Strategic choice of implementing IT function in multidisciplinary companies

The article focuses on the analysis and identification of possible factors that influence the choice of  an IT function implementation model in multidisciplinary companies (MNCs). Today, there are several IT function management models available for managers of multidisciplinary organisations. However, the conditions for choosing these models, as well as the practical ways to implement them, depending on the chosen model, have not been widely discussed among the scientific community.
The article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of current models and methods of managing IT functions within multidisciplinary organisations, as well as the factors that influence their choice in these companies.
A behavioural analysis of the literature on the research topic has been carried out, which has led to the identification the main models for IT function management in multidisciplinary companies. The factors influencing the choice of a particular model of interaction between MNC businesses and IT functions have been identified, as well as practical ways to manage IT functions. From a practical perspective, the business community is provided with a description of potential options for selecting and managing models of IT functions, as well as the criteria for choosing them. From a scientific point of view, it contributes to the enrichment of research on the management of affiliated IT companies. To date, there has been no comprehensive classification of effective management models for these companies, nor has there been an assessment of the impact of a particular model on the overall effectiveness of a company, depending on how the IT functions are managed.  The scientific community has also not provided practical solutions for implementing a centralised or decentralised model for managing IT functions.

1. Kedrov N.A. (2024). The state and growth prospects of entrepreneurial outsourcing in the information technology sector. Humanities, Socio-Economic and Social Sciences, 2. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-rosta-predprinimatelskogo-insorsinga-v-sektore-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy?ysclid=mb2o7m8f2p760885583. (In Russ.)

2. Kiryushkin S., Kanev S., Varlamov K., Kovnir E., Kravchenko A. (2010). The 4CIO tutorial. The CIO’s desk book. https://book4cio.ru/. (In Russ.)

3. Kobiashvili N.A., Zhenzhebir V.N., Galitsky Yu.A., Fadeev A.S., Medvedev V.M., Shestov A.V., Nemtsev I.V. (2015). A strategy for diversifying the management system based on the allocation of business units. Science Studies, 7(3). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/strategiya-diversifikatsii-sistemy-upravleniya-na-osnove-vydeleniya-biznes-edinits?ysclid=mb2o6yz6ys362150455. (In Russ.)

4. Stapran D.A. (2017). The current state and growth prospects of entrepreneurial outsourcing in the information technology sector. Creative Economy, 11(9). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tekuschee-sostoyanie-i-perspektivy-rosta-predprinimatelskogo-autsorsinga-v-sektore-informatsionnyh-tehnologiy?ysclid=mb2o6gvblv250794410. (In Russ.)

5. Tushavin V.A. (2014). Features of outsourcing in the field of information and communication technologies. Management and Business Administration, 1: 79-86. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21396501&ysclid=mb2o5qgtl8423621352. (In Russ.)

6. Tsovma D.V. (2018). On the issue of defining a group of companies as a large and complex system. In: The new Russian economy: Investments, clusters, innovations and roadmaps: Collection of articles of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Samara, Aeterna: 79-84. https://aeterna-ufa.ru/sbornik/NK-EC-91.pdf?ysclid=mbs8tvy8f9957855495/. (In Russ.)

7. Adams C., Larson E., Хia W. (2007). A trend toward more centralized information technology (IT) management. AMCIS Proceedings: 166. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/166. (In Russ.)

8. Agarwal R., Sambamurthy V. (2002). Principles and models for organizing the IT function. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(1): 6.

9. Ambroselli S. (2021). Subsidiary decision-making autonomy: A systematic literature review of the determinants. International Journal of Business Research and Management, 12(4): 205-248.

10. Boetoro R., Welly J. (2022). Streamlining information technology (IT) functions and operating model across group case study: PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbk. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 7(4): 206-210. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24018/ ejbmr.2022.7.4.1536.

11. Chen L.-J., Tsou H.-T., Chen C.-C. (2019). An enabling mechanism for subsidiary autonomy. Journal of Management Research, 12(1): 1. DOI: 10.5296/jmr.v12i1.15595.

12. Čudanov M., Jaško O., Miloš J. (2009). Influence of information and communication technologies on decentralization of organizational structure. Computer Science and Information Systems, 6(1): 93-109. DOI: 10.2298/CSIS0901093C.

13. Ein-Dor P., Segev E. (1978). Organizational context and the success of management information systems. Management Science, 24(10): 1064-1078. doi:10.1287/mnsc.24.10.1064.

14. Ein-Dor P., Segev E. (1982). Organizational context and MIS structure: Some empirical evidence. MIS Business Computer Science, 6(3): 55-68.

15. Geleilate J.-G., Andrews D.S., Fainshmidt S. (2019). Subsidiary autonomy and subsidiary performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of World Business, 55(4): 101049. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101049.

16. Gurianova E.A., Gurianov I.N., Mechtcheriakova S.A. (2014). The influence of phase the organizational life cycle on organizational structure, management and transaction costs. Asian Social Science, 10(20): 137.

17. Janicijevic N., Milovanović M. (2015). The impact of information and communication technology on decentralization: The role of organizational culture. Ekonomika preduzeca, 63(3-4): 171-181.

18. Jentsch C., Beimborn D., Reitz A. (2017). How to decompress the pressure - The moderating effect of IT flexibility on the negative impact of governmental pressure on business agility. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii. DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2018.582.

19. Kang T., Chen H.-C., Sun J. (2016). Does organizational structure influence IT investment and its effects on operational capability. Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 7(1): 1012-1019.

20. Kirca A.H., Bearden W.O., Roth K. (2011). Implementation of market orientation in the subsidiaries of global companies: The role of institutional factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39: 683-699. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-010-0234-1.

21. Martins F.S., Lucato W.C., Vils L., Ribeiro Serra F.A. (2020). The effects of market and entrepreneurial orientation on the ambidexterity of multinational companies’ subsidiaries. European Business Review, 32(1): 4-25.

22. Meagher K., Wang W. (2009). Firm organization and market structure: Centralization vs. decentralization. SSRN Electronic Journal, January. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1324002.

23. Oliveira I., Figueiredo J., Cardoso A., Nascimento Cunha M. (2023). Empirical evidence of the parent company’s infuence on spin of: From creation to performance. International Review of Economics, 70(3): 1-16.

24. Van Grembergen W., De Haes S., Thorp J. (2007). Implementing information technology governance: Models, practices and cases. ResearchGate, January. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-924-3.