@inproceedings{KlotzWestnerStrahringer, author = {Klotz, Stefan and Westner, Markus and Strahringer, Susanne}, title = {From Shadow IT to Business-managed IT and Back Again}, series = {Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS): 2020, Dubai}, booktitle = {Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS): 2020, Dubai}, pages = {14}, abstract = {Today, information technology (IT) is not anymore solely deployed and maintained by the IT organization, but also by business units. IT deployed or managed by business units is called Shadow IT (without alignment with the IT organization) or Business-managed IT (in alignment or a split responsibility model with the IT organization), contrasting "classical" IT. However, the responsibility for deployed IT might change over time. Therefore, this paper conceptualizes the progression of the responsibility for IT as a trajectory through initialization, potential transitions, and discontinuance. The paper illustrates this conceptual framework using four exemplary case vignettes of IT instances. Empirical findings of the case vignettes determine indications when employees initialize an IT instance as Shadow IT, Business-managed IT, or IT-managed systems and reasons why the responsibility for an IT instance changes over time. The results suggest that scholars and practitioners should add a temporal dimension to the governance of IT instances.}, subject = {IT-Governance}, language = {en} } @article{KlotzKopperWestneretal., author = {Klotz, Stefan and Kopper, Andreas and Westner, Markus and Strahringer, Susanne}, title = {Causing factors, outcomes, and governance of Shadow IT and business-managed IT}, series = {International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management}, volume = {7}, journal = {International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management}, number = {1}, issn = {2182-7796}, doi = {10.12821/ijispm070102}, pages = {15 -- 43}, abstract = {Shadow IT and Business-managed IT describe the autonomous deployment/procurement or management of Information Technology (IT) instances, i.e., software, hardware, or IT services, by business entities. For Shadow IT, this happens covertly, i.e., without alignment with the IT organization; for Business-managed IT this happens overtly, i.e., in alignment with the IT organization or in a split responsibility model. We conduct a systematic literature review and structure the identified research themes in a framework of causing factors, outcomes, and governance. As causing factors, we identify enablers, motivators, and missing barriers. Outcomes can be benefits as well as risks/shortcomings of Shadow IT and Business-managed IT. Concerning governance, we distinguish two subcategories: general governance for Shadow IT and Business-managed IT and instance governance for overt Business-managed IT. Thus, a specific set of governance approaches exists for Business-managed IT that cannot be applied to Shadow IT due to its covert nature. Hence, we extend the existing conceptual understanding and allocate research themes to Shadow IT, Business-managed IT, or both concepts and particularly distinguish the governance of the two concepts. Besides, we find that governance themes have been the primary research focus since 2016, whereas older publications (until 2015) focused on causing factors.}, subject = {Betriebliches Informationssystem}, language = {en} } @article{KlotzWestnerStrahringer, author = {Klotz, Stefan and Westner, Markus and Strahringer, Susanne}, title = {Critical Success Factors of Business-managed IT: It Takes Two to Tango}, series = {Information Systems Management}, volume = {39}, journal = {Information Systems Management}, number = {3}, publisher = {Taylor\&Francis}, doi = {10.1080/10580530.2021.1938300}, pages = {220 -- 240}, abstract = {This paper identifies critical success factors of Business-managed IT based on case study results. Four groups of critical success factors emerge: (1) general approach to Business-managed IT/Business-managed IT strategy, (2) Business-managed IT project prerequisites/Business-managed IT team, (3) Business-managed IT project execution and outcome, and (4) information technology management for Business-managed IT. The results suggest that bilateral responsibility between the business unit and the IT organization is the most favorable governance option for Business-managed IT.}, subject = {Betriebliches Informationssystem}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{KlotzWestnerStrahringeretal., author = {Klotz, Stefan and Westner, Markus and Strahringer, Susanne and Schieder, Christian}, title = {Transformed Knowledge Sharing Through Business-managed IT and Shadow IT}, series = {Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2019), Canc{\´u}n, Mexiko, August 15-17}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2019), Canc{\´u}n, Mexiko, August 15-17}, publisher = {AIS}, pages = {1 -- 10}, abstract = {Business-managed IT and Shadow IT describe the autonomous deployment/management of IT instances by business units. For the former, this happens in alignment with the IT organization of the enterprise, for the latter, without alignment. We analyze why and how Business-managed IT and Shadow IT transform knowledge sharing with two case studies drawing on the theoretical lens of the knowledge-based view. Several motivators lead to the autonomous implementation of knowledge management systems (KMSs), for example, shortcomings of existing systems. The implemented KMSs have multiple benefits for knowledge sharing, such as a reduction of knowledge sharing barriers. However, we notice that the Shadow IT KMS leads to challenges for cross-unit knowledge sharing due to the covert nature of Shadow IT. Based on the findings of our case studies, we develop a mid-range theory to explain the transformation of knowledge sharing in enterprises supported by Business-managed IT and Shadow IT.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{KoehlerHarlWestneretal., author = {K{\"o}hler, Jessica and Harl, Maximilian Victor and Westner, Markus and Strahringer, Susanne}, title = {Can AI be a Scholar? A Systematic Review on the Role of Generative AI in Systematic Literature Reviews}, series = {2025 27th International Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), 09-12. September 2025, Lisbon, Portugal}, booktitle = {2025 27th International Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), 09-12. September 2025, Lisbon, Portugal}, publisher = {IEEE}, doi = {10.1109/CBI68102.2025.00012}, pages = {11}, abstract = {Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are foundational for research but resource-intensive to conduct. With the rise of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, generative AI (GenAI) tools are being increasingly explored for their potential to support and transform the SLR process. This study presents a systematic review of peerreviewed articles that examine how LLM-based GenAI tools are used in different SLR phases. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we screened 1,846 publications published since January 2021 until April 2025 and selected 54 for in-depth analysis. Each study was coded by review phase, prompting approach, automation level, validation type and challenges. Our findings show that GenAI is most often used to support in the screening, search, and writing phases, typically through Basic Prompting and under human oversight. While many studies report efficiency gains, concerns remain regarding validity, transparency, and methodological rigor. Moreover, GenAI is frequently applied to isolated tasks but is rarely embedded in a structured, methodologically guided review processhighlighting the need for clearer phase-specific guidance and standards. We offer a structured, phase-specific synthesis that highlights both the promise and the current limitations of GenAI in literature reviews and thereby offer practical recommendations for the responsible use of GenAI in literature reviews.}, language = {en} } @article{KaessStrahringerWestner, author = {K{\"a}ss, Sebastian and Strahringer, Susanne and Westner, Markus}, title = {Archetypes, Situations, and Practices : a Guide to Successful Low-Code Adoption}, series = {Information Resources Management Journal}, volume = {38}, journal = {Information Resources Management Journal}, number = {1}, publisher = {IGI Global}, issn = {1040-1628}, doi = {10.4018/IRMJ.396005}, pages = {26}, abstract = {This paper extends prior work on low-code by explaining when adoption archetypes occur and how to use them. Motivated by information technology (IT) talent shortages and uneven low-code development platform (LCDP) outcomes, the paper seeks practical guidance for post-adoption choices in work systems. Using a multiple mini case study of 36 cases in large German organizations, this study analyzes interviews and context questionnaires with within-/cross-case coding and pattern matching against a 13-factor model. This analysis identifies situations that trigger three adoption archetypes—application development democratizers, synergy realizers, and IT resource shortage mitigators—and one non-adoption archetype, intricacy adversaries. The analysis also maps advantages and disadvantages and distills 12 good practices. Across adoption cases, efficiency is the dominant goal, whereas non-adoption stems from high application sophistication. The results give actionable guidance: align goals to an archetype, stick to LCDP standards, involve IT and foster an open culture, invest in skilling, reuse platform components, and reserve LCDPs for less-complex apps while planning architecture early.}, language = {en} }