European Journal of Information Systems (2014) 23, 151–184
& 2014 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 0960-085X/14
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A process model for analyzing and managing
flexibility in information systems
Ram L. Kumar and
Antonis C. Stylianou
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, U.S.A.
Correspondence: Ram L. Kumar,
Department of Business Information
Systems & Operations Management,
The Belk College of Business Administration,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC 28223, U.S.A.
Tel.: 704.687.7649;
Fax: 704.687.6330
The authors’ names are listed in alphabetical
order. Each author has contributed equally to
this research.
Received: 23 May 2011
Revised: 20 February 2012
2nd Revision: 7 September 2012
3rd Revision: 6 November 2012
Accepted: 7 November 2012
www.palgrave-journals.com/ejis/
Abstract
Competitive pressures are forcing organizations to be flexible. Being responsive
to changing environmental conditions is an important factor in determining
corporate performance. Earlier research, focusing primarily on IT infrastructure,
has shown that organizational flexibility is closely related to IT infrastructure
flexibility. Using real-world cases, this paper explores flexibility in the broader
context of the IS function. An empirically derived framework for better under-
standing and managing IS flexibility is developed using grounded theory
and content analysis. A process model for managing flexibility is presented;
it includes steps for understanding contextual factors, recognizing reasons
why flexibility is important, evaluating what needs to be flexible, identifying
flexibility categories and stakeholders, diagnosing types of flexibility needed,
understanding synergies and tradeoffs between them, and prescribing strat-
egies for proactively managing IS flexibility. Three major flexibility categories,
flexibility in IS operations, flexibility in IS systems & services development and
deployment, and flexibility in IS management, containing 10 IS flexibility types
are identified and described.
European Journal of Information Systems (2014) 23, 151–184. doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.53;
published online 8 January 2013
Keywords: IS flexibility; IS management; Process model
Introduction
Current business environments require organizations to be flexible in
order to be responsive to changing business requirements. As organizations
become increasingly dependent on IS, such organizational agility and
flexibility cannot be achieved without flexible Information Systems (IS)
(Boynton, 1993; Evans 2002). Lack of IS flexibility constrains the ability of
the organization to remain competitive (Lucas & Olson, 1994; DeSouza,
2007). At the same time, the IS area has been the center of great and often
turbulent change in both the underlying technologies and business
practices. Rapid technology changes have resulted in more frequent
system changes as well as greater distribution of IS resources in a network
environment. Given the very large investments in IT, organizations have
been questioning the business practices of IS departments, resulting in
many cases in decisions to outsource IS functions (Lacity & Hirschheim,
1993; Saunders et al, 1997). Outsourcing as well as the more recent
Application Service Provider concept (Kern et al, 2002) have increased
pressure on the IS organization to be more responsive and flexible. Hence,
in order for both the IS department and the organization as a whole
to remain agile and competitive, it is important to have an increased
understanding of IS flexibility and how to manage it.
Past literature describes flexibility as a desirable attribute of IS systems and
infrastructure, linked to organizational flexibility (Golden & Powell, 2000),
152 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
and contributing positively to organizational performance
(Lucas & Olson, 1994; Duncan, 1995; Byrd & Turner, 2000).
Careful design and management of IS has been shown to
increase organizational flexibility (Lucas & Olson, 1994;
Golden & Powell, 2000). At the same time, inflexible IT
systems can inhibit organizational flexibility (Lucas &
Olson, 1994; Attaran, 2004; Oosterhout et al, 2006).
Effective solutions to business situations requiring IS
flexibility require a systematic decision making process.
Prior research has recognized the existence of different
IS flexibility types (such as technical and human infra-
structure flexibility) and dimensions (such as connectiv-
ity, compatibility, and modularity) (Knoll & Jarvenpaa,
1994; Byrd & Turner, 2000; and others). The flexibility
types offered so far address IS flexibility only partially,
with a primary focus on infrastructure and software
systems. Furthermore, the issues of relationships and
tradeoffs between flexibility types or dimensions as
well as strategies for managing flexibility have not been
adequately addressed. Although many of the dimensions
identified in previous literature could be viewed as
strategies, no systematic study of IS flexibility strategies
for each type of flexibility has been done. Executives need
to consider the context, the need for various kinds
of IS flexibility, how to achieve them, and other relevant
factors. Better understanding and articulation of these
factors can help in determining the proper action,
timing, cost, and expected results. A systematic process
that views IS flexibility from a broader perspective, analyzes
the need for different types of flexibility, identifies strategies for
managing each type of flexibility, and recognizes moderating
factors would serve these needs.
We develop an empirically derived framework for
better understanding and managing different types of
IS flexibility. At the center of this framework is a con-
ceptual process for analyzing and managing IS flexibility
that includes understanding contextual factors, recogniz-
ing reasons why flexibility is important, evaluating
what needs to be flexible, identifying relevant flexibility
categories and stakeholders, diagnosing types of flexibil-
ity needed, understanding synergies and tradeoffs, and
prescribing strategies for proactively managing IS flexi-
bility. Also contained in the framework are descriptions
of flexibility types and relationships between them,
illustrative examples of contextual factors, flexibility
needs, and strategies derived from case data.
Finally, unlike earlier studies that have been either
conceptual or survey-based, we use a combination of
grounded theory methodology and content analysis to
analyze secondary data from real-world case studies. We
analyze cases in which managers have applied particular
strategies to deal with problems that required IS flexi-
bility and through the grounded theory methodology
we generate a process model and general descriptions of
these conditions that require IS flexibility and strategies
for achieving flexibility.
Process models describe a sequence of events or steps in
order to achieve an outcome (Mohr, 1982). Such a model
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
is appropriate for our research since our goal is to present
a sequence of activities that managers can undertake in
order to understand and manage flexibility in the con-
text of IS. In contrast, survey research tends to produce
factor models that describe factors that are important in
the context of a specific dependent variable of interest
(Newman & Robey, 1992). Factor models have also been
referred to as variance models since independent vari-
ables in these models are used to explain the variance
in the dependent variable (Shaw & Jarvenpaa, 1997).
Examples of research comparing process and factor
models in the context of IS research include Shaw &
Jarvenpaa (1997) and Newman & Robey (1992).
We hope that the process model along with the descrip-
tions of conditions requiring IS flexibility and the sample
strategies for achieving flexibility will help managers
understand and manage IS flexibility.
Theoretical foundations
The term flexible is defined in Webster’s dictionary as
‘capable of responding or conforming to a changing or
new situation’. Eppink (1978) describes flexibility as
a strategic response to the unseen. Evans (1991) provides
a review of research on the concept of flexibility. It is
important to note that multiple terms have been used in
the context of flexibility terms (Oosterhout et al, 2007).
Some authors view agility as one type of flexibility (e.g.,
Das & Elango, 1995; Kumar, 1999), others view flexibility
as a subset of agility (e.g., Lui & Piccoli, 2007) and others
use the terms interchangeably (Galliers, 2007). Flexibility is
typically associated with the ability to respond to
some kind of uncertainty or change. In some cases, where
uncertainty may be positive (an opportunity), and flexi-
bility may be measured by the relative ease (in terms of
time, effort, or cost) of proactively seizing this opportunity,
terms such as agility are used. In other cases, it is possible to
have negative uncertainty (problems or threats), and terms
such as robustness and resilience typically refer to dealing
with this uncertainty. The term versatility could be used in
the context of being able to respond to a range of positive
and negative uncertainties. In addition to the ‘responsive-
ness to change’ aspect of flexibility, Scott (1966) also
identified ‘response variability’, that is, diversity of reac-
tions, as a second dimension of flexibility.
Flexibility has been studied from multiple perspectives.
These include an overall organizational, a manufactur-
ing, as well as an IS perspective. Table 1 contains a review
of relevant literature on flexibility with a focus on IS
flexibility. Since the focus of our research is on better
understanding and managing different types of flexibil-
ity, we have organized the table along these lines. Studies
that help to understand the concept of flexibility include
a discussion of flexibility types and/or dimensions. Studies
that discuss how to manage flexibility either discuss ways
to achieve flexibility or present flexibility analysis pro-
cesses in the context of systems development.
Organizational flexibility is defined as ‘the ease with
which the organization’s structures and processes can be
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 153

Table 1 Summary of flexibility literature

Relevant contributions Authors (year)

Context  Identification of the importance of context and environmental  Wernerfelt & Karnani (1987),
conditions (in manufacturing and organization flexibility) Sethi & Sethi (1990)

Why flexibility  Changes affecting IS: changes in technology (hardware,  Land (1982), Longworth (1985), and
is needed software, and computing paradigms), laws, the economy, Fitzgerald (1990)
the environment, the organization (structure, policies,
and strategies, processes, finances, mergers & acquisitions),
the users (attitudes, expectations, tastes, and requirements),
interfaces (internal & external systems, customers, suppliers),
and IS personnel (skill sets, turnover)

Flexibility type  Strategic  Das & Elango (1995), Aaker & Mascarhenas (1984)
 Manufacturing – volume, expansion, market, production,  Sethi & Sethi (1990)
process, machine, material handling, operational,
product, program and routing flexibility
 Organizational  Lucas & Olson (1994)
 IT Infrastructure
J Technical  Duncan (1995), Evans (2002), Boynton (1993),
Henderson & Venkatraman (1994),
Broadbent & Weill (1997), Broadbent et al (1999),
Byrd & Turner (2000)
J Human  Broadbent & Weill (1997), Henderson &
Venkatraman (1994), Lee et al (1995),
Byrd & Turner (2000), Legorreta et al (2001)
 Software systems  Nelson & Ghods (1998), Nelson et al (1997),
flexibility Nelson & Cooprider (2001), Fitzgerald et al (2006)
J E-business architecture J Legorreta et al (2001)
 Systems development  Lyytinen & Rose (2006), Börjesson et al (2006),
Nelson & Cooprider (2001)
J Project team flexibility J Lee & Xia (2005)
 E-business flexibility  Shi & Daniels (2003)
J Market flexibility
J Product flexibility
J Volume flexibility
 IT staffing agility  Shipps & Zahedi (1999), Shipps (2007)
 Functionality  Knoll & Jarvenpaa (1994)
 Use  Knoll & Jarvenpaa (1994),
Gebauer & Schober (2006)
 Modification  Knoll & Jarvenpaa (1994),
Gebauer & Schober (2006)
 Contract flexibility  Harris et al (1998), McFarlan & Nolan (1995),
Lacity & Willcocks (2001), Tan & Sia (2006)

Dimensions  Agility – responsiveness to change, response time,  Scott (1966), Golden & Powell (2000),
of flexibility temporal dimension Overby et al (2006)
 Versatility – response variability,  Scott (1966), Das & Elango (1995),
scope of responses, range Kumar (1999), Golden & Powell (2000)
 Cost of responding  Das & Elango (1995), Kumar (1999)
 Intention – proactive, reactive  Golden & Powell (2000), Loebbecke et al (1997)
 Focus – internal, external  Golden & Powell (2000)
 Sensing, responding  Overby et al (2006), Lyytinen & Rose (2006)
 Structural dimension  Nelson & Ghods (1998), Nelson et al (1997)
J Modularity
J Change acceptance
J Consistency
 Process dimension
J Rate of response
J Expertise
J Coordination of action
 Response extensiveness and response efficiency  Lee & Xia (2005)
 Robustness, scalability, slack, commensurability, feedback  Knoll & Jarvenpaa (1994)
sensitive, goal adjusting, just-in-time adjusting, polyadjustable, Byrd & Turner (2000)
self-adjusting, trialability, concurrency, connectivity, modularity,
multiple forms, responsiveness, reusability, spatial decoupling,
temporal decoupling, transparency, versatility

European Journal of Information Systems

154 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
Table 1 Continued
Relevant contributions
 Required, potential, actual flexibility
Strategic, tactical, operational
Ways to achieve  Pre-emptive, exploitive, protective,
flexibility and corrective types of strategies
 Connectivity, compatibility, modularity
 Connectivity, application functionality,
IT compatibility, data transparency
 Technology management, business knowledge,
management knowledge, technical skills
Techniques for  Flexibility analysis
analyzing system  Future analysis
flexibility – used
during systems
development
changed’ (Huber & McDaniel, 1986). The strategic manage-
ment literature recognizes the importance of organiza-
tional flexibility and contains interesting ideas on appropriate
organizational strategies under different environmental
conditions (Wernerfelt & Karnani, 1987). Several studies
(e.g., Aaker & Mascarhenas, 1984; Wernerfelt & Karnani,
1987; Das & Elango, 1995; Kumar, 1999) discuss the need
for organizational flexibility. Evans (1991) developed a
framework of four types of strategies (maneuvers) towards
strategic flexibility: pre-emptive, exploitive, protective,
and corrective. Eardley et al (1997) discussed Evans’
framework in an IT context. Golden & Powell (2000)
provide a comprehensive survey of the organizational
flexibility literature and identify dimensions of flexibility.
Flexibility has been an important topic of interest
to researchers in the area of Operations Management
(OM) and has been studied extensively in the context of
flexible manufacturing systems (Slack, 1987; Sethi &
Sethi, 1990; Gerwin, 1993). The OM literature recognizes
the fact that manufacturing flexibility is an impor-
tant part of organizational flexibility and performance
(Gerwin, 1993). Also, there is considerable emphasis on
the fact that the term flexibility means different things to
different people, and that it is important to understand
the context in which flexibility is used.
IS flexibility
Clemons & Weber (1994) and Kumar (1999) argue that IS
enable organizations to adopt flexible strategies. Present
day IS using distributed IS architectures allow companies
to adopt a wider and more finely tuned (flexible) set of
strategies than those suggested by Porter (1985). Weill
et al (2002) conclude that organizations’ investments in
different types of IT infrastructure services should be
tailored to their strategic initiatives in order to facilitate
agility. Loebbecke et al (1997) find that organizations can
proactively manage their business risk by building flex-
ible IS. In his book, Desouza (2007) presents a collection
of papers emphasizing that agile IS are fundamental to
enterprise agility. Overby et al (2006) define enterprise
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
Authors (year)
 Shi & Daniels (2003)
 Evans (1991), Eardley et al (1997)
 Duncan (1995)
 Lee et al (1995), Byrd & Turner (2000)
 Fitzgerald (1990)
 Land (1982)
agility as ‘the ability of firms to sense environmental
change and respond readily’. They classify IT investments
into knowledge and process-oriented IT and propose a
framework for understanding the relationship between IT
investment type and the responding and sensing aspects
of enterprise agility.
Lucas & Olson (1994) illustrate that, while IS can often
enhance organizational flexibility significantly, poorly
designed IS can be very inflexible and hence limit
organizational flexibility. Attaran (2004) and Oosterhout
et al (2006) also describe the role of IS as a barrier to or as
a disabler for agility. At the same time, the flexibility of
the IS function is dependent on both the technology and
the organizational flexibility. Within each process, there
are technology, personnel, and organizational/managerial
decisions that can impact the flexibility of the process.
Flexibility is a multidimensional concept that may have
different meanings depending on the context (Evans, 1991;
Knoll & Jarvenpaa, 1994; Kumar & Stylianou, 1995;
Suarez et al, 1995). Prior research on IS flexibility,
however, has focused mostly on flexibility of the IT
infrastructure and flexibility in systems development. A
flexible IT infrastructure has been identified as a top
concern of IS managers (Evans, 2002). Several researchers
explored concepts relating to IT infrastructure flexi-
bility (Boynton, 1993; Henderson & Venkatraman,
1994; Duncan, 1995; Broadbent & Weill, 1997; Broadbent
et al, 1999; Byrd & Turner, 2000). Broadbent & Weill
(1997) and Henderson & Venkatraman (1994) empha-
sized the need to differentiate between technical IT infra-
structure and human IT infrastructure. Duncan (1995)
suggested that one way to characterize technical IT
infrastructure flexibility, is based on empirical evidence,
and using the constructs of connectivity, compatibility,
and modularity. Connectivity refers to the ability of a
device in the IT infrastructure to connect to another
device within or outside the organization. Compatibility
refers to the ability to share information across different
technologies in the infrastructure. Modularity refers to
the ease with which software and hardware components
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
can be added to or removed from the IT infrastructure.
Lee et al (1995) proposed an empirically derived taxonomy
for effective human IT infrastructure. They identified
(a) technology management knowledge and skills,
(b) business functional knowledge and skills, (c) inter-
personal and management skills, and (d) technical
knowledge and skills as being important for an effective
human IT infrastructure. On the basis of the literature,
Byrd & Turner (2000) developed and empirically tested an
instrument to measure IT infrastructure flexibility. The
instrument differentiates between technical and human
IT infrastructure flexibility. Technical infrastructure flex-
ibility is conceptualized as consisting of the following
four dimensions: IT connectivity, application function-
ality, IT compatibility, and data transparency. Human
infrastructure flexibility dimensions are technology
management, business knowledge, management knowl-
edge, and technical skills.
Using Huber & McDaniel’s (1986) definition of organi-
zational flexibility, Nelson et al (1997) define techno-
logy flexibility as consisting of structural and process
flexibility. Structural flexibility ‘reflects the ability of
the design of a technology to be adapted to changes
in the business process and is pro-actively designed into
the technology’ (Nelson et al). Process flexibility ‘is the
ability of people to make changes to the technology using
management processes that support business process
changes’ (Nelson et al).
Besides IT infrastructure flexibility, IS flexibility has
also been studied in the context of systems development.
Nelson & Cooprider (2001) used the Nelson et al (1997)
two-dimensional model of technology flexibility to study
flexibility in software systems. Their findings suggest that
‘organizations seeking flexibility through software tech-
nology need to consider both the structural design of the
software application and the people and processes used to
support the application’. Lee & Xia (2005) developed
measurement scales of IS development project team
flexibility along two dimensions: Response Extensiveness
and Response Efficiency (range vs speed). Their results
indicated a trade-off between those two dimensions. On
the basis of case study research, Lyytinen & Rose (2006)
found that the relative value of process goals to organiza-
tions (speed vs other process characteristics such as
quality, cost, risk, innovation) varies over time depending
on their learning focus. Other researchers have suggested
methodologies and tools oriented towards making sys-
tems and the systems development process more flexible
(Schwan & Jones, 1986; Fitzgerald, 1990; Davis, 1995).
Gebauer & Schober (2006) developed a mathematical
model to study the relationship between business process
characteristics (uncertainty, variability, and time critical-
ity) and two IS flexibility types (flexibility to use the
IS and flexibility to change the IS). They found that
flexibility to change the IS is important under high
process uncertainty, while flexibility to use is important
under conditions of low process uncertainty. They also
conclude that the value of an IS depends on process
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 155
variability and time criticality. The paper did not go into
how to achieve these types of flexibility.
Using a broader view of flexibility, Knoll & Jarvenpaa
(1994) conceptualize three types of IS flexibility –
flexibility in functionality, in use, and in modification –
and 20 dimensions of these types of flexibility. In spite
of the broader view of flexibility, however, the study
does not differentiate clearly between flexibility types
and strategies for achieving each type of flexibility. In
addition, the results are based on limited data from only
nine academic articles.
Since flexibility is needed to anticipate, respond, or
adapt to change, it is important to understand the
possible sources of such change. Land (1982), Longworth
(1985), and Fitzgerald (1990) suggested various types of
change affecting IS. These changes include: changes in
technology (hardware, software, and computing paradigms),
laws, the economy, the environment, the organization
(structure, policies, and strategies, processes, finances,
mergers and acquisitions), the users (attitudes, expecta-
tions, tastes, and requirements), interfaces (internal and
external systems, customers, suppliers), and IS personnel
(skill sets, turnover). Fitzgerald argues that ‘a large
proportion of major changes to our IS are potentially
predictable’. He suggests the use of a technique he termed
‘Flexibility Analysis’ to analyze the impact of such
changes and take necessary action during the systems
development process. He emphasizes the need for
flexibility analysis despite some practical reasons why
such an analysis might be difficult. These reasons, which
are in effect challenges to managing IS flexibility, include
management commitment, organizational politics, addi-
tional time and resource requirements, and lack of
analyst/designer experience. Similar to the concept of
flexibility analysis, Land (1982) suggests a technique
called ‘future analysis’, which aims to identify ‘systems
features which are vulnerable to possible changes’ and
provides guidance in the development of flexible systems
able to accommodate such changes. A risk of not
performing such an analysis, according to Land, is having
inflexible systems that perform well under the current
circumstances but whose performance degrades as those
circumstances change. Land also describes the designer’s
dilemma in deciding the amount of flexibility to build
into a system given the cost and development effort
necessary. Characteristically, he gives the example of a
real case where ‘the designer is involved in a trade-off
between the extra development and operational cost of
designing a system which is adaptable and flexible – a
very general system – or of designing a very specific
system dedicated to the needs existing at the time
of implementation, but which may be incapable of
modification, and may have to be replaced if require-
ments change’.
Table 1 provides a summary of existing research
relating to IS flexibility. It illustrates that IS literature
has recognized some important aspects of IS flexibility:
the importance of context, why flexibility is needed,
European Journal of Information Systems
156 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table 2 Theoretical mapping and research approach

IS flexibility Prior research Grounded theory concept Approach
aspect & gap (Strauss & Corbin)

Context Importance of context is recognized in Context of a Data analysis to identify flexibility

Why needed
What needs to be flexible
Flexibility categories
Flexibility types
Synergies and trade-offs
Flexibility management
actions
Systematic process for
analyzing and managing
flexibility
organizational and manufacturing flexibility
but under-researched in IS (see Table 1)
Some changes described in the literature
but not based on empirical data
Some aspects of this are discussed as
dimensions of flexibility (see Table 1).
No systematic study in IS
Idea of organizing flexibility types into
categories (see Table 1)
Various types of organizational,
manufacturing, and IT flexibility
proposed (see Table 1). In IT, focus is mostly
on infrastructure and systems development,
lacking a broader, integrative analysis.
Gap in the literature
Ways to achieve flexibility (see Table 1).
Not associated with specific flexibility types.
Two prior papers with limited
scope (see Table 1)
phenomenon
Causal conditions
Categories relating
to a phenomenon
context factors.
Data analysis to identify why
flexibility needed.
Prior literature sensitized the data
analysis to identify what needs to be
flexible (see section on Coding).
Data analysis to identify different
categories of flexibility, i.e., higher
level grouping of flexibility types
discussed below.
Prior literature sensitized the data
analysis to identify flexibility types.
Data analysis to identify synergies and
tradeoffs. Different types of flexibility
interactions emerged from the data.
Prior literature sensitized the data
analysis to identify flexibility
management actions.
Integrated process model
combining different aspects
of flexibility.

different flexibility types, dimensions of flexibility, and
ways to achieve flexibility (Table 1). However, there is a
lack of research that integrates these aspects of flexibility.
Also, while there are two studies describing techniques
for analyzing IS flexibility, they focus only on systems
development and do not consider different flexibility
types, dimensions, and ways to achieve flexibility. Hence,
there is a gap in the literature to study IS flexibility from an
integrated perspective, which includes techniques for
analyzing flexibility, different types and dimensions of
flexibility, and ways to achieve flexibility and considers IS
flexibility in a broader context that goes beyond systems
development and infrastructure flexibility.
Table 2 maps the research in this study into the existing
literature as well as concepts from grounded theory that
were used as the theoretical lens for data analysis. The
first column in Table 2 presents the different aspects of IS
flexibility addressed by this research. The second column
describes the gaps in prior research, such as aspects of
flexibility that have been studied in prior research
(Table 1), but in an incomplete (i.e., focusing only on
systems development and infrastructure) and not inte-
grated manner as discussed above. Column 3 in Table 2
illustrates that some aspects of flexibility considered in
this research (such as context, and causal conditions)
are based on general concepts in grounded theory for
studying a phenomenon (such as IS flexibility). Column 3
also illustrates that many aspects of IS flexibility (what
needs to be flexible, flexibility categories, flexibility
types, synergies and trade-offs, and flexibility manage-
ment actions, and a systematic process for analyzing and
managing flexibility) can be considered grounded theory
categories relating to a phenomenon. Column 4 describes
the approach used in this paper for each IS flexibility
aspect in column 1. For example, the concept of the
context of a phenomenon from grounded theory was
used to identify the context of IS flexibility during
data analysis. Prior literature on dimensions of flexibility
sensitized data analysis to identify what needs to be
flexible.
Research focus
In summary, Tables 1 and 2 together provide a summary
of the extant literature on IS flexibility and our approach
to studying IS flexibility in an integrated manner that
considers different aspects of flexibility. Our focus in this
paper is on the analysis and management of different
types of flexibilities that are relevant to an IS manager.
We do not limit ourselves to the IT infrastructure, or
software systems, but explore flexibility in the context of
the broader range of decisions encountered in the IS
function. A major contribution of this paper is a process
model for analyzing and managing flexibility that
considers different types of flexibility in the context
of a broad range of IS management decisions. Another
contribution is identifying different types of flexibilities

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
and providing reasons why they are important, exploring
linkages and tradeoffs between them, and identifying
strategies and moderating factors for proactively mana-
ging flexibility. We provide illustrative examples based on
real-world data. The different types of IS flexibilities that
we identify are empirically derived from data using
the grounded theory methodology. It is important to
realize that we do not attempt to develop an exhaustive
classification of mutually exclusive flexibility types.
Instead, we attempt to ‘partition’ the general concept of
IS flexibility into flexibility categories and types while
recognizing that their symptoms, treatments, and even
the types themselves may overlap. The flexibility cate-
gories and types are components of a process model that
can help practicing managers diagnose and manage
flexibility problems. Unlike previous studies that have
been either conceptual or survey-based, this research uses
secondary case data. Such case-based research is espe-
cially appropriate for researching ‘how and why’ ques-
tions about a phenomenon (IS flexibility) (Yin, 1994).
This broader perspective provides an enhanced under-
standing of flexibility in the context of IS, and provides a
theory base for ‘flexibility analysis’ in the IS function.
Methodology
A major objective of this research is to use data to develop
a process model for IS flexibility analysis and manage-
ment, generate descriptions of different kinds of IS
flexibility, and understand reasons why they are impor-
tant, and how to manage them.
Our research is based on the grounded theory approach
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990), which has been used in other MIS research
to study phenomena such as the adoption of CASE tools
(Orlikowski, 1993) and EDI use (Crook & Kumar, 1998).
Grounded theory is ‘a general methodology of analysis
linked with data collection that uses a systematically
applied set of methods to generate an inductive theory
about a substantive area’ (Glaser, 1992). A major benefit
of the grounded method is that it results in theory
derived from data, and ‘is more likely to resemble the
“reality” than is theory derived by putting together a
series of concepts based on experience or solely through
speculation (how one thinks things ought to work)’
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Following the development of a grounded theory-based
conceptual model, we further analyze the relationships
between the identified IS flexibility categories, types, and
strategies using content analysis.
Data collection
Grounded theory generation may begin with data of
any kind, including, for example, interviews and field
observations, as well as documents such as trade and
academic journal articles, newspaper articles, and other
media materials (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This study uses
secondary data in the form of articles from academic and
practitioner publications and online sources. Anecdotal
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 157
descriptions of situations involving IS flexibility are used
as ‘cases’ for subsequent grounded theory-based analyses.
Research data described as anecdotes have been recog-
nized as important sources of information for generating
theories (Selltiz et al, 1976) particularly in applied areas
(Mitroff & Kilmann, 1976). Mintzberg (1979) described
the importance of using anecdotes for theory building as
follows:
For, while systematic data create the foundation for our
theories, it is the anecdotal data that enable us to do the
building. Theory building seems to require rich description,
the richness that comes from anecdote. We uncover all
kinds of relationships in our hard data, but it is only
through the use of this soft data that we are able to explain
them. (p. 587)
This approach to analyzing cases from secondary data
is similar to the award-winning ‘retrospective case analysis’
used by Dunn & Swierczek (1977). It is also consistent
with research by Locke & Golden-Biddle (1997), which
used an analysis of academic articles to develop a
grounded theory of how organizational scientists con-
struct opportunities for making research contributions to
the field. Our approach is also consistent with Glaser and
Strauss’s (1967, pp. 161–184) analysis of the similarities
between field research and library research and the need
to use library research as a ‘new source of qualitative
data’.
The data used in this study were descriptions of the way
organizations went about managing IS flexibility pub-
lished in academic and practitioner articles and online
sources in the period from January of 1990 to June of
2009 (see List of data sources). The data sources were
selected with the objective of being representative of as
broad a range of academic and practitioner perspectives
as possible.
On the basis of the terms used in the literature to
capture the meaning of flexibility, the following search
keywords were used: flexibility, agility, elasticity, resilience,
robustness, versatility, adaptability, reusability, modularity,
interoperability, compatibility, and connectivity, along with
information technology or IS. Using a variety of keywords
relating to flexibility and searching multiple sources
helped us ensure that IS flexibility is studied from a
variety of perspectives, and no single viewpoint dom-
inates the data.
The intent of the search process was not to exhaust the
search space of all possible references to flexibility. We do
believe, however, that the data sources and search terms
used are representative of a broad range of academic and
practitioner perspectives. Our data collection methodol-
ogy was as follows:
1. First, we took steps to ensure the inclusion of relevant
cases from leading academic and practitioner publica-
tions. Given that these journals, as well as many
others, are included in the repositories searched in step 4,
this was a redundant step. However, we wanted to
make sure that we did not miss important cases
European Journal of Information Systems
158 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
reported in these leading publications. We searched
the following publications:
1.1. Leading MIS academic journals: MIS Quarterly,
Communications of the ACM, European Journal of IS,
IS Research, Journal of the Association for Informa-
tion Systems, Journal of MIS, Harvard Business
Review, Sloan Management Review, Information &
Management, and DATA BASE.
1.2. Leading MIS practitioner magazines: Information-
Week, CIO Magazine, ComputerWorld, and Datamation.
This search resulted in 1350 matches.
2. We then read the abstracts from the above matches
and screened them for suitability as follows:
2.1. Sources dealing with IS flexibility at a very low
level of abstraction, such as for example an article
describing how a proxy firewall is more flexible
than other types of firewalls, were excluded.
2.2. Sources that did not provide real cases of IS
flexibility were excluded.
2.3. Sources dealing superficially with IS flexibility or
the other search terms and not providing enough
detail for analysis were excluded.
2.4. Sources dealing with flexibility other than in the
IS domain were excluded.
This screening resulted in 64 cases, which were
included in the data set.
3. Following, we performed an online search of three major
software developers: Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle. This
search resulted in 111,389 hits, the majority from the
IBM site (106,637). Given the large number of hits,
we took advantage of the relevance ranking features
of the search engines to focus our attention to the
10 most relevant cases in each of the search keyword
combinations. We then read the abstracts from those
cases and screened them using the same rules from
step 2 above. This screening resulted in 10 cases,
which were included in the data set.
4. Finally, we searched each of the following repositories
containing articles from academic and practitioner pub-
lications: AIS eLibrary, ACM Digital Library, Proquest
ABI Inform, EBSCOHost Academic Search Elite, EBS-
COHost Business Source Elite, Science Direct, and two
major technology magazine syndicated online sites
(Advisor.com and TechWeb.com).
This search resulted in a set of 130,949 matches. Start-
ing with the top of the list of matches, we determined
whether a case passed the screening criteria described
above and, if it did, we analyzed it. We continued this
process (screening and analyzing) with succeeding cases
until we became confident that we could not develop the
flexibility types any further, that is, reached theoretical
saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In all, 21 cases from this
group were included in the data set.
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
In total, we collected 95 cases.
Using such a broad range of sources may introduce in
the data differences resulting from the various commu-
nication genres and social processes associated with the
publication of ‘IT flexibility stories’. However, this broad
range of data sources facilitates triangulation of data,
reduces bias in the interpretation of IT flexibility due to
inclusion of just one type of communication genre, and
assures that ‘saturation is based on the widest possible
range of data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We believe that,
given the objectives of this study, a wide search is
particularly desirable. According to Dunn & Swierczek
(1977) ‘Case materials that differ maximally in content
and methods of reporting y provide a broad empirical
domain with which concepts and hypotheses can be
generated, [and]y are likely to reflect more adequately
the conditions actually present’ (in this case the condi-
tions present in efforts to achieve flexibility). ‘Multiple
sources of information also provide a more adequate basis
for interpreting y the content and meaning of concepts’
relating to flexibility as they are used by both academics
and practitioners. In addition, as Glaser & Strauss (1967)
point out, diversity in data sources is a critical considera-
tion from a theoretical sampling perspective.
Coding
The selected data sources were catalogued into cases and
a systematic grounded theory process was used to analyze
first each case individually and then across cases. Some
data sources contained multiple cases. Specifically, each
case was read and evaluated independently by multiple
researchers. As argued by Eisenhardt (1989), ‘the con-
vergence of observations from multiple investigators
enhances confidence in the findings’. Following the
independent evaluation, each case was reviewed by all
researchers (at least two and in some cases three) together
in order to reconcile differences and remove bias.
Our central phenomenon of interest was ‘IS Flexibility’.
To help us think systematically about the data and to
achieve density and precision in our grounded theory
analyses we used the Strauss & Corbin (1990) action/
conditions coding paradigm as a starting conceptual template.
On the basis of that and the data analyzed, we used
open coding to develop concepts (categories) that best
described the data. Development of such a modified
coding paradigm based on more general grounded theory
coding paradigms has been advocated by other research-
ers (see Locke, 2001).
Prior research helped to enhance theoretical sensitivity
by making us aware of the need to look in the data for
different types of flexibility and relationships between
them, and by emphasizing the importance of other parts
of the coding paradigm, which were under-researched in
prior studies (literature gaps; see Table 2). Following the
suggestions of how to use prior literature in grounded
theory research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) we were careful
not to constrain ourselves by having to adhere to types of
flexibilities that were described in prior literature.
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 159

Table 3 Sample case coding

Context Why IS flexibility What needs IS flexibility Flexibility Example/Quote
is needed to be flexible management type
actions

 Fast-paced global  Variability in required Executive Interim (Project) Staffing Firm hires contract
markets IS expertise staffing levels hiring project managers.
 Technology JNeed for quick expertise “Try-before-
changes JNeed for temporary expertise you-buy” tactic.
 High executive  Desire to minimize hiring risk
mobility
 Flatter
organizations
 Constraining
staffing policies

 Product changes Variability in the data and systems  Addition and Invest in Development ‘Data warehouses
needed to support changes in the modification of data data warehouse create value
current products or the launching  Application through the ability
of new products development to quickly develop
 Modification new applications’.
of existing systems

As described in Locke (2001) and Swanson (1986), we
identified possible concepts based on the data by asking
questions such as ‘is this a condition that causes a need
for IS flexibility?’, ‘what actions have been taken to
achieve IS flexibility?’, ‘is this a new concept?’, etc. A
process of constant comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
was used. Whenever the review of a case would help us
learn something new about a particular concept, we
would revisit previous related cases and we would also
make adjustments, additions, and changes to the con-
cepts, sub-concepts, and the relationships between them.
Table 3 illustrates the coding of two cases in the sample.
Since our data came from secondary sources, there
is no escaping the biases of the authors of those articles
except by insisting that concepts be based on phenomena
observed in multiple sources. However, we believe that
using secondary data in the way we have allows us to
analyze a broad range of flexibility cases. The effort
required to obtain primary data on such a broad range of
situations involving IS flexibility would have been
prohibitive, in our opinion.
After all cases in our sample were analyzed using the
grounded theory process described above, in order to better
understand the relative frequency of occurrences of flexibi-
lity types and strategies and the relationships between them,
we used content analysis to further analyze the coded data.
The results of the above processes are presented and
discussed in the following sections.
needed; What needs to be flexible; IS flexibility categories
and types; and Flexibility management actions. These are
described below. It is important to realize that managing
flexibility is a continuous process. As such, the process
model proposed here can be initiated and applied on a
continuous basis.
1. Understand context
Context refers to the set of conditions within which the
need for IS flexibility arises and actions are taken to
manage those needs. A variety of contextual factors
influencing the need for IS flexibility and the subsequent
actions used to address and manage flexibility were
identified in the data. These factors can be summarized
in three major categories: environmental, organizational,
and IS factors (see Table 4).
The impact of context is illustrated in Case Ref. 66 (see
List of data sources). In that case, mergers/acquisitions
(organizational context) cause the ‘need to support,
operate and integrate new systems resulting from the
acquisition of new businesses’ (i.e., integration flexibil-
ity). As described in the case,
Business is buying other (business) assets, because they are
part of a group of assets that they would like to have and
there are other assets (IS) they are getting because of that,
but they expect IT to adapt to manage them as though it
was our core competency.

The context also affects the choice of strategy,

IS flexibility management model which in this case is to ‘have infrastructure in place that
Figure 1 presents a conceptual process model of IS flexi- is not foreign to new lines or new types of business’.
bility management illustrating the following concepts In another example (Case Ref. 39), globalization of
derived from the data: Context; Why IS flexibility is business (environmental context) and the resulting need

European Journal of Information Systems

160 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

1. Understand Context 4. Identify IS flexibility category(ies)and stakeholders

• Environmental • Flexibility in Information Systems Operations
• Organizational • Flexibility in Information Systems & Services Development and Deployment
• IS • Flexibility in Information Systems Management

5. Diagnose IS flexibility type(s) needed

2. Recognize why IS flexibility is needed • Volume Flexibility
Need to enable rapid, effective, and non-disruptive • Operating Flexibility
• response to changing market conditions, regulations, and • Input/Output Flexibility
customer requirements • Integration Flexibility
• response to changes in technology • Development Flexibility
• changes in IS/business strategy • New Technology Deployment Flexibility
• changes in IS/business processes • Financial Flexibility
• development or adaptation • Sourcing Flexibility
• changes in the level, location, and type of available system
• Staffing Flexibility
resources
• connection to, integr ation with, operation, and support of
diverse/disparate systems
6. Understand synergies and tradeoffs between IS flexibility types
• actions to maintain system availability and performance
• Be aware of the multidimensional nature of flexibility. Many real-world IT management cases
• changes in staffing
require concurrent management of more than one type of flexibility.
• changes in suppliers
• Are multiple types of flexibility desirable in order to address the particular conditions?
• Does the presence or absence of particular strategies affect (positively or negatively) more
than one type of flexibility?
3. Evaluate what needs to be flexible • Does the presence of one type of flexibility facilitate or inhibit another type of flexibility?
• IS Resources, e.g.,
o infrastructure standards and scalability
o staffing levels and mix of skills 7. Prescribe IS flexibility management actions
o scope and duration of contracted work • IS Development
o data distribution • IS Governance
o etc. • IT Architecture
• IS Processes, e.g., • Sourcing
o allocation of IT investment • Workforce
o personnel assignment
o systems development methodology
o modification of systems
8. Review Outcomes
o technology sourcing
• Lessons learned
o etc.

Figure 1 Conceptual process model of IS flexibility management.

Table 4 Contextual factors

Environmental Information systems
 Economic  Enterprise IS architecture
JIndustry (e.g., competitive environment, mergers) Globalization of  IS department performance
business  Distribution of IS management
JMarket conditions and changing business environment  IT resources
 Technological JInternal IT capabilities
JTechnological environment (e.g., pace of change) JAvailability and access to IT labor
JSecurity risks JLevel of IT expertise in business units
JeCommerce JAge of IT workforce
 Regulatory requirements JIS utilization/workload
Organizational  IT requirements (e.g., data, applications, infrastructure, interfaces, support)
 Size  IT vendors
 Strategy JRelationship with IT
JMergers & acquisitions JUpgrading strategy
JOutsourcing policy JAbility to cope with new technology
JCustomer type/needs JPerformance
JNature of product  IT costs (e.g., upgrading, maintenance, software licensing,
 Organizational structure support of multiple vendors/products)
Jintra-business-unit relationships  Project Characteristics
Jrelationship between corporate IT and business units JType
Jdistribution of IT management/governance responsibility JSize
Jgeographical dispersion JCollaboration requirements
Jbusiness processes (e.g., number of participants, complexity) JDeadlines
JSupply chain JMethodology
 Degree of dependence on IT (e.g., information intensity) JTechnology used
 Financial conditions JCyclical requirements
 Social factors  IS development team characteristics
JRate of organizational change JLocation
JSenior management perception of IT value and consequent support of IT JVirtual
JSenior management ability, vision, courage
JPolitics

to allocate bandwidth dynamically on an ‘as needed’ outsourcing parts of the network, and the use of a Virtual
basis brings about a need for operating flexibility. The Private Network making ‘it easy to add nodes to the
strategies used to deliver this type of flexibility included network as needed’.

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 161

Table 5 Need for IS flexibility

IS Flexibility is needed to enable rapid, effective, efficient, and non-disruptive y

 Response to changing market conditions, regulations, and customer requirements

 Response to changes in technology
 Changes in IS/business strategy
 Changes in IS/business processes
 Development or adaptation (e.g., modification, expansion, relocation, reconfiguration, upgrade,
 Reuse, customization) and deployment of products, services, systems, infrastructure, architecture, applications and data
 Changes in the level, location, and type of available resources (e.g., data, storage, applications, services, transactions, bandwidth)
 Connection to, integration with, operation, and support of diverse/disparate systems and technologies
 Actions to maintain system/service availability and performance despite security threats, hardware failures, technology changes
 Changes in staffing to deal with application diversity, new technologies resulting in new skill requirements, scarcity and cost of expertise,
employee turnover, changes in strategic priorities, and employee satisfaction
 Changes in supplier contracts and outsourcing arrangements
 Management of the financial flow

2. Recognize why IS flexibility is needed
This concept denotes the reasons for the need for IS
flexibility. The contextual factors discussed above give
rise to conditions that make IS flexibility necessary. This
is demonstrated in Case Ref. 64 where the environmental
context (changing market conditions) caused the ‘need to
quickly deliver software over the Internet’ requiring
development and staffing flexibility. In the case data we
analyzed, contextual factors result in a variety of reasons
why flexibility is needed. These are summarized in
Table 5. These needs for IS flexibility could be the result
of the confluence of one or more contextual factors and
the interactions between them.
On the basis of the analysis of the data, ‘Why IS
Flexibility is needed’ is identified for each case analyzed
and summarized by flexibility type (see Tables A1–A9 in
the Appendix).
3. Evaluate what needs to be flexible
The ‘What needs to be flexible’ concept describes IS
resources and processes that need to be flexible. Examples
of resource characteristics requiring flexibility include:
infrastructure standards and scalability, staffing levels
and mix of skills, scope and duration of contracted work,
data distribution, etc. Processes that need to be flexible
include: allocation of IT investment, personnel assign-
ment, systems development methodology and modifica-
tion of systems, technology sourcing, etc. In Case Ref. 2,
for example, a company finds itself in a situation
(context) where they are moving into ‘increasingly
complex data environments’, where ‘data producers and
consumers might frequently appear and vanish’. In that
case, the company identified a need for flexible data
distribution. In another example (Case Ref. 55) ‘y senior
systems engineers with deep expertise in Unix may find
themselves leading projects one month, and playing a
Java trainee role on their next endeavor y . They don’t
get demoted or take a pay cut y’. In order to increase
employee usability and satisfaction, flexible employee
assignment was required.
On the basis of the analysis of the data, ‘What needs to
be flexible’ is identified for each case analyzed and
summarized by flexibility type (see Tables A1–A9 in the
Appendix).
4 & 5. Identify IS flexibility category(ies) and diagnose
flexibility type(s) needed
Analysis of the case data collected using the grounded
theory techniques discussed in the previous section
resulted in 165 instances of different types of flexibility.
These instances served as the basis for partitioning the
concept of IS flexibility into three major categories
containing 10 flexibility types (see Table 6).
The roles of an IT organization can be conceptualized
as (a) the operation of existing systems to meet business
requirements, (b) the development of systems (either new
or redesign/maintenance of existing) and deployment of
new technologies, and (c) the management of financial
and human resources. These roles are predominantly
performed by different personnel (IT operations and
support personnel, systems developers and architects,
and administrative personnel). The three flexibility
categories derived from our grounded theory analysis
correspond directly to these roles and they help to
organize the identified flexibility types and to bring
attention to the stakeholders involved. In spite of the
value of the flexibility categories, we believe that the
appropriate level of analysis for better understanding and
managing flexibility is at the higher level of granularity of
the flexibility type rather than the flexibility category. As
discussed in the following subsections, the interrelation-
ships and strategies for managing flexibility vary at the
level of the individual flexibility type. Therefore, to
preserve the richness of our data and facilitate a deeper
understanding, interrelationships and strategies are dis-
cussed at that level.
Figure 2 shows the number of occurrences of each
flexibility category and type in our sample of cases. As
discussed earlier, the types of flexibility identified here

European Journal of Information Systems

162 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table 6 IS flexibility types and categories

Flexibility categories Flexibility types

Flexibility in Information
Systems Operations
 Volume flexibility – Ability to vary the level of support and/or quantity of IS products/services
(reports, data, CPU time, bandwidth, transactions, etc.).
 Operating flexibility – Ability to meet commitments (service levels) by: (a) temporarily maintaining
(in spite of negative events), (b) redistributing or (c) changing the focus, mix, role/functionality,
location, or workload of IS resources.
 Input/Output flexibility – Ability to vary the timing, content, format, location, and producers/consumers of
system input and/or output.
 Integration flexibility – Ability to efficiently access and use a variety of data formats and/or applications.

Flexibility in Information  Development flexibility – Ability to quickly and easily develop, maintain and/or redesign systems and/or services.
Systems & Services  New technology deployment flexibility – Ability to quickly and effectively evaluate and
Development and deploy the appropriate new technology choices.
Deployment

Flexibility in Information
Systems Management
 Financial flexibility – Ability to reallocate financial resources among activities
of the Information Systems Department.
 Sourcing flexibility – Ability to obtain necessary IS resources from multiple sources as needed.
 Staffing flexibility – Ability to meet commitments by maintaining, or varying the mix
of existing IS personnel resources, or by hiring new resources.

Figure 2 Flexibility type occurrence.

have some overlap in terms of causal conditions and/or
strategies required to achieve them.
Following our analysis of the secondary data, we sought
practitioner feedback regarding the collection of IS flexi-
bility types that we identified through the grounded
theory process. For this purpose, we interviewed four
senior IS executives at a Fortune 100 company that is a
worldwide leader in energy generation and distribution.
The four executives represented a wide cross-section
of IS backgrounds and perspectives, including strategy,
architecture and systems development, infrastructure,
research, and consulting. We shared with each executive
the collection of flexibility types. We discussed with
them the definition of each flexibility type and solicited
examples of situations where they have come across that
type of flexibility and the strategies that they used to
address it. Though not a formal validation, the positive
feedback from the senior IS managers to whom we
presented this collection leads us to believe that it
represents a useful and intuitive way of conceptualizing

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
flexibility in the IS function with which practitioners can
relate. A formal validation would, in our opinion, require
survey-based research using a large sample.
6. Understand synergies and tradeoffs between
flexibility types
Organizations are faced with situations (problems/opportu-
nities) requiring IS flexibility. Addressing such situations
is a process of understanding the context and needs, identi-
fying the flexibility category and stakeholders, recogniz-
ing the various types of IS flexibility needed, and putting
together a set of management actions to address those
needs (see IS Flexibility Management Process Model in
Figure 1). Effective resolutions require decision makers to
be aware of the multidimensional nature of flexibility.
While each of the above types of IS flexibility is impor-
tant in its own right, there are many synergies and even
possible conflicts and tradeoffs between them.
Synergies become evident in the data where, for many
of the cases analyzed, multiple types of flexibility are
desirable in order to address the particular conditions. In
Case Ref. 36 for example, the following need is described:
Given the rapid rate of growth in Antelope Valley Health
Care System’s customer population, the key criteria [sic] for
its new platform was scalability. If, in the future, Antelope
Valley Hospital needs to break up applications, or grow an
application from 50 to 100 servers, the process should be
seamless, manageable, and cost effective.
In response to the above, the company decided to pur-
sue Development, New Technology Deployment Operat-
ing, Integration, and Volume flexibility. Further study of
this case indicates that New Technology Deployment
flexibility (the ability to evaluate and deploy new tech-
nology; hereafter referred to as Technology flexibility)
helps achieve Volume flexibility. However, Technology
flexibility is not always required to achieve Volume
flexibility. The above case also illustrates that (the pre-
sence or absence of) particular strategies may affect (posi-
tively or negatively) more than one type of flexibility.
For example, a strategy of having an infrastructure with
the ‘ability to create and deploy multiple standards of
software’, facilitates both Technology and Integration
flexibility.
In another example (Case Ref. 45), inflexible out-
sourcing contacts not allowing renegotiation or long-
term contracts with a single provider (poor Sourcing
flexibility) promote unhealthy reliance and do not allow
the organization to react quickly to technology changes
(poor Technology flexibility). In this case, having con-
tracts that allow renegotiation/termination increases
both Sourcing and Technology flexibility.
In another example, an ability to temporarily increase
volume for one system or application (Volume flexibility)
may also be considered as Operating flexibility for the
supersystem, if what is happening is shifting of resources
in order to maintain service levels in case of a nega-
tive event. Volume flexibility relates to variations in the
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 163
overall system output. Operating flexibility (as far as
quantity of output is concerned) relates to variations in
individual system unit output – more like shifting, or
redistribution of output between different units.
In some cases, the presence of one type of flexibility
can facilitate another type of flexibility. For example,
Development flexibility facilitates Technology flexibility,
and Sourcing flexibility may be a provider of Operating
flexibility.
The above examples indicate the presence of synergistic
relationships between some types of IS flexibility. Given these
interrelations between flexibility types, when implement-
ing a strategy aimed at gaining a particular type of
flexibility, managers should look for synergistic results. In
some cases, however, there may be conflicts between
different types of flexibility and managers may need to
examine tradeoffs between them. Examples of such
tradeoffs include:
 The ability to efficiently store, deliver, access, and use a
variety of data and applications (i.e., having systems
that are easily integrated) translates to Integration
flexibility. Integration enhances multiple types of
flexibility, such as Operating, and Development flex-
ibility. However, systems integration could impact
negatively other types of flexibility. For example,
unnecessary integration could lead to a reduced ability
to quickly and easily develop, maintain, and/or rede-
sign systems, that is, lesser Development flexibility.
(Case Ref. 14)
While, in general, capacity for increased systems integra-
tion was treated as a very important infrastructure con-
cern, executives in a major Texas insurance and investments
firm spoke of integration as a source of maintenance misery.
They described a case in which business management
asked the IS organization to identify the implemented
details of a specific business rule. It took IS two weeks to
respond.
 ‘While strict standards about technologies increase
the ease with which IS can ensure shareability and
reusability of infrastructure components [Integration,
Development, Technology flexibility], they reduce
business options for IT implementation’ and choices
available to systems implementers (Development flex-
ibility). (Case Ref. 13) In addition to conflicts between
different types of flexibility, this example demonstrates
how a particular strategy (standardization) can have
positive as well as negative effects on a single flexi-
bility type (Development). This phenomenon can
be explained by referring to the flexibility dimen-
sions/metrics discussed extensively in prior flexibility
literature: speed, cost, and range (Avison et al, 1995;
Das & Elango, 1995; Golden & Powell, 2000). While
standardization can increase Development flexibility,
by increasing speed and reducing cost of systems
development, it can decrease the same flexibility by
limiting the range of choices available for systems
developers.
European Journal of Information Systems
164 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table 7 Flexibility type co-occurrence

(Column-wise % of total number of co-occurrences and, in parentheses, # of occurrences)

IS Operations IS & Services Dev. & Deploy IS management

Volume Operating Input/Output Integration Development New Technology Deployment Financial Sourcing Staffing

Volume 28% 17% 30% 2% 2% 3% 12% 7%

(10) (10) (6) (1) (2) (2) (3) (2)
Operating 28% 24% 5% 8% 9% 16% 15% 20% 10%
(10) (14) (1) (5) (8) (11) (4) (3) (3)
Input/Output 17% 2% 25% 3% 4% 3%
(6) (1) (5) (2) (4) (2)
Integration 3% 8% 10% 19% 22% 24% 8% 13%
(1) (5) (2) (11) (20) (16) (2) (2)
Development 6% 14% 20% 34% 38% 27% 12% 13% 3%
(2) (8) (4) (20) (35) (18) (3) (2) (1)
New technology 6% 19% 10% 27% 19% 6% 19% 27% 17%
(2) (11) (2) (16) (18) (4) (5) (4) (5)
Financial 8% 7% 3% 3% 7% 15% 13% 10%
(3) (4) (2) (3) (5) (4) (2) (3)
Sourcing 5% 3% 2% 6% 8% 13%
(3) (2) (2) (4) (2) (2)
Staffing 6% 5% 1% 7% 12% 53%
(2) (3) (1) (5) (3) (16)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Bolded cells highlight occurrence of each flexibility type by itself.
Shaded cells highlight co-occurrence 20% or over.
Notes/Legend: Read Table column-wise.

Content analysis In order to better understand the
relationships between flexibility categories/types and
strategies, we used content analysis to further analyze
the data and examine their relative frequency of occur-
rences. In the cases that we analyzed, each flexibility type
occurred by itself at least once indicating that each type
merits individual treatment (see Table 7). However, a
little more than half of the cases contained references to
multiple types of IS flexibility. In Table 7, relationships
between flexibility types are indicated by co-occurrences.
Each flexibility type co-occurs with five to eight other
types. For example, Sourcing flexibility frequently
co-occurred with Operating and New Technology
Deployment flexibility. On the other hand, New Tech-
nology Deployment flexibility co-occurred at least once
with every other flexibility type but most frequently with
Integration and Development flexibility. This seems to
indicate that many real-world IT management cases require
concurrent management of more than one type of flexibility.
However, the patterns of co-occurrences depend on the
type of flexibility and the strategies for managing each
type of flexibility are often different (more on this later).
Hence, the more detailed classification of different types
of flexibility proposed in this paper could lead to improved
understanding and management of IS flexibility.
An iterative open coding process was used to classify
the individual flexibility management actions encoun-
tered in the cases into groupings of actions and even-
tually into the five classes of strategies shown in the left
column of Table 8. For example, having processes that are
distributable over multiple servers (Case Ref. 62) and
using an open systems approach (Case Ref. 41) were
management actions classified as belonging to the IT
architecture class (which included 17 different manage-
ment actions). Table 8 summarizes the strategy classes
used to achieve the different types of flexibility observed
in the cases. For example, as indicated in the table,
sourcing flexibility is achieved primarily via sourcing
strategies (43%; primarily the use of flexible contracting)
and IT architecture strategies (57%; primarily the use of
open and loosely-coupled architecture). It is important to
note that the purpose of this analysis is to illustrate the fact
that particular classes of strategies may be appropriate for
different types of flexibility and not to identify the best
strategies for achieving a particular type of flexibility. Our
analysis can be used as the starting point for additional
survey-based research to identify the management actions
that can best achieve particular types of flexibility.
Looking at Table 8 row-wise, we observe that most
strategy classes are used to achieve multiple types of flexibility.
This is partly the result of the phenomenon discussed
earlier, where flexibility types co-occur and an individual
management action may be used to achieve more
than one type of flexibility. For example, the IS gover-
nance strategy class is used to achieve Integration, New
Technology Deployment, Operating, and Development
flexibilities (Case Refs 18, 19 and 36).
Table 8 also illustrates that there is overlap between the
strategy classes used to achieve select types of flexibility. For
example, there is substantial overlap in the strategy classes

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 165

Table 8 Strategies used for different flexibility types

Strategy classification (Column-wise % of total and, in parentheses, # of occurrences)

IS operations IS & services Dev. & Deploy IS management Grand total

Volume Operating Input/Output Integration Development New Technology Financial Sourcing Staffing
Deployment

IS development 11% 11% 36% 8% 41% 11% 18%

(3) (4) (5) (3) (28) (4) (47)
IS governance 6% 3% 4% 11% 4%
(2) (1) (3) (4) (10)
IT architecture 81% 64% 64% 84% 49% 54% 25% 57% 56%
(22) (23) (9) (31) (33) (19) (3) (4) (144)
Sourcing 7% 19% 5% 4% 23% 75% 43% 29% 16%
(2) (7) (2) (3) (8) (9) (3) (6) (40)
Workforce 1% 71% 6%
(1) (15) (16)
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes/Legend: Read the Table column-wise.

used to achieve development, operating, integration, and
new technology deployment flexibilities. However, the data
also reveal that the relative frequency of occurrence of the
shared strategy classes is different for each type of flexibility.
We observe, for example, that IS development and IT
architecture seem to be the most common strategy classes
for development flexibility, while new technology flexibil-
ity is achieved most often through IT architecture and
sourcing strategies. This reinforces the need for the more
granular analysis at the level of flexibility types.
Prescribe IS flexibility management actions
IS flexibility management actions are actions directed
at managing and achieving IS flexibility. As shown in the
IS flexibility management process model in Figure 1,
these actions are driven by the flexibility needs and con-
textual factors discussed above and the type of flexibility.
For example, in Case Ref. 2 (mentioned above), within
the context of a dynamic and complex data environment
there was a need to achieve flexible data distribution in
order to gain volume and input/output flexibility. Using a
‘broker-based publish and subscribe data architecture’
was the chosen flexibility management action. In Case
Ref. 55 (also mentioned above) to satisfy the need for flexi-
ble employee assignment (staffing flexibility) the company
took the following flexibility management actions: trained
employees ‘with broad technical and management skills’
and used broadbanding (a technique allowing employees to
work on different roles in different projects).
Tables A1–A9 in the Appendix present details from the
case data about each type of flexibility, including why
each type of flexibility is needed, what needs to be
flexible, as well as illustrative strategies for achieving each
type of flexibility. In addition, these tables contain
references to the data cases (citations in List of data
cases) illustrating the various types of IS flexibility. For
example, Table A5 summarizes the results of the
grounded theory-based analysis of the data for develop-
ment flexibility. Besides the definition for this type of
flexibility, this table describes conditions such as the
‘need to be able to quickly change, adapt, customize
existing systems, data and/or business rules in order to
support process improvements’, which drive the need for
flexibility in systems development. Relevant resource and
process characteristics that need to be flexible, such as
coupling between modules, and the application design
process, are identified. Examples and quotes from the
case studies are provided in the Table. Finally, illustrative
management actions for achieving development flexi-
bility are listed. These include strategies emphasizing
modularity and reusability, single vendor solutions,
strategies focusing on the choice and execution of
development methodologies, strategies focusing on sys-
tems integration, and others. On the basis of the above
analysis, we propose that individual flexibility types differ in
terms of the reasons why flexibility is needed, what needs to be
flexible, and the strategies used to achieve them.
The IS flexibility Tables A1–A9 in the Appendix capture
proposed relationships between flexibility management
actions (strategies) and flexibility types. As such, they
represent testable propositions such as the illustrative
propositions shown below. Surveys can be designed to
test the impact of particular strategies on a flexibility type
under various contextual conditions or relationships
between flexibility types.
Illustrative Propositions:
In the context of global organizations, centralized
management of systems tailored to local needs
increases development flexibility.
Operating and New Technology flexibilities are likely
to be needed in situations where Sourcing flexibility is
important.
Input/Output Flexibility is most commonly achieved
through IS Development and IT Architecture strategies.

European Journal of Information Systems

166 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
8. Review outcomes
Managing IS flexibility through the application of the
process model needs to be done continuously. Hence, it is
important for managers to review outcomes and learn
from each application of the model. On the basis of our
experience, comments we received from practitioners,
generally accepted systems theory and quality manage-
ment principles, questions to reflect on include:
 Which of the undertaken management actions were
successful and to what degree? Which performed less
than expected?
 Were there synergies or conflicts observed among the
strategies employed?
 Were there synergies or conflicts observed between
flexibility types?
 Were there changes in contextual factors that affected
flexibility needs or the effectiveness of the undertaken
management actions over time?
We should point out that we do not have case data to
support the specific questions listed above or even the
inclusion of the Review activity in the process model.
Rather, we felt the need to include it for purposes
of completeness based on generally accepted Systems
Theory.
Conclusion
Relationship to previous research
The process model in Figure 1 (as described in the
sections above) provides an integrated view of IS
flexibility management. Some of what have previously
been offered as types or dimensions of flexibility are
included in our model as strategies that can be used to
achieve one or more types of flexibility. For example,
dimensions such as IT connectivity, compatibility, data
transparency, technology management (Byrd & Turner,
2000; Duncan, 1995), modularity, and reusability (Knoll
& Jarvenpaa, 1994) can be considered types of strategies
for achieving different types of flexibility.
Previously suggested metrics of flexibility such as
speed, cost, amount (Das & Elango, 1995), efficiency,
responsiveness, and versatility (Golden & Powell, 2000)
can be used to measure different types of flexibility in our
model. By measuring the level of various types of IS
flexibility, future research could attempt to establish
relationships between IS flexibility and organizational
performance metrics.
The IS flexibility management process model described
above and the related Tables A1–A9 in the Appendix
represent a perspective different from those offered in
the prior literature on the topic. This perspective is
not contradictory to previous literature but broader,
integrative, and process-oriented. The unit of analysis of
flexibility in this paper (the IS function) is broader
than prior research focusing on particular types of
flexibility such as software system flexibility (e.g.,
Nelson & Ghods, 1998) and infrastructure flexibility
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
(e.g., Duncan 1995, Byrd & Turner, 2000). Our model
addresses both structural (technology design-oriented)
and process (people and management process-oriented)
flexibility (Nelson & Ghods, 1998). Some of the strategies
to achieve flexibility that we have identified address
structural flexibility, some address process flexibility and
some address both.
The framework presented here is sufficiently general to
be applicable to a range of situations relating to the
management of IS flexibility, is easily understandable by
practitioners, and should provide useful insight into the
actual management of IS flexibility. This research can
serve as a basis from which both IS decision makers as
well as researchers can understand and manage what is
typically a complex but increasingly important aspect of
IS-enabled competitive advantage.
The framework proposed here is different from existing
frameworks on IS flexibility. Existing frameworks have
focused primarily on dimensions of flexibility and dis-
tinctions between technical infrastructure, human infra-
structure, and process flexibility in limited contexts such
as systems development and infrastructure management.
This research suggests that, while these distinctions
are important, managers may benefit from following a
flexibility management process and from conceptualizing
flexibility using more granular categories and in the
broader context of the IS function.
Research limitations
This research is primarily qualitative with data from cases
reported in academic and professional publications. Such
anecdotal data are recognized as important for generating
theories (Selltiz et al, 1976; Mintzberg, 1979) particularly
in applied areas (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1976). This approach
allowed us to generate categories, such as components of
the process model, types of flexibility, illustrative strate-
gies and propositions. To better understand and general-
ize the relative importance of different types of flexibility
and to identify the management actions that can best
achieve particular types of flexibility, our analysis can
be used as the starting point for additional survey-based
research.
We recognize that secondary data may suffer from the
biases of the creators of these data. However, we believe
that using secondary data in the way we have allows us to
analyze a broad range of flexibility cases. The effort
required to obtain primary data on such a broad range of
situations involving IS flexibility would have been
prohibitive, in our opinion. Furthermore, secondary case
data are recognized in the literature as a legitimate and
important source of information as described in the ‘Data
collection’ section of the paper.
Future research ideas
Understanding the concept of IS flexibility in terms of
multiple flexibility types and distinguishing between the
conditions that make each type of flexibility desirable
and the strategies used to accomplish flexibility allows us
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
to answer not only the what (is IS flexibility), but also the
why (is IS flexibility important), and how (to manage IS
flexibility) questions. Flexible usage and management of
resources (people, hardware, software, money, time) can
benefit the IS function and the entire organization. It is
important to recognize, however, that managing IS
flexibility is challenging and no set of strategies could
be a prescription for all organizations or even for all
times.
The following directions for further research can be
proposed:
 This research has identified contextual factors impact-
ing IS flexibility. As a next step, it may be interesting to
examine the relative importance of different types of
flexibility in a variety of IS contexts. This may help to
differentiate between major and minor types of flex-
ibility and help better manage IS flexibility. One
example of such research may be to identify specific
types of flexibility that may be more or less important
for specific types of projects and for the various stages
of a project. In addition, the relationship between the
portfolio of IS flexibilities needed given a particular
organizational strategy merits further research.
About the Authors
Ram L. Kumar is Professor in Belk College of Business
Administration, UNC-Charlotte. He received his Ph.D.
in Information Systems & Management Science from
the University of Maryland. He worked for major
multinational corporations such as Fujitsu before
entering academics. His research has been funded by
organizations such as the U.S. Department of Com-
merce, and organizations in the financial services and
energy industries. His current research interests include
techniques for evaluating and managing portfolios
of IT investments, IT Management, and Business
Analytics. His research has been published in Commu-
nications of the ACM, Computers and Operations Research,
Decision Sciences, European Journal of Information Sys-
tems, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, Journal of MIS,
and others. He has advised organizations such as the
U.S. Department of Energy and other organizations
References
AAKER DA and MASCARHENAS B (1984) The need for strategic flexibility.
Journal of Business Strategy 5(2), 74–82.
ATTARAN M (2004) Exploring the relationship between information
technology and business process reengineering. Information &
Management 41(5), 585–596.
AVISON DE, POWELL PL, KEEN J, KLEIN JH and WARD S (1995) Addressing the
need for flexibility in information systems. Journal of Management
Systems 7(2), 43–60.
BORJESSON A, MARTINSON F and TIMMERAS M (2006) Agile improvement
practices in software organizations. European Journal of Information
Systems 15(2), 169–182.
BOYNTON AC (1993) Achieving dynamic stability through information
technology. California Management Review 35(2), 58–77.
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 167
 Grounded theory includes the concept of con-
sequences of actions associated with a phenomenon
(such as IS flexibility), which this study has not
examined. The organizational consequences of IS deci-
sions regarding the various types of flexibility need to
be investigated. In particular, tradeoffs and synergies
between different types of flexibility and their impact
on IS and organizational performance merits addi-
tional research.
 The qualitative research presented in this paper can be
complemented with survey research. Instruments can
be built to measure the existence and level of different
types of IS flexibility in an organization. A more com-
prehensive identification of the resource and process
characteristics that need to be flexible can lead to the
development of metrics for measuring each flexibility
type.
IS flexibility is an important topic in the current
dynamic business environment. Research that can lead
to an improved understanding of how to achieve
flexibility will be of great value to IS researchers and
managers.
in the private sector on evaluation of R&D Projects and
IT Portfolios.
Dr. Antonis C. Stylianou has over 25 years of experience in
computer information systems. Currently, he is Professor of
management information systems and a member of the
graduate faculty at the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte. His industry experience includes an appoint-
ment in the information management department at Duke
Energy. Dr. Stylianou has published numerous research
articles in Management Science, European Journal of Informa-
tion Systems, Decision Sciences, Decision Support Systems,
Information & Management, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Communications of the ACM, and other journals.
He is a frequent presenter on the management of informa-
tion systems, and serves as a consultant to organizations.
He currently serves as a senior editor for the Database for
Advances in Information Systems journal.
BROADBENT M and WEILL P (1997) Management by maxim: how business
and IT managers can create IT infrastructures. Sloan Management
Review 38(3), 77–92.
BROADBENT M, WEILL P and ST CLAIR D (1999) The implications of
information technology infrastructure for business process redesign.
MIS Quarterly 23(2), 159–182.
BYRD TA and TURNER DE (2000) Measuring the flexibility of information
technology infrastructure: exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal
of MIS 17(1), 167–208.
CORBIN J and STRAUSS A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures,
cannons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1), 3–21.
CLEMONS EK and WEBER BW (1994) Segmentation, differentiation,
and flexible pricing: experiences with information technology and
European Journal of Information Systems
168 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
segment-tailored strategies. Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems 11(2), 9–36.
CROOK C and KUMAR R (1998) Electronic data interchange: a multiple
industry investigation using grounded theory. Information & Manage-
ment 34(2), 75–90.
DAS TK and ELANGO B (1995) Managing strategic flexibility: key to
effective performance. Journal of General Management 20(3), 60–75.
DAVIS MJ (1995) Adaptable, reusable code. Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Software Engineering, pp 38–46, Seattle,
Washington.
DESOUZA KC (2007) Agile Information Systems: Conceptualization, Con-
struction, and Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
DUNCAN N (1995) Capturing flexibility of information infrastructure: a
study of resource characteristics and their measure. Journal of
Management Information Systems 12(2), 37–57.
DUNN WN and SWIERCZEK FW (1977) Planned organizational change:
toward grounded theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
13(2), 135–157.
EARDLEY A, AVISON D and POWELL P (1997) Strategic information systems:
an analysis of development techniques which seek to incorporate
strategic flexibility. Journal of Organizational Computing 7(1), 57–77.
EISENHARDT KM (1989) Building theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550.
EVANS B (2002) The need for agility. InformationWeek, 80.
EVANS JS (1991) Strategic flexibility for high technology maneuvers: a
conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies 28(1), 69–89.
EPPINK DJ (1978) Planning for strategic flexibility. Long Range Planning
11(4), 9–15.
FITZGERALD B, HARTNETT G and CONBOY K (2006) Customizing agile
methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of
Information Systems 15(2), 200–213.
FITZGERALD G (1990) Achieving flexible information systems: the case for
improved analysis. Journal of Information Technology 5(1), 5–11.
GALLIERS RD (2007) Strategizing for agility: confronting information
systems inflexibility in dynamic environments. In Agile Information
Systems: Conceptualization, Construction, and Management (DESOUZA
KC, Ed), pp 1–15, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
GEBAUER J and SCHOBER F (2006) Information system flexibility and the
cost efficiency of business processes. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems 7(3), 122–146.
GERWIN D (1993) Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective.
Management Science 39(4), 395–410.
GLASER BG (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs.
Forcing. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
GLASER BG and STRAUSS AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
Aldine Publishing Company, New York.
GOLDEN W and POWELL P (2000) Towards a definition of flexibility: in
search of the holy grail? Omega 28(4), 373–384.
HARRIS A, GIUNIPERO LC and HULT GTM (1998) Impact of organizational
and contract flexibility on outsourcing contracts. Industrial Marketing
Management 27(5), 373–384.
HENDERSON JC and VENKATRAMAN N (1994) Strategic alignment: a model
for organizational transformation via information technology. In Infor-
mation Technology and the Corporation of the 1990s (ALLEN TJ and SCOTT
MORTON MS, Eds), pp 202–220, Oxford University Press, U.K.
HUBER GP and MCDANIEL RR (1986) The decision making paradigm of
organizational design. Management Science 32(5), 572–589.
KERN T, WILCOCKS LP and LACITY M (2002) Application service provision:
risk assessment and mitigation. MIS Quarterly Executive 1(2), 112–126.
KNOLL K and JARVENPAA SL (1994) Information technology alignment of
‘fit’ in highly turbulent environments: the concept of flexibility.
Proceedings of the 1994 SIGCPR Conference, pp 1–14, Alexandria, VA.
KUMAR R (1999) Understanding the business value of information
systems: a flexibility-based approach. In Contemporary Approaches to
Measuring the Business Value of Information Systems (MAHMOOD M, Ed),
pp 320–336, IDEA Group Publishing, Harrisburg, PA.
KUMAR RL and STYLIANOU AC (1995) Managing flexibility in distributed
information systems architectures. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Interna-
tional Conference on Information Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
LACITY M and HIRSCHHEIM R (1993) The information systems outsourcing
bandwagon: look before you leap. Sloan Management Review 35(1),
72–86.
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
LACITY M and WILLCOCKS L (2001) Global Information Technology
Outsourcing: In Search of Business Advantage. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
LAND F (1982) Adapting to changing requirements. Information &
Management 5(2), 59–75.
LEE DMS, TRAUTH E and FARWELL D (1995) Critical skills and knowledge
requirements of IS professionals: a joint academic/industry investiga-
tion. MIS Quarterly 19(3), 313–340.
LEE G and XIA W (2005) The ability of information systems development
project teams to respond to business and technology changes: a study
of flexibility measures. European Journal of Information Systems 14(1),
75–92 Flyt.
LEGORRETA L, NELSON K and NELSON HJ (2001) Framework for measuring
e-business architecture flexibility. Proceedings of The Americas Associa-
tion for Information Systems Conference, Paper 108.
LOCKE K (2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research. Sage, London.
LOCKE K and GOLDEN-BIDDLE K (1997) Constructing opportunities for
contribution: structuring inter textual coherence and ‘problematizing’
in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal 40(5),
1023–1062.
LOEBBECKE C, POWELL P and LEVY M (1997) Information systems as a
mechanism for business risk management. Proceedings of the 4th
Conference of the International Society for Decision Support Systems,
University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
LONGWORTH G (1985) Designing Systems for Change. NCC Publications,
Manchester, U.K.
LUCAS HC and OLSON M (1994) The impact of information technology on
organizational flexibility. Journal of Organizational Computing 4(2),
155–176.
LUI T and PICCOLI G (2007) Degrees of agility: implications for information
systems design and firm strategy. In Agile Information Systems:
Conceptualization, Construction, and Management (DESOUZA KC, Ed),
pp 122–133, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
LYYTINEN K and ROSE GM (2006) Information system development agility
as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems
15(2), 183–199.
MCFARLAN FW and NOLAN RL (1995) How to manage an IT outsourcing
alliance. Sloan Management Review 36(2), 9–23.
MINTZBERG H (1979) An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly 24(4), 580–589.
MITROFF II and KILMANN RH (1976) On organization stories: an approach
to the design and analysis of organizations through myths and stories.
In The Management of Organization Design (KILMANN RH, PONDY LR, and
SLEVIN DP, Eds), American Elsevier, New York.
MOHR L (1982) Explaining organizational behavior, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
NELSON KM and COOPRIDER JG (2001) The relationship of software system
flexibility to software system and team performance. Proceedings of
the Twenty-second International Conference on Information Systems,
pp 23–32, New Orleans, LA.
NELSON KM and GHODS M (1998) Measuring technology flexibility.
European Journal of Information Systems 7(4), 232–240.
NELSON KM, NELSON HJ and GHODS M (1997) Technology flexibility:
conceptualization, validation, and measurement. Proceedings of the
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, pp 76–87,
Maui, HI.
NEWMAN M and ROBEY D (1992) A social process model of user-analyst
relationships. MIS Quarterly 16(2), 249–266.
OOSTERHOUT MV, WAARTS E, HECK E.V and HILLEGERSBERG JV (2007)
Business agility: need readiness and alignment with IT strategies. In
Agile Information Systems: Conceptualization, Construction and Manage-
ment (DESOUZA KC, Ed), pp 52–69, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, U.K.
OOSTERHOUT MV, WAARTS E and HILLEGERSBERG JV (2006) Change factors
requiring agility and implications for IT. European Journal of Information
Systems 15, 132–145.
ORLIKOWSKI WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating
incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS
Quarterly 17(3), 309–340.
OVERBY E, BHARADWAJ A and SAMBAMURTHY V (2006) Enterprise agility and
the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of
Information Systems 15(2), 120–131.
PORTER ME (1985) Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New York.
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
SAUNDERS C, GEBELT M and HU Q (1997) Achieving success in informa-
tion systems outsourcing. California Management Review 39(2),
63–79.
SCHWAN K and JONES AK (1986) Flexible software development for
multiple computer systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
12(3), 385–401.
SCOTT WA (1966) Flexibility, rigidity, and adaptation: towards clarifica-
tion of concepts. In Experience, Structure and Adaptability (HARVEY OJ,
Ed), Springer Publishing Company, Inc., New York.
SELLTIZ C, WRIGHTSMAN LS and COOK SW (1976) Research Methods in Social
Relations 3rd edn, Holt Rinehart and Whinston, New York.
SETHI AK and SETHI SP (1990) Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey.
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 2(4), 289–328.
SHAW T and JARVENPAA S (1997) Process models in information systems. In
Information Systems and Qualitative Research (LEE A, LIEBENAU J and
DEGROSS J, Eds), pp 70–87, Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
SHI D and DANIELS L (2003) A survey of manufacturing flexibility:
implications for e-business flexibility. IBM Systems Journal 42(3),
414–427.
SHIPPS B (2007) Information technology staffing strategies: on the road to
‘agility’. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
SHIPPS B and ZAHEDI F (1999) Agile IT staffing strategies: determinants
and impacts. In Proceedings of the AMCIS (HASEMANN W and NAZARETH D,
Eds), 13–15 August, Association for Information Systems, Milwaukee,
WI, USA.
SLACK N (1987) The flexibility of manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 7(4), 35–45.
STRAUSS A and CORBIN J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory, Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
SUAREZ F, CUSUMANO M and FINE C (1995) An empirical study of flexibility
in manufacturing. Sloan Management Review 37(1), 25–32.
SWANSON JM (1986) Analyzing data for categories and description. In
From Practice to Grounded Theory: Qualitative Research in Nursing
(CHENITZ WC and SWANSON JM, Eds), pp 121–132, Addison-Wesley,
Menlo Park, CA.
TAN C and SIA S (2006) Managing flexibility in outsourcing. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems 7(4), 179–206.
WEILL P, SUBRAMANI M and BROADBENT M (2002) Building IT infrastructure
for strategic agility. Sloan Management Review 44(1), 56–65.
WERNERFELT B and KARNANI A (1987) Competitive strategy under uncer-
tainty. Strategic Management Journal 8(2), 187–194.
YIN RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
List of data cases
1. Hagerthy, M. J. ‘The Flexible Organization and
the Portable Executive’, San Diego Business Jour-
nal (18:34), August 25, 1997, p. 17.
2. Hackathorn, R. ‘Data Delivery When You Want
It’, Byte 22(6), 1997, p. 51.
3. Fitzgerald, M. ‘System Odyssey Leads To Out-
sourcing’, Computerworld 26(7), February 17,
1992, p. 73.
4. Violino, B. ‘Hired Guns: Temporary CIOs’,
InformationWeek (768), January 10, 2000, p. 66.
5–8. Amram, M., Kulatilaka, N. & Henderson, J. C.
‘Taking An Option On IT’, CIO Enterprise Maga-
zine 12(17), June 15, 1999, p. 46.
9–12. Pearson, D. ‘CIO Be Nimble’, CIO Magazine 13(1),
October 11, 1999.
13–17. Duncan, N. B. ‘Capturing Flexibility of Infor-
mation Technology Infrastructure: A Study of
Resource Characteristics And Their Measure’,
Journal Of Management Information Systems
12(2), 1995, pp. 37–57.
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 169
18–19. Allen, B. R. And Boyton, A. C. ‘Information
Architecture: In Search Of Efficient Flexibility’,
MIS Quarterly (15:4), 1991, pp. 435–449.
20. Fournier, R. ‘Build For Business Innovation’,
InformationWeek (759), November 1, 1999, p. 127.
21–24. Harney, J. ‘Lost Among the ASPs’, Intelligent
Enterprise 3(3), February 9, 2000.
25. Wagner, M. ‘E-Commerce Traffic Management
Requires Flexibility’, Internetweek, March 14,
1998, retrieved March 1, 2000 from http://con-
tent.techweb.com/wire/story/twb19980314s0001
26. Radding, A. ‘Ready For the Deluge’, CIO Magazine,
2000, Special Advertising Supplement.
27–29. Trepper, C. ‘Methodologies Vary According to the
Project’, InformationWeek (800), August 21, 2000,
p. 60.
30. Gillmer, S. ‘New Model for E-Commerce’,
InformationWeek (741), June 28, 1999, p. 65.
31. Prahalad, C. K. ‘Consumer Centricity’, Infor-
mationWeek (781), April 10, 2000, p. 67.
32–33. Guinness World Records Choose Agility, Switches
from Sun/Oracle to Microsoft/Intel’, October 23,
2000, retrieved October 30, 2000 from http://
www.microsoft.com/business/case
studies/b2c/guinness.asp
34–35. Leclaire, J., and Cooper, L. ‘Rapid-fire IT Infra-
structure’, InformationWeek (771), January 31,
2000, p. 59.
36. Antelope Valley Health Care System – Back Office
Server Business Solution’, retrieved
October 30, 2000 from http://www.microsoft
.com/servers/evaluation/casestudies/downloads/
antelope.doc
37. Cluster Strategy: High Availability and Scalabi-
lity with Industry-standard Hardware’, retrieved
October 30, 2000 from http://www.microsoft
.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url ¼ /technet/
prodtechnol/winntas/plan/clusteri.asp
38. Late Breaking News – EDS to Ink Pact with
Bethlehem Steel’, Computerworld. (26:51),
December 21, 1992, p. 2.
39. Horwitt, E. ‘Banker Signs $80 M Contract with
MCI’, Computerworld (27:19), May 10, 1993, p. 2.
40–41. Decentralizing Info System Adds Flexibility’,
Communication News (32:12), 1995, p. 12.
42. Grover, V., and Teng, J. T. C. ‘The Decision
To Outsource Information Systems Functions’,
Journal of Systems Management (44:11), 1993,
pp. 34–38.
43–45. Lacity, M. C., Willcocks, L. P., and Feeny, D. F. ‘IT
Outsourcing: Maximize Flexibility and Control’,
Harvard Business Review (73:3), 1995, pp. 84–93.
46. Karimi, J. ‘An Asset-based Systems Development
Approach to Software Reusability’, MIS Quarterly
(14:2), 1990, pp. 179–198.
47–49. Allen, P. ‘Enterprise Java Beans: Component-
based Architectures for Internet Systems’, February
2000, retrieved October 30, 2000, from http://
European Journal of Information Systems
170 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS
www.advisor.com/articles.nsf/aid/allep01.
50. Harris, A., Giunipero, L. C., and Hult, G. T. M.
‘Impact of Organizational and Contract Flexibil-
ity on Outsourcing Contracts’, Industrial Market-
ing Management (27), 1998, pp. 373–384.
51. Mathieson, K., and Wharton, T. J. ‘Are Infor-
mation Systems a Barrier to Total Quality
Management’, Journal of Systems Management
(44:9), 1993, p. 34.
52. Darling, C. B. ‘Partitions Power Enterprise Client
Server’, Datamation (42:18), 1996, pp. 124–128.
53. Langdoc, S. ‘Flexibility of Open Systems has
a Price’, PC Week (13:39), September 30, 1996,
pp. E16–25.
54. Horowitz, A. S. ‘Keeping up with the Law’,
Computerworld (34:16), April 17, 2000, p. 48.
55. Shand, D. ‘Broadbanding the IT Worker’, Com-
puterworld (34:41), October 9, 2000, pp. 58–59.
56. Kayworth, T., and Sambamurthy, V. ‘Managing
the Information Technology Infrastructure’, Bay-
lor Business Review (18:1), 2000, pp. 13–14.
57. Koprowski, G. J. ‘Flexibility in the Workplace is
an Increasing Concern’, InformationWeek (808),
October 16, 2000, pp. 212–218.
58. Flexibility is Key to Information Systems’, USA
Today (127:2649), 1999, pp. 3–4.
59. Ouellette, T. ‘Iron Data Shuffling Simplified’,
Computerworld (31:29), July 21, 1997, pp. 69–70.
60–62. Miley, M., and Dessaux, C. ‘Redefining the Face
of Application Development’, Oracle Magazine,
May–June 2001.
63. Application Flexibility: Providing Choices for
Effective e-Business’, 2000, http://ibm.com/
servers/eserver/flex.html.
64. Stratascope Uses Flexible IBM e-Business on
Demand Infrastructure to Help Companies
Improve Sales’, February 17, 2003, http://www-1
.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/casestudy/imc/
a1001374.
65. Web Services: Using Software Technologies to
Deliver Business-critical Solutions’, http://www-
306.ibm.com/software/ebusiness/jstart/casestudies/
dorado.shtml.
66. Using software technologies to deliver business
critical solutions’, http://www-306.ibm.com/soft
ware/ebusiness/jstart/casestudies/jpmorganchase
.shtml.
67. Hamilton, R. ‘How to Solve the Headcount
Problem: Staying Flexible with Job Descriptions
y’, CIO (16:3), November 1, 2002, p. 1.
68. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., and Conboy, K.
‘Customising agile methods to software practices
at Intel Shannon’, European Journal of Information
Systems (15), 2006, pp. 200–213.
69. Börjesson, A., Martinsson, F., and Timmerås, M.
‘Agile improvement practices in software orga-
nizations’, European Journal of Information Systems
(15), 2006, pp. 169–182.
European Journal of Information Systems
Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou
70. Holmqvist, M., and Pessi, K. ‘Agility through
scenario development and continuous imple-
mentation: a global aftermarket logistics case’,
European Journal of Information Systems (15),
2006, pp. 146–158.
71. Hoffman, T. ‘P&G: Toward More Innovative IT’,
ComputerWorld, October 30, 2006.
72–73. King, J. ‘Agile by Design’, ComputerWorld, De-
cember 12, 2005.
74. Flexing Old Systems’, in Managing for Agility –
ComputerWorld Executive Briefings, http://www
.idgdocuments.com/idgwhitepapers/2007managil.
75. Flash, C. ‘Case Study: In Redmond’s shadow, an
open (source) secret’, Internet.com, http://itmana-
gement.earthweb.com/erp/article.php/942571.
76. Espindle, M. ‘Case Study: Developer Helps Floral
Web Site Bloom’, Datamation, August 20. 2001.
77. Conry-Murray, A. ‘A Cloud Conservative’, Informa-
tionWeek, February 19, 2009.
78–79. Sullivan, L. ‘Fast Track to Success’, Information-
Week, June 21, 2004.
80. Dunn, D. ‘In Search of Flexibility’, Information-
Week, February 2, 2004.
81–83. Greenemeier, L. ‘Open Doors to Innovation’,
InformationWeek, October 17, 2005.
84. Gaudin, S. ‘Case Study: Virtualization Delivers a
Cost-saving Lesson’, InformationWeek, June 13,
2006.
85. Siebel, T. ‘CEO Visions: Business Process is the
Focal Point’, InformationWeek, January 27, 2003.
86. Babcock, C. ‘InformationWeek 500: Wachovia Put
Stock in a Service-oriented Architecture’, Informa-
tionWeek, September 18, 2007.
87. Stevens, B. ‘Red Hat Enterprise Linux: The Business
OS for Flexibility and Value’, CIO, November 16,
2007.
88. Levinson, M. ‘Flexible Workplace: Lots of Talk,
Little Action’, CIO, June 5, 2008.
89. Hagel, J., and Brown, J.S. ‘Flexibility for Better
IT-business Alignment’, CIO, September 1, 2005.
90. Cummins, F. ‘In Pursuit of Agility’, Intelligent
Enterprise, October 2004.
91. Golsalves, A. ‘CA, IBM Demo Interoperable Con-
figuration Management Databases’, Information-
Week, September 9, 2008.
92–93. The Advisory Council ‘SmartAdvice: Boosting
Legacy Apps Without Overspending’, Information-
Week, November 10, 2003.
94. Oracle ‘Deploying Oracle Streams and Data Guard
High Availability and Disaster Recovery on a
Global Basis’, accessed April 2009, http://www
.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availability/pdf/
volkswagenprofile.pdf.
95. Beisigel, M., et al ‘Building Systems using
a Service Oriented Architecture’, November
2005, http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/
webservices/standards/sca/pdf/SCA_White_Paper
1_09.pdf.
 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 171

Appendix

Flexibility types

Flexibility in information systems operations

Table A1 Volume flexibility

Definition: Ability to vary the level of support and/or quantity of IS products/services (reports, data, CPU time, bandwidth, transactions, etc.).

Why needed:
 To adjust to the scale of business and be able to respond to changing market conditions, increased competition, technology changes, and
globalization at a reasonable cost and without disrupting operations by accommodating unanticipated expansion and change, cyclical
resource requirements, sudden variations in demand, varying number of users, unpredictable surge in network activity, incremental system
growth and changing user requirements

What needs to be flexible:

 Volume of transactions supported by the hardware
 Number of users supported
 System performance and support as usage varies
 Level of infrastructure resources
 Bandwidth availability
 Ability of software to support changing usage requirements
 Introduction of new applications

Case References: 2, 7, 11, 21, 24, 25, 26, 36, 37, 39, 41, 58, 62, 76, 77, 78, 81, 86
Examples:
 Ability to accommodate unpredictable surge in Internet activity
 ‘Scalability options create opportunities to flexibly adjust to the scale of the business over time’
 ‘Given the rapid rate of growth in Antelope Valley Health Care System’s customer population, the key criteria for its new platform was
scalability. If, in the future, Antelope Valley Hospital needs to break up applications, or grow an application from 50 to 100 servers, the
process should be seamless, manageable, and cost effective’
Illustrative strategies:
 Flexible architecture
J Use a scalable infrastructure with features such as:

– Integrated setup allowing quick deployment of new servers

– Ability to expand existing databases in a cost-effective way and without affecting current operations
– Clustered systems
J Centralized data structure

J Use open systems approach

J Grid computing

J Cloud computing

J Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

J Service virtualization

 Expandability
J Use of a virtual private network

 Outsourcing
J Use application service providers (ASPs)

– with usage-based pricing

– for specified contract durations (e.g., lifetime of a project)
 Redundancy
J Install slack capacity

 System interconnectivity
J Broker-based publish and subscribe data architecture

Note: The numbers listed above under Case References point to the data sources in the List of Data Sources.

European Journal of Information Systems

172 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A2 Operating flexibility

Definition: Ability to meet commitments (service levels) by: (a) temporarily maintaining (in spite of negative events), (b) redistributing or (c)
changing the focus, mix, role/functionality, location, or workload of IS resources.

Why needed:
 To be able to respond to changing market conditions, increased competition, technology changes, and globalization
 To maintain system availability and performance despite hardware failures
 To enable individual business units to respond autonomously to changes in business conditions
 To facilitate multi-company collaboration where no fixed infrastructure exists
 To grow system capacity quickly and add new locations without disrupting operations
 To accommodate sudden, unpredictable variations in demand for computing resources
 To allocate bandwidth dynamically on an ‘as needed’ basis

What needs to be flexible:

 Infrastructure
J Allocation of work among infrastructure components

– Services and applications used

– Connections between systems and processes
– Network paths and components used to handle traffic
– Management responsibility
– Mix and/or location of IS resources and technologies used
– Staffing levels and mix of skills
– Volume of transactions supported by the hardware
– Bandwidth availability
– Access to people skills
– Scope and duration of contracted work
– Assignment of processes to servers

Case References: 9, 18, 21, 25, 26, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 45, 50, 52, 54, 56, 62, 84, 89, 94
Examples:
 Using backup systems and procedures to minimize downtime
 Using multiple geographically dispersed devices to balance transaction load
 Using short- to medium-term outsourcing contracts allowing renegotiation if business/technology conditions change
 ‘If the CPU blows up, y you take the box out y and throw in a new one’
 ‘You buy them by the six-pack, you spend $2,000 or $3,000 on these machines, and you rack ‘em and stack ‘em’
 ‘The systems can dynamically reallocate CPUs on-the-fly to respond to changing workload requirements’
 In the event of a server failure, workload is automatically moved to another server with no operator intervention and minimal downtime
 Clustering technology allows addition of smaller standard systems as needed
 ‘y an unexpected event anywhere in the world can suddenly drive millions of people to reach for their Internet browsers, creating an utterly
unpredictable surge of activity’
 ‘Given the rapid rate of growth in Antelope Valley Health Care System’s customer population, the key criteria for its new platform was
scalability. If, in the future, Antelope Valley Hospital needs to break up applications, or grow an application from 50 to 100 servers, the
process should be seamless, manageable, and cost effective’
 Use of VPN makes it easy to add nodes to the network as needed
 ‘Outsourcing allows the service receiver to gain immediate access to otherwise difficult to access information technologies’

Illustrative Strategies:
 Centrally controlled IS governance
J Centrally controlled IS provides and enforces minimal standards but allocates management responsibility to decentralized operating units

J Employ a reliable, consistent, scalable, and fault-tolerant infrastructure with features such as:

– Integrated administration
– Integrated components
 Flexible architecture
J Use clustered servers in a scalable architecture

J Have processes that are distributable over multiple servers

J Employ a reliable, consistent, scalable, and fault-tolerant infrastructure with features such as:

– Ability to expand existing databases, break them up and add new ones seamlessly, in a cost-effective way and without affecting current
operations
J Use a hub-and-spoke architecture

J Use an enterprise services bus

J Use virtual servers

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 173

Table A2 Continued

 Flexible development
J Use application development tools that allow

– Dynamic partitioning of applications

– Multiple instances of the same partition
– Load balancing
– Automatic failover
J Employ loosely coupled modular processes that can be combined as needed

 Outsourcing
J Outsource systems to ASPs

J Contract provisions allowing renegotiation or termination if business/technology conditions change or depending on performance

J Selective outsourcing: divide IS needs into small pieces and award them to multiple providers

 Redundancy
J Emphasize scalability, redundancy, and reliability in network design

J Maintain mirror sites in multiple locations

J Use of Internet-based network with gateways to other systems

J Use groups of low-end and medium-sized servers

J Use fault-tolerant backbone components

J Use multi-path network design for each hub

J Use clustered configurations of independent systems

J Connect to the Internet with multiple high-speed lines through several Internet service providers

J Employ a reliable, consistent, scalable, and fault-tolerant infrastructure with features such as:

– Fault tolerance through real-time, continuous data replication and seamless access by multiple servers
 Standardization
J Develop an IT infrastructure using standards that have the right balance (between complexity, rigor, and flexibility) to facilitate both (1)

enterprise-wide integration of IT innovation initiatives, and (2) local responsiveness within business units

European Journal of Information Systems

174 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A3 Input/output flexibility

Definition: Ability to vary the timing, content, format, location, and producers/consumers of system input and/or output.

Why needed:
 To serve users with different data requirements at different points in time
 To develop services/products/systems that can increase customer satisfaction and expand the customer base
 To be able to find and access data and applications from different locations
 To respond quickly to different user requirements
 To increase profitability by expanding the choice of offerings

What needs to be flexible:

 Distribution of data
 IS product features
 IS service offerings
 Distribution of knowledge
 System access location
 Service/product mix provided to different customers
 Information delivered to customers (personalization)

Case References: 2, 8, 10, 12, 15, 22, 58, 65, 75, 76, 94
Examples:
 Web sites that customize content for different users
 Use of CORBA-based architecture to distribute data objects selectively
 ‘As we move into increasingly dynamic and complex data environments, y data producers and consumers might frequently appear and
vanish’
 New software development tools ‘allow mass customization of electronic commerce advertising and information and lead to personalized
services’
 ‘We understand agility as the capacity to bring knowledge to bear at any place or time a customer has need of it’
 ‘Choosing the flexibility of a wireless solution means the company can put the kiosks anywhere within the stores’

Illustrative Strategies:
 Flexible architecture
J In addition to cost, fitness of use and other criteria, evaluate & select potential software based on

– flexibility in report generation

– ability to interface with other software
– ability to customize
J Use a hub-and-spoke architecture

 Flexible development
J Produce products/services containing a mix of generic/custom components (80/20)

J Use of email mass customization tools

 System interconnectivity
J Use of extranet to allow access to organizational knowledge management systems

J Use of ‘intelligent’ gateways or middleware

J Broker based publish and subscribe data architecture

J Use web services with industry-standard interfaces

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 175

Table A4 Integration flexibility

Definition: Ability to efficiently access and use a variety of data formats and/or applications.

Why needed:
 To connect to disparate systems
 To enable porting of systems or their components
 To be able to consider off-the-shelf business solutions
 To be able to support a variety of unplanned outsourcing solutions to IT problems
 To enable geographically dispersed units to respond to local conditions
 To enable ‘large companies – especially those with geographically dispersed operations – to deploy (and make changes to) strategic,
groundbreaking business processes rapidly’
 To respond to different user requirements
 To allow frequent changes in strategy in response to changing customer needs and increased volume
 To quickly integrate diverse systems as a result of mergers and acquisitions
 To create an IT architecture that is adaptive to changes in business and technology
 To facilitate business applications that exploit inter-unit synergy
 To enable individual business units to respond autonomously to changes in business conditions
 To adapt and customize software as usage requirements change
 To adapt to changing storage technologies
 To build applications that can continuously evolve
 To blend new applications with existing ones
 To quickly expand the number of services available

What needs to be flexible:

 Connections
J Between systems

J Between business processes

J Between infrastructure components

J With new technologies

 Infrastructure
J Infrastructure standards

 Services
J Availability

J Reuse

J Interoperability

 Standards
 Management responsibility
 Data location, updates, and retrievals
 Ability to quickly deploy new systems
 Ability to make changes to existing systems
 IT architecture
 Applications
 Storage technologies

Case References: 9, 13, 17, 18, 20, 23, 32, 35, 36, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 74, 80, 85, 90, 91, 95
Examples:
 Ability to access and use data stored in incompatible formats across a distributed system
 ‘Our (Internet-based) network y allows us to create gateways with some of the outdated legacy protocols still in wide use in the industry’
 ‘This ability (to port) is central to information-based innovation, reengineering, and also for managing the rapid change of technological
generations’
 ‘Highly adaptive architectures ease the integration of diverse applications, provide better data interoperability, and offer more flexibility
during acquisitions and mergers’

Illustrative Strategies:
 System interconnectivity
J Use an Internet-based network with gateways to other systems

J Ensure connectivity of infrastructure components

J Use integration middleware

J Use a knowledge management tool kit to integrate disparate data and applications and to connect individuals and communities with the

data and people they need

European Journal of Information Systems

176 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A4 Continued

J Employ a reliable, consistent, scalable, and fault-tolerant infrastructure with integrated components
J Implement a storage solution that can integrate in real-time technologically diverse data storage subsystems from multiple vendors
J Use an enterprise portal based on the portlet framework

– Standardization
J Ensure compatibility and connectivity of infrastructure components

J Standardize middleware and network protocols

J Unify the enterprise architecture efforts

J Standardize the technology and configuration of critical IT assets

J Increase IT architecture awareness throughout the enterprise

– Communicate plans, goals, and benefits of enterprise architecture efforts across all IS organizations and lines of business
– Use of promotional campaigns to explain critical role and value of enterprise architecture
– Publicize shared architecture values – technology positions that are endorsed by management and are not open for discussion
– Publish architecture-related project developments regularly
– Ensure that line management understands, supports, and enforces the enterprise architecture shared values across the board’
– Develop the architecture in an evolutionary way (as opposed to a ‘big bang’ approach), via a series of releases which provide
incremental value
– ‘Adopt a formal notational system that will be used consistently across the company to create the various types of enterprise
architecture blueprints’
– ‘Keep the major deliverables and blueprints under sound revision control and configuration-management practices’
J Develop a comprehensive IT infrastructure strategy that can provide direction for rapid, as-needed infrastructure development

J Develop an IT infrastructure using standards that have the right balance (between complexity, rigor, and flexibility) to facilitate both (1)

enterprise-wide integration of IT innovation initiatives, and (2) local responsiveness within business units
J Use web services based on standards such as XML

J Use web data services based on open standards available across all lines of business

J Usage of infrastructure technologies (hardware, OS, networks) that are in the mainstream where commercial products are being targeted

J Centrally controlled IS provides and enforces minimal standards but allocates management responsibility to decentralized operating units

J Use repackaged business services

 Flexible architecture
J In addition to cost, fitness of use and other criteria, evaluate & select potential software based on ability to interface with other software

J Employ a reliable, consistent, scalable, and fault-tolerant infrastructure with features such as:

– Ability to handle multiple transactional databases

– Ability to create and deploy multiple standards of software
J Use the best open standards-based products

J Use loosely coupled services

 Business-driven architecture
J Director of IT architecture and infrastructure development participates in company’s strategic business planning process

J Create a cross-functional architecture team

J Use SaaS

 Single vendor
J Implement a single-vendor platform that:

– provides synchronized release cycles

– provides modular pre-built components
– provides choice of third party solutions that can be easily and quickly integrated with it
J Implement solutions from a single vertically integrated vendor

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 177

Flexibility in information systems & services development & deployment

Table A5 Development flexibility

Definition: Ability to quickly and easily develop, maintain and/or redesign systems and/or services.

Why needed:
 To support changes in the current products or the launching of new products
 To be able to quickly change, adapt, customize existing systems, data and/or business rules in order to
J Support process improvements and efficient response to strategic business challenges
J Respond quickly to different and changing user requirements

 To enable the rapid deployment (and changes to) of strategic, groundbreaking business processes
 To enable individual business units to respond autonomously to changes in business conditions
 To enable porting of systems or their components
 To share and reuse system (applications and data) components
 To respond to shorter development cycle requirements
 To modify content frequently without interrupting system operation
 To enable modification of existing architecture because of business and/or technology changes without disrupting current operations
 To enable applications to easily adapt to technology and platform changes
 To blend new applications with existing ones
 To quickly expand the number of services available
 To quickly deliver software over the Internet
 To facilitate merger

What needs to be flexible:

 Addition and modification of data
 Modification of existing systems
 Connections between systems and infrastructure components
 Reuse of data, code, and business rules
 IT architecture
 Interoperability of data services
 Coupling between modules
 Systems development methodology
 Application design
 Deployment of new systems
 Technology used
 Personnel assignment
 Reuse of application components
 Service/product mix provided to different customers
 Personalization of information delivered to customers
 Database architecture
 Content modification
 Ability to quickly bring to bear development skills in specific areas

Case References: 5, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 82, 87, 90,
92, 94, 95
Examples:
 Using rapid application development tools to quickly modify system features
 Ability to quickly modify business logic embedded within systems as a result of a reengineering project
 ‘Flexible enterprise architectures produce several IS benefits, including faster delivery of new applications and increased return on investment from
legacy applications’
 ‘Projects such as E-commerce implementation, object-oriented development, enterprise resource planning, and embedded systems development all
require twists on standard methodologies, or one tailored to the needs of a specific project’
 ‘It’s critical that methodologies be flexible enough to meet the demands of E-commerce projects and prevent developers from feeling constrained or
slowed down by the structure added to the development cycle’
 HP’s Team Fusion ‘is organized around object technology and the ability to reuse objects for speed, flexibility, and consistency’
 ‘CBD (Component-based Development) has the potential to remove the tight coupling of an application’s parts and eases reuse of parts across
different applications’
 Internet-based systems have ‘much smaller windows of opportunity than traditional systems. They must be delivered in rapidly shrinking time scales’

Illustrative Strategies:
 Business-driven architecture
J Director of IT architecture and infrastructure development participates in company’s strategic business planning process
J Create a cross-functional architecture team

European Journal of Information Systems

178 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A5 Continued

 Centrally controlled IS governance

J Centralized core IS activities, corporate-wide networks, central data collections, common business practices, common application systems, and

standardized hardware, OS, and databases

 Careful documentation of integrated systems
J Flexible architecture
J Invest in data warehouse
J In addition to cost, fitness of use and other criteria, evaluate and select potential software based on

– Ability to interface with other software

– Ability to customize
– Use of web services with industry-standard interfaces
– loosely coupled architecture
J Use the best open standards-based products
J Use a services component architecture
J Use a hub-and-spoke architecture
J Storage and server virtualization

 Flexible development
J Encapsulate in separate modules, business rules, data, and other implementation code
J Use different system development methodologies depending on the project
J Avoid methodologies that impose excessive or strict structure
J Use object-based development methodologies

– Use CBD
– Specify an enterprise component architecture
– Use a component assembly process for rapid solution delivery
J Use rapid application development tools
J Design reusable software assets

– Design components independently of the implementation

J Use techniques to ensure maximum software maintainability so that the effects of changes are quickly localized
J Use flexible development methods, such as prototyping
J Use methodologies that provide rapid development capabilities
J Combine multiple agile development methods
J Use an adaptable communication style
J Use close collaboration between users and change agents
J Use business intelligence tools

 Single vendor
J Implement solutions from a single vertically integrated vendor

 Standardization
J Standardize the technology and configuration of critical IT assets
J Unify the enterprise architecture efforts
J Increase IT architecture awareness throughout the enterprise

– Communicate plans, goals, and benefits of enterprise architecture efforts across all IS organizations and lines of business
– Use of promotional campaigns to explain critical role and value of enterprise architecture
– Publicize shared architecture values – technology positions that are endorsed by management and are not open for discussion
– Publish architecture-related project developments regularly
– ‘Ensure that line management understands, supports, and enforces the enterprise architecture shared values across the board’
– Develop the architecture in an evolutionary way (as opposed to a ‘big bang’ approach), via a series of releases which provide incremental value
– ‘Adopt a formal notational system that will be used consistently across the company to create the various types of enterprise architecture
blueprints’
– ‘Keep the major deliverables and blueprints under sound revision control and configuration-management practices’
– Charge the architecture group with keeping abreast and assessing new technologies and emerging standards
J Specify a project architecture consistent with the enterprise architecture early in the development cycle
J Reduce unnecessary integration between systems
J Ensure compatibility and connectivity of infrastructure components
J Use well-documented standards

 System interconnectivity
J Reduce unnecessary integration between systems

 Cross-training
J Train IS professionals in multiple development methods and encourage experimentation

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 179

Table A6 New technology deployment flexibility

Definition: Ability to quickly and effectively evaluate and deploy the appropriate new technology choices.

Why needed:
 To be able to respond to changing market conditions, increased competition, technology changes, and globalization
 To enable ‘large companies – especially those with geographically dispersed operations – to deploy (and make changes to) strategic,
groundbreaking business processes rapidly’
 To facilitate multi-company collaboration where no fixed infrastructure exists
 To deal with uncertainty as a result of rapid technological development
 To accommodate consumer heterogeneity resulting from a shift to a consumer-centric economy
 To allow frequent changes in strategy in response to changing customer needs and increased volume
 To enable modification of existing architecture because of business and/or technology changes without disrupting current operations
 To respond quickly to higher volume of business transactions at a reasonable cost
 To access expensive, dynamically changing IT resources as needed
 To take advantage of new technologies when expertise is not present
 To increase profitability by expanding the choice of offerings
 To improve efficiency of business processes

What needs to be flexible:

 IT architecture
 Infrastructure
J Infrastructure standards

J Connections between infrastructure components

 Current technologies used

 Choice and timing of technology implementation
 Disposition of old technologies
 Allocation of IT investment
 Staffing levels and mix of skills
 Reuse of data, code, and business rules
 Ability to make changes to existing systems
 Systems development methodology
 Sourcing of technologies
 Applications
 Database architecture

Case References: 3, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53, 56, 63, 65, 84, 90, 94, 95
Examples:
 Designing ‘an information infrastructure that can accommodate future modifications and extensions based not only on a company’s
changing capabilities, but also on evolving customer needs’
 ‘If there is an investment in X and business starts to dry up, we don’t pay inordinate amounts for some unused base technology, and as it
rumps up, we shift our cost there, without having to worry about how to discard the old technology’
 ‘This ability (to port) is central to information-based innovation, reengineering, and also for managing the rapid change of technological
generations’
 ‘Flexible enterprise architectures produce several IS benefits, including faster delivery of new applications and increased return on investment
from legacy applications’
 ‘As we build such an infrastructure for the new consumer-centric economy, the debate must shift to the following questions: y . How do we
ensure that the consumer-centric information infrastructure can evolve? How do we design an information infrastructure that can
accommodate future modifications and extensions based not only on a company’s changing capabilities, but also on evolving customer
needs?’
 ‘In a market where our strategy has to refresh itself regularly, I want to stay very flexible around our options. Relying on multiple vendors for
the operating system, database, and middleware means having to deal with unsynchronized release cycles, increases vendor management
overhead, results in higher ongoing maintenance and support costs, and complicates staffing and training requirements’
 ‘y the classic timeline of total business-process reengineering y just isn’t fast enough to give companies the E-commerce-ready IT
infrastructures they need’
 ‘Outsourcing allows the service receiver to gain immediate access to otherwise difficult to access information technologies’
Illustrative Strategies:
 Business-focused architecture
J Ensure architecture is business-driven

– Director of IT architecture and infrastructure development participates in company’s strategic business planning process
– Create a cross-functional architecture team

European Journal of Information Systems

180 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A6 Continued

 Centrally controlled IS governance

J Centrally controlled IS provides and enforces minimal standards but allocates management responsibility to decentralized operating units

J Employ an infrastructure with integrated administration

 Delayed technology adoption

J Be a late adopter of technology in order to increase choices and take advantage of historical experience and emerging technologies

 Flexible architecture
J Invest in flexible infrastructure

J Employ an infrastructure with features such as:

– Integrated setup allowing quick deployment of new servers

– Integrated components
– Ability to create and deploy multiple standards of software
J Use the best open standards-based products

J Use service component architecture

J Use hub-and-spoke architecture

J Use virtual servers

J Use an enterprise services bus

 Flexible development
J Encapsulate in separate modules, business rules, data, and other implementation code

J Design components independently of the implementation

J Use a deployment descriptor that allows ‘customization of application behavior at run time without having to change the software itself’

 Portfolio management
J Use a portfolio approach to evaluating infrastructure and applications

 Outsourcing
J Outsourcing to ASPs

J Flexible contract terms

– Contract provisions allowing partial or complete renegotiation

– Use short- to medium-term contracts with contract provisions allowing
’ Renegotiation if business/technology conditions change or depending on performance

’ Incorporation of new technologies with appropriate personnel support

’ Early termination flexibility

J Selective outsourcing: divide IT needs into small pieces and award them to multiple providers

 Single vendor
J Implement a single-vendor platform that :

– Provides synchronized release cycles

– Provides modular pre-built components
– Provides choice of third party solutions that can be easily and quickly integrated with it
J Implement solutions from a single vertically integrated vendor

 Standardization
J Standardize middleware and network protocols

J Use infrastructure technologies (hardware, OS, networks) that are in the mainstream where commercial products are being targeted

J Standardize the technology and configuration of critical IT assets

J Unify the enterprise architecture efforts

J Increase IT architecture awareness throughout the enterprise

J Communicate plans, goals, and benefits of enterprise architecture efforts across all IS organizations and lines of business

– Use of promotional campaigns to explain critical role and value of enterprise architecture
– Publicize shared architecture values – technology positions that are endorsed by management and are not open for discussion
– Publish architecture-related project developments regularly
– ‘Ensure that line management understands, supports, and enforces the enterprise architecture shared values across the board’
– Develop the architecture in an evolutionary way (as opposed to a ‘big bang’ approach), via a series of releases which provide
incremental value
– ‘Adopt a formal notational system that will be used consistently across the company to create the various types of enterprise
architecture blueprints’
– ‘Keep the major deliverables and blueprints under sound revision control and configuration-management practices’
– Charge the architecture group with keeping abreast and assessing new technologies and emerging standards
 System interconnectivity
J Use a loosely coupled architecture

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 181

Flexibility in information systems management

Table A7 Financial flexibility

Definition: Ability to reallocate financial resources among activities of the Information Systems Department.

Why needed:
 To be able to respond to changing market conditions, increased competition, technology changes, and globalization
 To vary cash flow stream in response to changing business conditions
 To engage in short-term inter-organizational collaborative projects (e.g., R&D or drug-approval projects) with cyclical resource requirements
 To be able to modify outsourcing arrangement/contracts

What needs to be flexible:

 Allocation of IS investment
 Financial commitments (based on usage)
 Cash flows
 Scope and duration of contracted work

Case References: 3, 21, 24, 38, 45, 50, 74, 79

Examples:
 Use of outsourcing to convert fixed costs into variable
 ‘If there is an investment in X and business starts to dry up, we don’t pay inordinate amounts for some unused base technology, and as it
rumps up, we shift our cost there, without having to worry about how to discard the old technology’
 ‘By “leasing” a portal for the lifetime of the project, these companies gain a means of collaborating, and when the partnership or joint
venture dissolves, so does the portal’
 ‘A contract must balance the flexibility needed to be technologically competitive yet be detailed enough to include specific performance
criteria and to allow for managing the costs specified in the contract’

Illustrative Strategies:
 Outsourcing
J Contract provisions allowing

– Renegotiation if business/technology conditions change

– Renegotiation and payment depending on performance
– Price flexibility through indexing, renegotiation, or open pricing
– Early termination
J Use of ASP

– With usage-based pricing

– For specified contract durations
J Use SaaS with services-based licensing

J Outsource IS and structure payments to suit business conditions

J Upfront reverse payment

J Bids by multiple vendors

J Use short- to medium-term contracts

J Selective outsourcing: divide IS needs into small pieces and award them to multiple providers

European Journal of Information Systems

182 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A8 Sourcing flexibility

Definition: Ability to obtain necessary IS resources from multiple sources as needed.

Why needed:
 To consider products from multiple vendors
 To increase negotiating leverage with suppliers
 To be able to change contract provisions in response to business and technology changes, or contractor performance

What needs to be flexible:

 Supplier choice
 Scope and duration of contracted work
 Software ownership
 Contracts

Case References: 6, 45, 50, 54, 83, 95

Examples:
 Use of open architecture allows integration of products from multiple vendors
 Flexible outsourcing contract allows the consideration of new suppliers

Illustrative Strategies:
 Flexible architecture
J Use of an open architecture

J Use open-source products

J Use a loosely coupled services architecture

 Outsourcing
J Contract provisions

– Allowing renegotiation if business/technology conditions change

– Allowing renegotiation depending on performance
– Allowing early termination flexibility
– Obliging the vendor to hand over copies of all programs and data upon termination
– Allowing software ownership rights to pass to new owner in case of merger/acquisition
J Use short- to medium-term contracts

J Selective outsourcing: divide IS needs into small pieces and award them to multiple providers

European Journal of Information Systems

 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou 183

Table A9 Staffing flexibility

Definition: Ability to meet commitments by maintaining, or varying the mix of existing IS personnel resources, or by hiring new resources.

Why needed:
 To be able to respond to changing market conditions, increased competition, technology changes, and globalization
 To take advantage of new technologies when expertise is not present
 To obtain quick/temporary expertise
 To minimize hiring risk
 To access scarce expertise resulting from shortage of qualified IS personnel
 To access expensive, dynamically changing IS resources as needed
 To refocus IS resources towards strategic activities
 To increase employee utilization and satisfaction
 To implement workplace and scheduling policies that are responsive to changes in employee and IS organization requirements
 To keep IS teams suitably skilled

What needs to be flexible:

 Staffing levels and mix of skills
 Policies on hiring and deployment of employees
 Mix of IS resources
 Personnel assignment
 Personnel used to support and manage different technologies
 Work schedules

Case References: 1, 3, 4, 16, 21, 42, 43, 44, 51, 55, 57, 64, 67, 71, 88, 93
Examples:
 Use of outsourcing to get highly skilled programmers to work for a small company at a remote location
 Cross-training employees allows reassignment to fill unexpected/temporary needs
 Firm hires contract project managers. ‘Try-before-you-buy’ tactic
 ‘If there is an investment in X and business starts to dry up, we don’t pay inordinate amounts for some unused base technology, and as it
rumps up, we shift our cost there, without having to worry about how to discard the old technology’
 Companies such as CSS Industries, TWA, and others are using temporary CIOs from Transition Partners, a company made of former CIOs that
contracts out IS management expertise
 ‘The advantages of tapping a growing pool of freelance IS talent are experience, both in terms of technology and project management, and
objectivity about personnel, projects, or management structure’
 ‘Breakaway Solutions y uses y what it calls a “think-build-operate” model. “Think” service gives customers access to an onsite Breakaway
CIO, CTO, and CFO to help marry existing business strategy to an ASP-enabled approach’
 ‘Outsourcing could allow management to focus available IS talent on activities that promote competitiveness’
 ‘y senior systems engineers with deep expertise in Unix may find themselves leading projects one month, and playing a Java trainee role on
their next endeavor y . They don’t get demoted or take a pay cut y’

Illustrative Strategies:
 Training
J Cross-train IS professionals in multiple development methods and technologies and encourage experimentation

J Collaboration training

J Process management training

 Flexible job descriptions

J When hiring, define job functions based on gap analysis, as opposed to hiring based on previous job description

 Flexible staff scheduling

J Implement workload/scheduling policies such as:

– Compressed schedules and reduced work hours

– Reduced work days
– Working part time
– Working non-traditional hours
– Work sharing
– Summer leave
J Telecommuting

 Outsourcing
J Outsource systems to ASPs

J Shared CIO office

European Journal of Information Systems

184 Analyzing and managing flexibility in IS Ram L. Kumar and Antonis C. Stylianou

Table A9 Continued

J Joint strategic application development, rest completely outsourced

J Outsource specific IS functions
J IS project outsourcing

J Access to on demand infrastructure, a hosting contract and DBA services

J Outsourcing contract with provisions to incorporate new technologies with appropriate personnel support

 Staff training
J Recruiting and training employees to be knowledgeable in multiple software environments and business functions

J Train employees with broad technical and management skills

J Keep skills of existing staff up to date

J Broadbanding: Allow employees to work in different roles – e.g., as a specialist or a leader in one project and a trainee in another –

without negative impacts on their compensation or career progress

 Temporary workers
J Interim (project) hiring

J Temporary CIOs

European Journal of Information Systems

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.