Organizational Power and the

In a recent application of the theory of strategic contingencies in three large multinational firms, Lucas found that information services departments were perceived by others as having low levels of power and influence and suggested a variety of reasons for the results. This note continues the application of the theory of strategic contingencies to the information services department by describing a study of intraorganizational power that uses basically the same procedures as the Lucas study and obtains similar results. In an effort to stimulate future power-related research in the information systems area, this note concludes by suggesting several reasons, beyond those given by Lucas, for the levels of power attributed to information services departments. INTRODUCTION To a certain extent the effective.ness of an information services department depends on its power vis-a-vis other departments in the organization. Understanding the dynamics of intraorganizational power is necessary to establish an appropriate balance of power between end-user and information services departments. Yet, 01986ACMOOOl-0782/86/0200-0142 750 despite this, common frameworks for Informatic n Systems (IS) research frequently do not address pov rer and other political variables, or do so sparingly [4]. 1 ilthough there have been several recent contribu ions to the literature (e.g., see [5, 7, 141) that address th 3 power of the information services department in a desc riptive sense, little empirical research has appeared on the subject. A recent exception is a study by Lucas 61 that explores the power of information services departments using the theory of strategic contingencies. In the theory of strategic contingencies [z, 31, power is based on the ability of a department to deal H ith actual or potential organizational problems and is derived from some unspecified combination of thr :e determinants: (1) a department’s ability to reduce mpredictability ensuing from its lack of information i bout future events, or its ability to cope with uncertainly; (2) the flow of information and work between depa tments, or its centrality; and (3) the difficulty wit11 which the activities of a department may be performed by an alternate department, or its nonsubstitutability. V’hen a department possessing these determinants gains control over important organizational activities or influ rices the operations of another department, it is said to con142 Communications of the ACM February 1986 Volume 29 (umber 2