The longitudinal study of the most sophisticated decision support system (DSS) for the management of debit accounts provides new answers to the question of conformity in French banking. In 2003, the analysis of 45 observations and qualitative interviews showed that the advisor maintains his free appreciation of risk. However, even if conformity does not exist, the results on the modification range show that the DSS does exert an influence on user behaviour. In addition, the interpretation and acceptance of DSS recommendation are different according to the type of portfolio managed and how the work is organised. The less the financial advisor knows the client, the greater the influence of the DSS. Recent decisions regarding the division of labour for the management of lower segments heighten the risk that DSS used without knowing the client leads to more conformity, or at least to what we conceptualise as strategic conformity, and a taylorisation of services.
AdamsS. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Behavior in Organizational Boundary Roles, in DunnetteM (ed.) Handbook of Organizational and Industrial Psychology, Chicago: Rand Mc Nally, pp. 1175–1199.
2.
BankerR., and KauffmanR. (2004). The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A fiftieth-year survey of the literature in Management Science, Management Science50(3): 281–298.
3.
BéalL., and RoweF. (1998). Organisation du travail, comportement de l'utilisateur face au risque et performance d'un SIAD: le cas de la gestion des débiteurs d'une banque, Journal of Decision Systems8(Special Issue): 55–82.
4.
BenbasatI., GoldsteinD., and MeadM. (1987). The Case Study Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly11(3): 369–386.
5.
BendersJ., and MandersF. (1993). Expert Systems and Organizational Decision-making, Information and Management25(4): 207–213.
6.
BessonP., and RoweF. (2001). ERP Project, Dynamics and Enacted Dialogue: Perceived understanding, perceived leeway and the nature of task-related conflicts, DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems32(4): 47–66.
7.
BrandonD., and HollingsheadA. (2004). Transactive Memory Systems in Organizations: Matching tasks, expertise and people, Organization Science15(6): 633–644.
8.
BromileyP., and CurleyS. (1992). Personality and Individual Differences in Risk-Taking, in YatesJ.F. (ed.) Risk-Taking Behavior, Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 87–132.
9.
CarpenterJ. (2004). When in Rome: Conformity and the provision of public goods, Journal of Socio-Economics33(4): 395–409.
10.
CoultasJ. (2004). When in Rome: An evolutionay perspective on conformity, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations7(4): 317–332.
11.
CredéM, and SniezekJ (2003). Group Judgement Processes and Outcomes in Video-conferencing Versus Face-to-face Groups, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59: 875–897.
12.
CrozierM., and FriedbergE. (1977). Actors and Systems: The politics of collective action, Boston: Ginn and Co.
13.
DrummondH. (2003). Did Nick Leeson Have an Accomplice? The Role of Information Technology in the Collapse of Barings Bank, Journal of Information Technology18: 93–101.
14.
EiermanM., NiedermanF., and AdamsC. (1995). DSS Theory: A model of constructs and relationships, Decision Support Systems14: 1–26.
15.
ElmesM., StrongD., and VolkoffO. (2005). Panoptic Empowerment and Reflective Conformity in Enterprise Systems-enabled Organizations, Information and Organization5(1): 1–37.
16.
EllsbergD. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics75: 336–342.
17.
EmelA., OralM., ReismanA., and YolalanR. (2003). A Credit Scoring Approach for the Commercial Banking Sector, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences37(2): 103–123.
18.
EomS. (2004). The Changing Structure of Decision Support Systems Research: An empirical investigation through author co-citation mapping, in MeredithR., ShanksG., ArnottD., and CarlssonS. (eds.) The IFIP International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS 2004), (Prato, Italy), 1–3 July.
19.
FiskeS., and TaylorS. (1994). Social Cognition, 2nd edn New York: Mc Graw Hill.
20.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison, 2nd edn New York: Vintage Books.
21.
GarnerB., and RabanR. (1999). Context Management in Modelling Information Systems, Information and Software Technology41(14): 957–961.
22.
HamelG., and PrahaladC. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review68(3): 78–91.
23.
HammerM., and ChampyJ. (1992). Le Reegineering, Paris: Dunod.
24.
HonoréL. (1998). Systèmes de contraintes, systèmes disciplinaires et décision face au risqué, Revue Finance-Contrôle-Stratégie1(3): 85–106.
25.
IselinE. (1988). The Effects of Information Load and Information Diversity on Decision Quality in a Structured Decision Task, Accounting, Organization and Society13(2): 147–164.
26.
JanisI., and MannL. (1977). Decision Making, New York: Free Press.
27.
JohnsonE., and PayneJ. (1985). Effort and Accuracy in Choice, Management Science31(4): 395–414.
28.
KahnemanD., and LovalloD. (1993). Timid Decisions and Bold Forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk-taking, Management Science39: 17–31.
29.
KarauS., and WilliamsK. (1993). Social Loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology65: 681–706.
30.
KauffmanR., and LiX. (2003). Payoff Externalities, Informational Cascades and Managerial Incentives: A theoretical framework for IT adoption herding, in BharadwajA., NarisimhanS, and DanthanamR (eds.) INFORMS Conference on IS and Technology, Atlanta.
31.
KonanaP., and BalasubramanianS. (2005). The Social-economic-psychological Model of Technology Adoption and Usage: An application to online investing, Decision Support Systems39(3): 505–524.
32.
LebratyJ.F. (2000). Aide à la décision et écartés bancaires: une approche en termes de rationalité procédurale, Systèmes d'Information et Management5(3): 3–28.
33.
LevineJ., ResnickL., and HigginsE. (1993). Social Foundations of Cognition, Annual Review of Psychology44: 585–612.
34.
Mac NamaraG., and BromileyP. (1997). Decision Making in an Organizational Setting: Cognitive and organizational influences on risk assessment in commercial lending, Academy of Management Journal40(5): 1063–1088.
35.
Mac NamaraG., and BromileyP. (1999). Risk and Return in Organizational Decision Making, Academy of Management Journal42(3): 330–339.
36.
MuddK., and GovernJ. (2004). Conformity to Misinformation and Time Delay Negatively Affect Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy, North American Journal of Psychology6(2): 227–238.
37.
NassC., FoggB., and MoonB. (1996). Can Computers be Teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies45: 669–678.
38.
RemenyiD. (2002). As the First 50 Years of Computing Draw to an End…: What kind of society do we want?Journal of Information Technology17: 3–7.
39.
RoweF. (1994). Data Network Productivity and Competitive Behaviour: The case of French banking, Technological Forecasting and Social Change46(1): 29–44.
40.
RoweF. (1998). Formes de surveillance et de confiance dans les types de relations: l'impact de l'informatisation bancaire, Réseaux (CNET) (91): 67–93.
41.
SenguptaK., and Te'eniD. (1993). Cognitive Feedback in GDSS: Improving control and convergence, MIS Quarterly17(1): 87–113.
42.
SherifM. (1935). A Study of Some Social Factors in Perception, Archives of Psychology27(187): 1–60.
43.
SherifM. (1947). Group Influences Upon the Formation of Norms and Attitudes, in NewcombeT., and HartleyE. (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology, New York: Holt, pp. 77–90.
44.
SkitkaL., MosierK., and BurdickM. (1999). Does Automation Bias Decisionmaking?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies51: 991–1006.
45.
SutcliffeK., and Mac NamaraG. (2001). Controlling Decision-making Practice in Organizations, Organization Science12(4): 484–501.
46.
TanB., WeiK., WatsonR., ClapperD., and Mac LeanE. (1998). Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the impact in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture, Management Science44(9): 1263–1278.
47.
ToddP., and BenbasatI. (1991). An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Computer Based Aids on Decision Making Strategies, Information Systems Research2(2): 87–115.
48.
ToddP., and BenbasatI. (1999). Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection, Information Systems Research10(4): 356–374.
49.
ToddP., and BenbasatI. (2000). The Impact of Information Technology on Decision Making: A cognitive perspective, in ZmudR. (ed.) Framing the Domains of IT Management, Cincinnati: Pinnaflex, pp. 1–14.
50.
TverskyA., and KahnemanD. (1974). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science185: 1124–1131.
51.
WillcocksL. (2004). Foucault, Power/knowledge and Information Systems: Reconstructing the present, in MingersJ., and WillcocksL. (eds.) Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 238–296.
52.
YinR. (1990). Case Study Research: Design and methods, 6th revised edition Newbury Park: Sage.
53.
ZuboffS. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The future of work and power, New York: Basic Books.
54.
ZuboffS., and MaxminJ. (2003). The Support Economy, London: Allen Lane Penguin Books.
