in power theory and the empirical data, we found that Enterprise 2.0 systems are characterized by a democratic and meritocratic power structure, emphasizing the informal power bases and decreasing the influence derived from formal power bases. Third, the governance analysis is divided into three sections. In the first section 8 management actions derived from our empirical data are presented, which together provide a framework for good practice of Enterprise 2.0 governance. The second section seeks to discuss and explain the underlying mechanisms ensuring regulation of employee behavior when direct control is loosened: Managerial-, social-, self-regulation and culture. This analysis is finalized by a discussion of the main aspects of the governance analysis, relating it to the power analysis and literature review. The contributed best practice framework of this thesis is aimed at supporting practitioners as well as researchers in providing an empirically and theoretically grounded theory for creating more value through Enterprise 2.0 systems.

4 Table)of)content) Executive)summary)...)1) Table)of)content)...)2) Table)of)figures)...)5) 1.)Introduction)...)6) 1.1)Field)of)analysis)...)7) Problem(statement(...(8( 1.2)Purpose)of)thesis)...)9) Relevance(for(researchers(...(9( Relevance(for(practitioners(...(9( 1.3)Assumptions)...)9) 1.4)Delimitations)...)10) 1.5)Clarification)of)key)concepts)...)10) 1.6)Structure)of)the)thesis)...)11) 2.)Methodology)...)13) 2.1)Philosophy)of)science)...)13) Inductive(and(retroductive/abductive(logic(...(17( Retroduction(...(18( Abduction(...(18( Level(of(conclusion(...(18( Summary(of(philosophy(of(science(...(19( 2.2)Operative)paradigm)...)19) Methodical(procedure(...(20( Literature(...(20( Empirical(sources(...(22( Documentation(of(data(...(26( Coding(empirical(data(...(27( Metodic:(Project(plan(...(30( 3.)Enterprise)2.0)...)33) 3.1)Enterprise)2.0)in)a)historic)context)...)33) Web(2.0(...(34( 3.2)Enterprise)2.0)defined)...)35) Platforms(...(36( Use(...(39( Emergent(...(39( Social(software(...(41( Page 2 of 115

5 Organizations(in(pursuit(of(their(goals(...(41( 3.3)Outcomes)of)Enterprise)2.0)investments)...)42) Benefits(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(42( Risks(of(E2.0(...(43( 4.)Power)and)Enterprise)2.0)...)46) 4.1)Power)theory)...)46) Elitist(perspective(on(power(...(47( Explicit(power((Robert(A.(Dahl)(...(48( Implicit(power((Peter(Bachrach(&(Morten(S.(Baratz)(...(50( Strategic(Relational(power((Michel(Foucault)(...(51( Bifactorial(Theory(of(Power(...(53( Formal((position)(power:(...(54( Informal((personal)(power:(...(55( Morgan(...(56( Practical(approach(to(power( (how(is(power(achieved:(...(57( 4.2)Power)analysis)...)61) Control(of(technology((formal(and(informal)(...(61( Control(of(boundaries(...(63( Expert(power(...(64( Referent(power(...(66( Legitimate(power(...(67( Reward(power(...(68( Coercive(power(...(69( Implicit(power(...(69( Informal(implicit(power( (an(illusion?(...(70( Summarizing(the(power(analysis(...(71( 5.)Governing)Enterprise)2.0)...)75) 5.1)Governance)theory)...)75) Corporate(governance(...(76( IT(Governance(...(76( Three(perspectives(on(governance(...(77( Rationalist(perspective(on(governance(...(77( Structuralist(perspective(on(governance(...(80( Culturalist(perspective(on(governance(...(82( Synthetic(perspective(on(governance(...(83( Summary(...(84( 5.2)Governance)analysis)...)85) Page 3 of 115

6 Managerial(regulation(...(86( Action(#1:(Management(should(show(clear(support(of(Enterprise(2.0(and(lead(by(example(...(86( Action(#2:(Management(should(set(frames(but(abstain(from(micro_management.(...(87( Action(#3:(Management(should(set(clear(performance(goals(...(87( Action(#4:(Management(should(explicate(norms(and(values(by(creating(social(guidelines(...(88( Action(#5:(Management(should(intervene(when(necessary(...(89( Action(#6:(Management(should(make(room(for(mistakes(...(90( Action(#7:(Management(should(assign(community(managers(and(ensure(training(...(91( Action(#8:(Management(should(trust(the(emergent(mechanisms(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(91( Underlying(mechanisms(of(governance( (the(real(level(...(92( The(disciplinary(mechanism(...(92( The(Panopticon(...(93( The(Panopticon(in(the(context(of(Enterprise(2.0(...(94( The(mechanism(of(social(regulation(...(96( The(mechanism(of(self_regulation(...(97( Summary(...(97( 5.3)Discussion)...)99) 6.)Conclusion)...)105) 6.1)Limitations)and)further)research)...)107) 7.)References)...)110) NB. All appendixes have been removed from this version of the thesis. Page 4 of 115

7 Table)of)figures) Figures Figure 1: Structure of thesis.. 13 Figure 2: Full method awareness Figure 3: The three domains of the real Figure 4: Project plan 33 Figure 5: One-to-many vs. many-to-many Figure 6: The panopticon Figure 7: Regulating mechanisms and culture Tables Table 1: Ontological differences and similarities Table 2: Relevance of empirical sources Table 3: Summary of power theories Table 4: Powerbases for analysis Table 5: Summary of power analysis Table 6: 3 dominant paradigmes of governance Page 5 of 115

8 1.)Introduction) Throughout the last decade a number of innovations in Internet product and service design have had a significant influence on the way we use the Internet. Some of these changes have given rise to the term Web 2.0, or in daily terms social media or social software. This expression covers design changes providing amateur users the ability to easily publish, communicate, collaborate and find content online. A prominent example of these new technologies is the social networking site facebook.com, which has had explosive growth in the 8 years it has existed 1. Most of the Web 2.0 tools have evolved and function in the consumer space, however from the beginning, technological visionaries, analysts and researchers have argued that social software additionally stand to have a large impact inside organizations. In 2006 professor A. McAfee summed up these thoughts and termed the corporate deployment of the social Web 2.0 technologies for Enterprise 2.0. Wattal, Racherla et al., notes that social computing tools can be the catalyst to help create a true learning organization characterized by collaboration and sharing, and collective knowledge creation and assimilation (Wattal, Racherla et al. 2009, p1, quoted in Backhouse et al. 2009: 5). On an even larger scale, Tapscott notes that Enterprise 2.0 has been seen as "enabling new business strategies and designs... It s a new model of the firm" (Tapscott, 2006). Harnessing the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 is of great interest to C-suite managers and is given increasing focus in organizations. Recent studies by Gartner Group, Forrester Research, IDC, Mckinsey, IBM, the Cutter Consortium and SocialSemantic.eu 2 testify that within the last few years, organizations have been rapidly increasing their investments in Enterprise 2.0 technologies and investments are expected to continuously grow throughout the next five years. While it is yet too early to witness the full consequences of the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies within the enterprise i.e. Enterprise 2.0, the preliminary results of these investments have been varying (Andriole 2010). While scholars have researched deployments of enterprise-it systems for years, the management research on Enterprise 2.0 is still scarce, due to the relative newness of the technologies. It has however been observed that the way for organizations to capture benefits from Web 2.0 technology in the enterprise probably differs substantially from the way they attended to other enterprise information system (IS) projects in the past (De Hertogh, Viaene, & Dedene, 1 Per October 2012 facebook registered 1 billion active users per month, till that point Facebook has recorded 1.13 trillion Likes, billion friend connections and 219 billion shared photos since it launched in February More than 300m photos are uploaded every day and 62.6m songs played. In June 2012 there were 552 million daily active users on average. ( Page 6 of 115

9 2011, p. 124). As will be discussed in this paper, Enterprise 2.0 in many ways represents a new way of managing data and information, a new way of communicating, and ultimately a new way of working i.e. daily processes and tasks (A. McAfee, 2009). Backhouse (2009, p. 8) notes that as with all technology used in the organizational context, the introduction of social media to the enterprise is no silver bullet. Since the tools for social media are freely and readily available, any competitive advantage will emerge not from the tools themselves [anyone can buy them] but from well selected and well managed implementations of social media. Hence, realizing the objectives of a software implementation depends heavily on how the organization and its constituents will interact with the given technological artifacts and sustain the use thereof within the fabric of the enterprise (De Hertogh et al., 2011). Consequently, the usefulness of social technology is not as much a technical issue as it is a direct function of the level of adoption and the effectiveness of people using it (Mathaisel, 2011). In other words, a large aspect of obtaining the benefits of an Enterprise 2.0 system is getting users to embrace the appropriate behavior for working with information in an Enterprise 2.0 system (Dvorak, Holen, Mark, & Meehan, 1997; A. McAfee, 2009). 1.1)Field)of)analysis) As the success of an investment in Enterprise 2.0 systems is dependent on stimulating user engagement and appropriate conduct, it is vital that the management supplement the investment in hardware and software with a style of governance, which forms a suitable user behavior supporting the benefit driving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0. Authors argue, that to realize the potential benefits of Enterprise 2.0, managers should adopt a bottom-up emancipatory style of governance, rather than a top-down, control-oriented style (De Hertogh et al., 2011; A. McAfee, 2009). As will be elaborated in this thesis, the fundamental mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 require that employees acts with a considerable level of autonomy when using the new tools. De Hertogh et al. (2011, p.124) notes: The successful introduction of Web 2.0 for the enterprise will require a move away from predesigned paternalistically imposed communication strategies and structures, toward carefully stimulating a many-to-many, decentralized emergence of bottom-up communicative connections. Providing users with a great level of freedom concerns managers. Managers generally prefer to maintain control of their organization or department (Barnard, 1968; Hinings, Hickson, Pennings, & Schneck, 1995; March & Simon, 1993). As business managers they are not only responsible for the success of the Enterprise 2.0 system, but also accountable for the proper conduct of their employees Page 7 of 115

10 and the performance of their business unit. As a result business managers are often highly focused on potential risks of adopting new technologies in the organization, Enterprise 2.0 systems being no exception. McAfee reports examples of the initial concern business managers expresses, when first introduced to Enterprise 2.0 tools; all essentially concerns unwanted behavior or content: What if someone posts hate speech or pornography? Can t an employee use forums or blogs to denigrate the company, air dirty laundry, or criticize its leadership and strategy? Don t these technologies make it easy for valuable information to seep out of the company and be sold to the highest bidder? If we use these tools, how can we avoid breaking agreements with partners about information sharing? What if rivals use customer-facing websites to air grievances or malign our products and service? Are we liable if people give incorrect information or bad advice on the forum we host? Won t employees use the collaboration software to plan social events instead of work-related activities? (A. P. McAfee, 2011, p. 2) 3. Problem)statement)) The level of autonomy required to support the underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, hereby allowing the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 to emerge, can seem quite contrary to managers need of control, and thus presents a conflict. This thesis is an attempt to address the concerns stated by managers when looking to invest in Enterprise 2.0 systems: how do we control the use of these systems? What happens, when we are no longer in control to the extent we were before? How do we ensure proper use of the systems? And how do we allow for the benefits to emerge, while minimizing the related risks? All these questions relate to governance of an Enterprise 2.0 system or, more precisely, the employees using the system, and the immediate conflicts that arise when freedom and empowerment of employees meets managers wants and needs to control these systems and the people using them. These conflicts are, what we are seeking to address and analyze in this thesis, which leads to the research question: How should organizations govern their employees, to allow the freedom and autonomy necessary to benefit from the mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems, while maintaining a level of control in order to minimize the risks concerned with Enterprise 2.0 systems? Before elaborating on how the field of analysis was approached methodically, the purpose, assumptions, delimitations, key terms and structure of this thesis will be briefly introduced. 3 See Webber (2012), or our interview transcripts in appendix 7-12 for more examples of typical concerns regarding Enterprise 2.0. Page 8 of 115

11 1.2)Purpose)of)thesis) The purpose of this thesis is to develop best practice theory on Enterprise 2.0 governance, to the benefit of both practitioners and the scientific community. Relevance)for)researchers) Enterprise 2.0 comprise a new research field and a need exists for further, empirically grounded and solid research addressing challenges of Enterprise 2.0 governance (De Hertogh et al., 2011). To our knowledge no research focusing on the power structures of Enterprise 2.0 systems exists, and empirical findings on Enterprise 2.0 governance are still scarce and have not been systematically related to the large literature base on governance as will be done in this thesis. Our ambition is to build original and solid theory on Enterprise 2.0 governance, contributing to the growing literature and knowledge base within the field of Enterprise 2.0. Relevance)for)practitioners) As mentioned above, organizations are increasingly investing in Enterprise 2.0 implementations. The possible benefits of these systems are of great value, especially to large international and geographically dispersed organizations, which are in need of more effective ways to utilize the intellectual capital of human resources to compete in a complex and globalized world. As the underlying mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0 systems are quite different from traditional Enterprise-IT, they demand that user behavior changes accordingly (De Hertogh et al., 2011). There is an immediate need for empirically grounded and theoretically solid knowledge, aiding managers in governing Enterprise 2.0 systems to obtain organizational benefits and increase the competitive advantage for organizations. We aim at providing recommendations that are understandable and immediately usable for practitioners. 1.3)Assumptions) This thesis holds two primary assumptions: We assume that Enterprise 2.0 systems are not merely passive constituents of an organization: Reciprocity exists between the constructed systems of Enterprise 2.0 and the social systems of an organization. Further, this thesis is based on an assumption of broad Enterprise 2.0 system-integration. An implementation of only one Enterprise 2.0 tool, e.g. a blog, will have limited effects on an Page 9 of 115

12 organization, and will thus not necessarily result in much change in the organization. Thus, the findings of this thesis are built on a broad implementation of Enterprise 2.0 systems. 1.4)Delimitations) In order to maintain focus of the research, and secure thoroughness and depth while taking the resource restraints into account, the research in this thesis holds some limitations. Throughout the thesis, focus will solely be on usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems within the organizational boarders of an organization 4. Using Enterprise 2.0 for communicating with customers, suppliers or any other external stakeholders will as such not be part of our analysis 5. We are aware that including these external relations in an Enterprise 2.0 system would have had an influence on the analysis and likely create additional value as well as further complexity, as the underlying mechanisms for internal and external communication are different. We therefore urge members of the scientific community to expand this research further, and test the results from this thesis focusing on organizations, which have adopted a more open structure and usage of Enterprise 2.0 systems. While adopting a strategic perspective on governance of Enterprise 2.0, details regarding the technical aspects of either soft- or hardware will not be analyzed, as this area is constantly evolving, and a discussion among technically educated researchers would be more suitable than between organizational researchers such as ourselves. Although defining motivational strategy and designing incentive structures are generally a part of governance, we have chosen not to address this in our thesis. This is solely due to the limited resources of time and space. We will however occasionally make reference to this in our discussion and analysis, and we encourage other researchers to examine the different types of motivational approaches, e.g. extrinsic or intrinsic motivation, and their relation to successful Enterprise 2.0 governance. 1.5)Clarification)of)key)concepts) To ensure a shared understanding of main concepts used in this thesis, we will provide a brief definition below. This will facilitate the reading process and the understanding of propositions and findings. These concepts are: 4 We are aware of the large stream of research arguing that organizational boarders have become more fluent and cannot be easily defined anymore. 5 However, examples of these types of usage will be presented. Page 10 of 115

13 Enterprise 2.0 governance Enterprise 2.0 governance entails not only governance of IT systems, but also governance of the behavior of employees maneuvering within the IT systems. Contribution A contribution to an Enterprise 2.0 system is the creation and/or sharing of any type of content by a user, including blog posts, contributions to wikis, tagging, commenting, liking, reposting etc. Content In the context of IT systems content refers to all types of data or objects a user has contributed to the system. This includes all types of text (blog post, additions to a wiki, status updates, etc.), links, pictures, videos, documents, etc. In some Enterprise 2.0 literature content added to an Enterprise 2.0 system is referred to as a social object as social interaction is generally centered around an object i.e. content of interest. Mechanism Mechanisms are defined as the relationship among entities that is thought to cause the events. In the context of this paper, the term mechanism is used for the hidden phenomena that can explain the reality and the empirical events in an organization. Transparency Transparency is present when it is easy for others to see what actions are performed, and implies an open architecture, open communication, and accountability. 1.6)Structure)of)the)thesis) To answer the overall research question in a structured and comprehensive manner, the thesis is divided into four main parts, Enterprise 2.0 a literature review, Analysis 1. - The implicit power structure of Enterprise 2.0, Analysis 2. Governing Enterprise 2.0 and finally a discussion, which will synthesize the findings of the former parts. Each part will focus on exploring and expanding on the fundamental building blocks, which together provide the information necessary to develop a full and thorough answer to the research question. The structure of the thesis is presented below in figure 1 and the different parts are presented in section 2.2 methodic. Page 11 of 115

14 Figure 1: Structure of thesis Source: Own Creation Page 12 of 115

15 2.)Methodology) This chapter will clarify how the field of analysis was approached. As a guiding principle our choice of methods supports the principle of full method awareness, meaning the study is based on a choice and use of methods that are legitimized by an overarching methodology (Jensen, 1996) 6. When full method awareness is used, the field of analysis is linked with the philosophy of science through an operative paradigm 7 consisting of methodical procedure and methodic (Figure 2). Figure 2: Full method awareness Source: Arbnor & Bjerke (1997), p. 17 When applying full method awareness, possible methods for a study is limited; consistency is needed between the philosophy of science and the manner in which the field of analysis is examined (methods and methodic). In the following we will first introduce the philosophy of science used in this thesis. Then we will present the operative paradigm, which links the philosophy of science and the field of analysis. 2.1)Philosophy)of)science) The philosophical view on science is the basic foundation on which scientific research is based, and thus also this project. This section will cover what, from an epistemological view, can be defined as knowledge, and how 'reality', from an ontological view, can be defined in regard to this research project (Christensen, 2002). The purpose of this section is to provide initial insight into the worldview that determines our theoretical and practical methods of choice, and more importantly 6 Hans Rask Jensen distinguishes between full method-awareness, limited method-awareness and inverse methodawareness. Full method-awareness is based on a study where choice- and use of investigative techniques are legitimized by an overarching philosophy of science and from here it is derived how the impending problem must be considered and resolved. Limited method awareness means choice- and use of study techniques are not legitimized by a general method-perspective. It may have the consequence that the resulting studies have little value, since they might not be a product of the perspective from which they are assessed. Inverse method awareness is indicated by a priori liked solution determines the investigation and the choice of techniques and ultimately the character of the problem formulation. As such the solution to the problem is highly influenced by the researchers biases/prejudice (Jensen, 1996). 7 As defined by Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997 Page 13 of 115

16 what type of knowledge we can, and cannot, expect to generate from this study. The section therefore focuses on the main points of this study s philosophy of science, which in later chapters will be brought forward and related to the theory and context of this thesis. This thesis adheres to the philosophical view of science critical realism. In the following section, we will define critical realism and on key areas relate it to two of the dominant philosophies of science, positivism and social constructivism 8 9. We will also argue for our choice of scientific approach as well as explain which effects it has on the thesis. Critical realism originated from Roy Bhaskar, who first founded the basic principles of critical realism in his book "A Realist Theory on Science" from 1975 (republished in 1997). It combines the ontological realism from positivism, with the epistemological relativism from social constructivism. Bhaskar claims, that these two philosophies of science both contains major mistakes in their world view; whereas positivists claim that knowledge equals reality - the knowledge we have is the reality, they do not recognize subjective constructions or a deeper understanding of reality - social constructivists go in the completely opposite direction and claim, that knowledge equals being/existing - there exists no definite truth, the reality is a social construction (Alvesson, 2010). Instead critical realism possesses a duality, where a reality does exist regardless of human action and interaction, but it is not necessarily possible to know the exact reality because of human interaction and interpretation (Danermark et al., 2002). Table 1: Ontological differences and similarities Social constructivism Critical realism Positivism Ontological perspective Relativistic Realistic Realistic No truth exists, everything is a social construction An objective truth exists An objective truth exists Epistemological perspective Relativistic Knowledge and truth is a social construction Relativistic Knowledge is the truth interpreted by the individual Realistic Reality is what we (can) know of the world Source: Own Creation 8 The term social constructivism is sometimes used interchangeably with the term interpretivism 9 We have decided to relate critical realism to positivism and social relativism as one can argue critical realism is placed between these two opposing views, hereby meeting valid scientific criticism on both positivism and social constructivism. Page 14 of 115

17 Bhaskar believes, that it is the rationality of man that helps the researcher find the best possible explanation of the reality. It is not up to critical realism as a philosophical view on science to determine what is the reality surely, this task is best left to the scientists themselves (Bhaskar, 1989:4). The human rational sense of judgment is what connects the ontological realism with the epistemological relativism in the critical realism; through rationality we can accept the transitive 10 explanation of science, which comes closest to the intransitive 11 reality. This belief in the human rationality makes critical realism avoid reducing reality to what we construct as the reality (the ontological fallacy of social constructivism) and to confuse that, which exists, with the knowledge we have about it (the epistemological fallacy of positivism) (Alvesson, 2010). Put simply: "Critical realism [is] able to combine and reconcile ontological realism, epistemological relativism and judgment rationality" (Archer et al., 1998; in Danermark et al., 2002:10). Many have argued for the usefulness of critical realism as a philosophical underpinning for the social sciences in general 12 as well as economics 13, organizational and management research 14, marketing 15, health and social work 16, education 17, and social science evaluation 18. Within the information systems literature, Mingers 19 has been the most active at promoting critical realism along with a few others 20. This growing popularity stems in part from its ability to transcend some of the classic dualisms in the social sciences such as positivism vs. interpretivism, and structure vs. agency 21. This transcendence occurs through a new conceptualization of ontology (Smith, 2006). 10 The transitive objects are the raw materials of science the artificial objects fashioned into items of knowledge by the science of the day (Bhaskar, 1998a, p. 16 quoted in Smith, 2006, p. 200) 11 Intransitive objects are the world of things and structures that are independent of our knowledge of them (Smith, 2006, p. 200). 12 Removed from quote: (Carter & New, 2004; Danermark, Ekstrom, Jokobsen, & Karlsson, 2003; George & Bennett, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Robson, 2002; Sayer, 2000; Stones, 1996) see Smith, 2006 for reference. 13 Removed from quote: (Lawson, 1998) see Smith, 2006 for reference. 14 Removed from quote: (Fleetwood & Ackroyd, 2004; Mingers, 2000; Tsoukas, 1989) see Smith, 2006 for reference 15 Removed from quote: (Zink- han & Hirschheim, 1992) see Smith, 2006 for reference 16 Removed from quote: (Houston, 2001; Kazi, 2003) see Smith, 2006 for reference 17 Removed from quote: (Maxwell, 2004) see Smith, 2006 for reference 18 Removed from quote: (Pawson, 2004; Pawson & Tilley, 1997) see Smith, 2006 for reference 19 Removed from quote: (2004b, 2004c, 2004d) see Smith, 2006 for reference 20 Removed from quote: (Carlsson, 2003; Dobson, 1999, 2002) see Smith, 2006 for reference 21 Removed from quote: (Bhaskar, 2002, pp ) see Smith, 2006 for reference Page 15 of 115

18 Bhaskar states that from a critical realistic perspective there are different ontological levels of domains: The empirical, the factual and the real domain (Bhaskar, 1997). The empirical domain consists of what we experience, directly or indirectly, and what we can observe things that happen and exist according to our immediate experience Figure 3: The three domains of the real and subjective interpretation. The empirical domain is narrow and can be seen as a consequence of the other two domains (figure 3). The EMPIRICAL: events actually observed and experienced The ACTUAL: events (and nonevents) generated by the mechanisms The REAL: mechanisms and structures with enduring properties Source: Mingers 2004, p. 94. In the actual domain "events happen whether we experience them or not. In other words, what happens in the world is not the same as what we experience" (Danermark et al., 2002:20). Here, Bhaskar distinguishes between social and natural sciences; the empirical and the actual domain are mostly the same within natural sciences, whereas a difference is almost always present in social sciences as these are built on human perception and interpretation. As this thesis falls under the latter category, this distinction between the three domains applies. The real domain is what is said to produce events and other 'surface phenomena' in the world, what Bhaskar calls generative mechanisms. The generative mechanisms are "nothing other than the ways of acting of things" (Bhaskar, 1997:3). According to critical realism, the task of science is to explore the real domain and how it relates to the other two domains (Alvesson, 2010). In critical realism, Bhaskar (1997) shifts the emphasis from epistemology that concerns what and how we are able to know, as is typically the main focus in both positivism and social constructivism, to ontology, which concerns 'what actually exists'. Critical realism thus assumes, that reality exists independently of our own perception of it, however, everything is interpreted by the subjective individual and for this reason the concept of reaching absolute truth does not exist (Fuglsang & Olsen, 2004:160). Critical realism recognizes the importance of multi-level analysis, as noted by Alvesson (2010:40): Critical realism seeks to identify those deeper lying mechanisms which are taken to generate empirical phenomena. From this it becomes clear that critical realism emphasizes the identification of mechanisms rather than focus on events. As such, "scientific work is [ ] to investigate and Page 16 of 115

19 identify relationships and non-relationships, respectively, between what we experience, what actually happens, and the underlying mechanisms that produce the events in the world" (Danermark et al., 2002:21). To put this into the context of this thesis, we aim at approaching the field with a multilevel perspective focusing on the different domains. There will be a focus not only on the empirical level, i.e. our interviews, but also a focus on finding and discussing the underlying mechanisms, meaning investigating and identifying firstly, the benefit driving mechanisms of Enterprise 2.0; secondly, the relationship between Enterprise 2.0 systems and potential changes in power distribution; thirdly, the mechanisms that can contribute to solving the conflict between providing user autonomy, while still securing control and risk minimization. Critical realism presents a methodological challenge as no precise procedures for applying critical realism methodically exist (Jespersen 2008, p.57). As such, critical realism endorses or is compatible with a relatively wide range of research methods, but it implies that the particular choices should depend on the nature of the object of study and what one wants to learn about it (Sayer, 2000). Hence, we are left with acting after our best judgment as researchers. We have approached this freedom of method in a number of ways in an attempt to secure the quality of our work and results. Firstly, choosing to adhere to the principals of full method awareness secures that our operative paradigm method and methodic, are aligned with both critical realism and our field of study. Secondly, we adhere to a transparency principal, as does all good research, meaning we attempt to explicate and express the process, thoughts, and choices throughout the thesis, both regarding strengths and weaknesses of our research. In this way we have continually and explicitly reflected on the approach and method, including the implications they have on the findings in this thesis. This has ensured a sensible and rational method for collecting and analyzing data, allowing us to create valuable and well-founded findings and conclusions in this thesis. In the following we will discuss the logic of reasoning applied to this study in the light of critical realism and as such on which level we can conclude. Inductive)and)retroductive/abductive)logic) Critical realism is generally said to accept both inductive and deductive elements, however the central logic is retroduction or abduction, which we will elaborate on below (Easton, 2010; Fuglsang & Bitsch Olsen, 2004; Reichertz, 2009). Page 17 of 115

20 Retroduction+ Retroduction is a...mode of inference in which events are explained by postulating (and identifying) mechanisms which are capable of producing them... (Sayer, 1992). As such retroduction involves moving from a conception of a phenomenon of interest to a conception of mechanisms that could generate the given phenomenon (Easton 2007). Retroduction can be described as a method that incorporates the main elements of induction (observations, apparent regularities), followed by a deductive hypothesis formulation, while taking into account the subject's ontological character. Further, the arguments can be stochastically formulated. Thus it applies only to a "certain (and sometimes unknown) probability" (Fuglsang & Bitsch Olsen, 2004, p 156). Retroduction is in other words the thought operations that you must take to get from something to something else. But it is also very much about transactual argumentation, i.e. argumentation, which is on the other side of the empirical facts, namely the structural conditions that enable the phenomenon to be analyzed (Benton & Ian, 2001). Abduction+ Abduction, sometimes used interchangeably with retroduction, can refer to interpretations of actions in relation to action theories, i.e. to attempt different interpretive frameworks. However, within the framework of critical realism, abduction refers to gaining knowledge on structures and mechanisms behind the immediate empirical evidence (incident/event). Abduction can be characterized as "detective work", attempting to reach hypotheses about how i.e. a crime could have occurred. Observations are made meaningful by being interpreted. As such, abduction to some extent concerns the creativity of the researcher - a thought operation where new ideas are introduced (Danermark & Al., 1997). Level)of)conclusion) It is important to understand the epistemological and ontological reasoning behind this study hence to be attentive to which level of truth one may analyze and conclude. The ambition of this thesis is to create theory: A best practice framework for Enterprise 2.0 governance specifically addressing the challenge of managerial control vs. user autonomy. The study will result in a multifaceted answer to the research question. However, the answers should be considered as hypotheses. They are theoretical statements created from the empirical and theoretical synthesis via inductive and retroductive/abductive techniques. This thesis provides probable, rationally plausible Page 18 of 115