Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A Literature Review and Research Agenda <s> Figure 1: Overview of the sampling frame <s> Though enterprise resource planning (ERP) has gained some prominence in the information systems (IS) literature over the past few years and is a significant phenomenon in practice, through (a) historical analysis, (b) meta-analysis of representative IS literature, and (c) a survey of academic experts, we reveal dissenting views on the phenomenon. Given this diversity of perspectives, it is unlikely that at this stage a broadly agreed definition of ERP can be achieved. We thus seek to increase awareness of the issues and stimulate further discussion, with the ultimate aim being to: (1) aid communication amongst researchers and between researchers and practitioners; (2) inform development of teaching materials on ERP and related concepts in university curricula and in commercial education and training; and (3) aid communication amongst clients, consultants and vendors. Increased transparency of the ERP-concept within IS may also benefit other aligned fields of knowledge. <s> BIB001 </s> Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A Literature Review and Research Agenda <s> Figure 1: Overview of the sampling frame <s> A review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed. <s> BIB002 </s> Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A Literature Review and Research Agenda <s> Figure 1: Overview of the sampling frame <s> Citation analysis, which provides a clear picture of actual use of journals and their articles, is an effective way to determine a journal's influence. <s> BIB003 </s> Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A Literature Review and Research Agenda <s> Figure 1: Overview of the sampling frame <s> ABSTRACT We use a survey instrument to identify the universe of journal publication outlets for information systems (IS) research, to identify the IS journals, and to observe the value of the outlets to IS researchers. In an online survey we asked IS researchers to rate the value of IS publication outlets and to categorize them into IS journals, allied discipline journals, and professional and managerial magazines and journals. 1129 validated and non-duplicate respondents rated 326 journals, which we present in three rank-ordered lists, one for each of IS journals, allied discipline journals, and professional and managerial magazines and journals. In addition, we graphically present trends in the ranking of five selected journals from 1991 through 2003. This is the first attempt to identify the universe of IS journal publishing outlets, the first to rank the value of IS journals separately, and the first attempt to rank the value of IS publication outlets without pre-selecting the set of journals to be ranked. INTRODUCTION Motivation At the time of the first ICIS conference, more than twenty years ago, information systems was an ill-defined research focus, with little disciplinary recognition and with few credible research publication outlets of its own. It included researchers from a variety of disciplines, such as strategic management, operations research, accounting, computer science, and engineering, who saw the need to work on problems related to computer information systems and organizations. Quite naturally, they published the results of their research in the journals of a variety of disciplines, not only because there were few credible IS journals, but also because the researchers themselves had ties to other disciplines. Since then, IS has become an accepted discipline at most universities, albeit grudgingly at some, if for no other reason than because of the very substantial demand for teaching capacity in business schools for MIS major students and as part of the core curriculum for other business students. In the subsequent two decades researchers in IS developed a large number of new journals that specifically focus exclusively on IS research issues. At the same time, IS researchers have continued the tradition of publishing articles that address IS research questions in the journals of allied disciplines. As a result, IS research has been published in a wide variety of journal outlets, both within and outside the IS discipline. Over this period, there have been at least 15 published attempts to evaluate and rank journals in terms of their importance for IS research. Generally these attempts have been consistent with information system's origins as a multidisciplinary focus. In every case the articles have evaluated a mixed set of IS journals and journals from other disciplines. In addition, each of the prior studies has limited itself to a pre-selected set of journals. To date there has been no attempt, * To identify the universe of publication outlets in which IS research is published, * To identify all of the IS research journals, or * To measure the value of the outlets to IS researchers and their audiences. In consequence, researchers have made do with articles that identify and evaluate only a small part of the IS research publication capacity. The number of outlets identified in each article varied, but some of the articles identified and evaluated capacity for only a few dozen articles per year. For example, Shim, English, and Yoon (1991) identified eight journals, mostly from other disciplines, publishing approximately 100 MIS articles per year, as the most important IS research outlets. Other ranking articles have similarly rated a small number of research outlets. Since that time, however, the IS discipline has grown and matured substantially, such that today a small number of publication outlets can hardly serve the needs of 3000 or more IS researchers, who investigate problems in dozens of different research streams. … <s> BIB004 </s> Exploring Shared Services from an IS Perspective: A Literature Review and Research Agenda <s> Figure 1: Overview of the sampling frame <s> Action research (AR) has for many years been promoted and practised as one way to conduct field studies within the information systems (IS) discipline. Based on a review of articles published in leading journals, we explore how IS researchers practise AR. Our review suggests that AR lends itself strongly towards pluralist approaches which facilitate the production of both theoretical and practical knowledge. First, on the level of each study we analyse how research and problem-solving activities are mixed, in three ways: the research dominant, the problem-solving dominant and the interactive approaches. Second, in the context of the wider research programme in which the study is situated, we analyse how AR is mixed with other research methods, in two ways: the dominant and the sequential approaches. We argue that these pluralist practices of mixing types of research activities and types of research methods provide IS action researchers with a rich portfolio of approaches to knowledge production. This portfolio helps them address the risks involved in AR to ensure their efforts contribute to the literature as well as to practical problem-solving. <s> BIB005
The IS journals included in the search were; firstly, the 8 journals listed as the 'Senior Scholars' basket of journals 3 , which the Association of Information Systems (AIS) represents as "top journals in our field." Next, it was resolved to further canvass the 40 IS journals listed at the AIS web site 4 . This extended journal list from AIS was derived though comparison of 9 published papers on IS academic journal rankings [namely;  BIB003   BIB004    . The latest study used to derive this list was from 2005. Hence, in order to assure completeness and to also include journals that have more recently achieved recognition in the field, more current ranking lists were sought. Since the research team was based in Australia, and the study commenced in 2010, the 2010 Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Ranked Journal List 5 was used as an additional resource for the sampling frame. The ERA is an initiative of the Australian Federal Government to identify and promote excellence across the full spectrum of research activity in Australian Higher Education institutions, and commenced with research outlet rankings based on impact factors and other elements. The ranks range from A* to C (A* been the highest and C the lowest). For feasibility, only the top 3 layers (A*, A, and B) of the 2010 ERA journal ranking levels were included, and only those journals which were categorized as Information Systems (under primary research code 0806) were included. Given the relative newness of shared services in IS, and to ensure that the literature reviewed was as current and inclusive as possible, the proceedings from major IS conferences were also examined; namely those IS conferences sponsored by or affiliated with the AIS or run by an AIS chapter that were included in the top layer (A) of the 2010 ERA Ranked Conference List 6 [categorized as Information Systems (under primary research code 0806)]. The conferences papers, (like for the journals) included all articles published from the conferences' inception to Volume 22 September 2011, which were accessible through the relevant conference proceedings 7 . Paper extraction occurred in two steps. In the first step, the focus was on extracting papers where shared services was a central focus, thus the key word "shared service*" was searched for in the title, abstract or keywords of the sampling frame described above. This yielded 8 papers from IS journals and 21 from conferences (henceforth, we refer to these 29 as the "primary" set of papers) (see papers indicated with an Asterisk "*" in the reference list). Given the small number, we extended the search, this time extracting papers that may have mentioned shared services in a meaningful way (e.g., within the context of some other IS study focus). Thus, the research team decided to conduct a systematic search for "shared service*" in the body-text of the papers within the sampling frame. Given the magnitude of this highly manual effort, it was infeasible to fully canvass the entire sampling frame employing a body-text search. To constrain scope, we first included all papers from the 8 journals listed as the 'Senior Scholars' basket of journals, as well as all selected IS conferences' proceedings. The 'Senior Scholars' basket of journals were included, as these are recognized as the most prominent outlets in the IS field 8 .Conferences were included as they are more appropriate targets to search in emerging fields (like shared services) BIB001  . From the remaining sources 9 (see Figure 1 ), we included those in which Shared Services appeared to be relatively more prominent, based on our limited information. First, all sources from which the primary papers originated were added. Next, those sources in which, more than one paper mentioned 'shared services' in the body-text, were included (we searched this criteria using the search facilities of the journal, host databases). From these sources, 164 further papers which mentioned shared services somewhere in the text of the paper in a meaningful manner 10 were identified. Two researchers carefully reviewed all papers to determine their relevance. The 164 additional papers were included in the study as the "secondary" set; the analysis phase thus commencing with a sample paper pool of 193 papers (29 primary and 164 secondary). Overall, while a comprehensive approach was followed in extracting papers deemed most suited for this review, we do acknowledge that there may be some papers which might be relevant, still excluded due to the defined scope and applied approach. This can be expected with any literature review [vom Brocke et al., 2009, Webster and BIB002 ; one can only try to define a feasible and appropriate scope and approach and demonstrate in a transparent manner, how all relevant papers that fitted the specifications were included in the analysis [e.g., BIB005 .