La thèse vise à obtenir une meilleure compréhension du processus et de la dynamique à travers lesquels les décideurs considèrent la prépondérance des parties prenantes dans leur prise de décision en gouvernance des technologies de l’information (GTI). Une théorie enracinée sur la rationalisation politique baptisée la théorie de la dynamique des pesanteurs est alors produite au moyen d'une approche constructiviste informée par Charmaz. Les données sont fournies par 33 praticiens de GTI à travers des entrevues intensives et des graphiques générés à l'aide d'un outil Web spécialement développé aux fins de la thèse. La théorie de la dynamique des pesanteurs est une contribution originale dans le domaine de la prise de décision en gouvernance des TI. La théorie de la dynamique des pesanteurs explique les circonstances où le politique joue un rôle de levier à la bonne implantation des décisions et celles où le politique y joue un rôle dévastateur. / Abstract : This thesis adopts stakeholder paradigm to investigate the decision-making process within the context of Information Technology Governance (ITG) as an integral part of enterprise governance. The Theory of Mass Dynamics (TMD) is produced through the present thesis by means of constructivist approach to grounded theory as informed by Charmaz. Data are provided by 33 ITG practitioners via intensive interviews and elicited charts generated using a web tool specially developed for this research purposes. The TMD suggests a three-level analysis framework describing how stakeholder salience interferes on the ITG decision making process. First, at organization-wide level, stakeholders are socially perceived as having unequal weight in terms of power. When an IT related draft decision gets on the agenda of an enterprise governing body, stakeholders get divided into two groups: change masses and status quo masses engaging in dynamics that end up turning the scale in favor of either decision adoption or denial. The TDM rule suggests that the draft decision fate will be determined by the side on which most powerful stakeholders eventually stand to in the change/status quo scale. Second, at the governing body level, both change and status quo masses are directly or indirectly represented by members of the decision making group. Bearing in mind the TDM rule, those stakeholders’ representatives engage in a negotiation process aiming at moving the group from conflict towards compromise. Depending on whether conflict is motivated by rational, non-rational or mixed considerations, actors will go in search of compromise either through boardroom negotiations, through corridor negotiations or through a mix of both. Finally, at the individual level of analysis, a decision maker involved in this process would engage in a political rationalization attitude through which he or she thinks and sets negotiation arguments bearing in mind the stakeholders’ power. At this individual level of analysis, the TDM suggest a four-shade spectrum of political rationalization respectively described as follows: rationalizing politics as unavoidable evil, rationalizing mitigated intentions, rationalizing bad practices and rationalizing potentially fraudulent practices. Thanks to such a non-technical knowledge, the TDM may contribute in filling the gap between ITG and board of directors.

No description available.