Analyse des systèmes d'interactions à l’œuvre au sein d'un projet TI : mise en évidence d’une perspective dynamique et relationnelle
Keywords:
Actor-network theory, IT project failure, Project management, Relational ontology, Technological symbiosisAbstract
Our study seeks to deepen understanding of the outcome of IT projects (success or failure) by examining the active role of the objects involved (in particular, technology) and their interaction with humans taking part in the project. With this in mind, the article sets out to lay a cornerstone in this domain by answering the following two questions: a) How should interactions between actors and technology be analysed in terms of the relational ontology of a specific IT project, in accordance with the principles of ANT? b) To what extent does this new analytical approach provide an explanation of the results obtained? The product in question is an IT project for the industrialisation of a technology (Virtual Desk) that ultimately ended in failure (the project was abandoned). To answer these questions, we propose a method of visualising the project based upon network analysis derived from actor-network theory (ANT). This method for observing IT projects was applied in real time during the course of a longitudinal study concerning the Virtual Desk. Our study yielded two contributions. The first, which is theoretical, involves the discovery of a mode of operationalisation of ANT allowing improved reading and understanding of the outcome of IT projects and helps explain the limitations of its operationalisation in ontological terms. The model developed facilitates analysis of dynamic interactions between the various entities involved in the project, thereby allowing an understanding of the development of the network along a convergent/divergent continuum. It demonstrates the need to abandon an approach based on linear cause-and-effect chains while underscoring the need to create and maintain "technological symbiosis" between humans and non-humans in order to promote a successful outcome for IT projects. The second contribution, which is methodological, is consistent with recent studies aimed at improving the cartography of controversies, and proposes a first method of viewing (graphics) socio-technical networks as well as their development.
References
Akrich, M., (2006a), « La description des objets techniques », in Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B., Sociologie de la traduction, textes fondateurs, Mines Paris, Les Presses, p.159-178. 2ème édition. « Comment décrire les objets techniques ? », Techniques et Culture, 9, p. 49-64, (1987) 1ère édition.
Akrich, M., (2006b), « La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des techniques », Anthropologie et Sociétés, 13, 2, p. 31-54, 2ème édition, « La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des techniques », dans Sociologie de la traduction, p. 109-134, (1989) 1ère édition.
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B., (1988a), « A quoi tient le succès des innovations. Premier épisode : l’art de l’intéressement », Annales des Mines, p. 4-17, juin.
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B., (1988b), « A quoi tient le succès des innovations. Deuxième épisode : l’art de choisir les bons porte-parole », Annales des Mines, p. 14-29, septembre.
Al-Ahmad, W., Al-Fagih, K., Khanfar, K., Alsamara, K., Abuleil S. & Abu-Salem, H. (2009), « A Taxonomiy of an IT Project Failure: Root Causes », International Management Review, Vol. 5, n° 1, p. 93-104.
Angot, J. & Josserand, E. (2003), « Analyse des réseaux sociaux » in Méthodes de recherches en management, R.A. Thiétart (Eds), 2ème édition, Dunod, Paris, p. 397-421.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002), Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, Analytic Technologies.
Callon, M. (1986), « Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction », L’année sociologique, n° 36, p. 169-208.
Callon, M (1991), « Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilités », in Figures de l’irréversibilité en économie, R. Boyer (Eds), Paris, EHESS.
Callon, M. (1992), « Sociologie des Sciences et économie du changement technique : l’irrésistible montée des réseaux technico-économiques », in Ces réseaux que la raison ignore, Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation (Eds.), L’Harmattan, Paris, p. 53-78.
Callon, M. (1994), « Réseaux Technico-Economiques et Politique Scientifique et Technologique », OCDE.
Callon, M. (1999), « Le réseau comme forme émergente et comme modalité de coordination : le cas des interactions stratégiques entre firmes industrielles et laboratoires académiques », in Réseau et coordination, M. Callon, Cohendet, Curien, Dalle Eymard-Duvernay, Foray & Schenk, Economica, Paris, p.13-64.
Callon, M. & Ferrary, M. (2006), « Les réseaux sociaux à l’aune de la théorie de l’acteur-réseau », Sociologies Pratiques, Vol. 2, n° 6, p. 37-44.
Callon, M. & Larédo, P. (1990), « L’Impact des Programmes Communautaires de Recherche sur le Tissu Scientifique et Technique Français », La Documentation Française, Paris
Callon M., Larédo, P. & Mustar, P. (1995), « Réseaux Technico-Economiques et analyse des effets structuraux », La gestion Stratégique de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Economica, Paris.
Callon, M., Larédo, P. & Rabharisoa, V. (1991), « Gestion des Programmes Publics et Réseaux Technico-Economiques », in Gestion de la Recherche, D. Vinck (Eds), De Boeck, Bruxelles, p.279-307.
Callon M. & Mustar P. (1992), « Les Réseaux de l’innovation », in Economie et Management des entreprises de réseau, N. Curien (Eds), Paris, ENSPTT-Economica, p. 115-130.
Castelfranchi, C. (2000), « Conflict Ontology » in Computational Conflicts, Conflict Modelling for Distributed Intelligent Systems, H.J. Müller H. J., Dieng R. (Eds), p. 21-40.
Cazal, D., (2007), « Traductions de la traduction et acteur-réseau : sciences, sciences sociales et sciences de gestion ? », Colloque Organiser le tâtonnement Perspectives social-constructionnistes en sciences de gestion, Université Paris-Dauphine, 14 juin.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thoams, J. & Hodgson, D. (2006), « Rethinking Project Management: researching the actuality of projects », International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, p. 675-686.
Cordella, A. & Shaik, M. (2006), « From Epistemolgy to Ontology: Challenging the Constructed « truth » of ANT », WP, London School of Economics, March.
Díaz Andrade, A. & Urquhart, C. (2010), « The affordances of actor network theory in ICT for development research », Information Technology & People, Vol. 23 Iss: 4, p.352 – 374;
Droz, J.P. (2008), Créer un Espace Numérique de Travail en milieu scolaire, Territorial Edition.
Elbanna, A. (2010), « Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective », Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 19, p. 39-51.
Forgues, B. & Vandangeon-Derumez, I. (2003), « Analyses longitudinales », in Méthodes de recherches en management, R.A Thiétart (Eds.), 2ème édition, Paris, Dunod, p. 422-448
Gauld, R. (2006), « Public sector information system project failures: Lessons from a New Zealand hospital organization», Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24, Issue 1, p. 102–114.
Heeks, R. & Stanforth, C. (2007), « Understanding e-Government project trajectories form an actor-network perpsective », European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16, p. 165-177.
Hussenot, A. (2008), « Définition et typologie des controverses dans le processus d’appropriation d’une solution TIC », Actes du 9ème Congrès de l’AIM, Paris, décembre.
Hussenot, A. & Missonier, S. (2010), « A deeper understanding of evolution of the role of the object in organizational process: The concept of “mediation object », Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23, Issue 3, p.269 – 286;
Hlady-Rispal, M. (2002), La méthode des cas : application à la recherche en gestion, De Boeck Université, Paris.
Latour, B. (1991), Nous n’avons jamais été modernes – Essai d’anthropologie symétrique, La Découverte, Paris.
Latour, B. (1992), Aramis ou l’amour des techniques, La Découverte, Paris.
Latour, B. (2006), Changer de société : refaire de la sociologie, La Découverte, Paris.
Law, J. (1999), « After ANT: Complexity, naming, and topology », in Actor Network Theory and After, (Eds), Oxford: Blackwell, p. 1-14.
Law, J. (2000), « Objects, spaces and others », Center for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, pp. 1–3 (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Objects-Spaces-Others.pdf).
Lee, H. & Oh, S. (2006) « A standards war waged by a developing country: Understanding international standard settingfrom the actor-network perspective », Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15 (2006), p. 177–195;
Lemon, W. F., Liebowitz, J., Burn, J., & Hackney, R. (2002), « Information systems project failure: A comparative study of two countries», Journal of Global Information Management, vol. 10, n°2, p. 28-39.
Léonard-Barton, D. (1990), « A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites », Organization Sciences, vol. 1, n° 3, p. 248-265.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2003), Analyse des données qualitatives, 2ème Edition, De Boeck Université, Paris.
Missonier, S. (2008), Comprendre pour aider. Analyse réticulaire des projets de mise en œuvre d’une Technologie de l’Information : le cas des Espaces Numériques de Travail, Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis.
Mitev, N. (2009), « In and Out of Actor network theory: a necessary but insufficient journey », Information Technology and People, Vol. 22, n° 1, p. 9-25.
Monteiro, E. & Hanseth, O. (1995), « Social shaping of information infrastructure: on being specific about the technology », in Information technology and changes in organisational work, W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones, and J. I. DeGross (Eds), Chapman & Hall, p. 325-343.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000), «Using Technology and Constituting Structures: a Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations », Organization Science, Vol. 11, n° 4, p. 404-428.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008), «Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of Technology, Work, and Organization», The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 433-474.
Peffers, K., Gengler, C.E., & Tuunanen, T. (2003), « Extending critical success factors methodology to facilitate broadly participative information systems planning », Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 20, n°1, p. 51–85.
Ramiller, N.C. & Wagner, E.L. (2009), « The element of surprise: appreciating the unexpected in (and through actor networks », Information Technology and People, Vol. 22, n°1, p. 36-50.
Salmeron J.L. & Herrero I. (2005), « An AHP-based methodology to rank critical success factors of executive information systems», Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 28, n°1, july 2005, p. 1-12.
Sarker, S., & Sidorova, A. (2006), « Understanding Business Process Change failure: An Actor-Network Perspective », Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, n° 1, p. 51-86.
Sauer, C., Southon, G., Christopher, N. & Dampney, G. (1997), « Fit, failure, and the house of horrors: toward a configurational theory of IS project failure», Proceedings of the eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Association for Information Systems Atlanta, GA, USA.
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edition, Sage Publication, London.
Van de Ven, A.H. & Poole, M.S. (1995), « Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program », in Longitudinal Fields Research Methods: Studying Process of Organizational Change, G.P. Huber and A.H. Van de Ven (Eds), p. 155-185.
Venturini, T. (2011), « Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory », Public Understanding of Science, May 2010, Vol.19, n°3, p. 258-273.
Walsham, G. & Sahay, S. (1997), « Social Structure and Managerial Agency in India », Organization Studies, n° 18, p. 415-444.
Williams, T.M. (1999), « The Need for new paradigms for complex projects », International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, n° 5, p. 269-273.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5, Sage Publications, London.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author bears the responsibility for checking whether material submitted is subject to copyright or ownership rights (e.g. figures, tables, photographs, illustrations, trade literature and data). The author will need to obtain permission to reproduce any such items, and include these permissions with their final submission.
It is our policy to ask all contributors to transfer for free the copyright in their contribution to the journal owner. There are two broad reasons for this:
- ownership of copyright by the journal owner facilitates international protection against infringement of copyright, libel or plagiarism;
- it also ensures that requests by third parties to reprint or reproduce a contribution, or part of it, in either print or electronic form, are handled efficiently in accordance with our general policy which encourages dissemination of knowledge within the framework of copyright.
In conformity with the French law, the author keeps the 'moral rights' related to the article:
- The 'authorship right': It is the author's right to have his name associated with each publication and exploitation of the article.
- The 'integrity right': It can be claimed by the author if he finds that during an exploitation, his work has been distorted (cutting, reassembly...).
