Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD) Denis Dennehy and Kieran Conboy Lero∣The Irish Software Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine contradictions (specifically tertiary and quaternary contradictions) that can disrupt the flow of work in contemporary systems development methods. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses Activity theory (AT) as a theoretical lens to: examine ISD flow as an interrelated activity system; and identify contradictions. AT is pertinent in the context of this study as rather than view contradictions as a threat to prematurely abandon the use of flow tools and metrics, it shows how contradictions can act as a motor for change and continuity. This study adopts a longitudinal single case study approach including face-to-face interviews with management and software development project teams, as well as direct observations and document analysis. Findings – This study identifies tertiary and quaternary contradictions, and highlights the influence of contradictions on flow-based systems development. Social implications – This study provides a set of contradictions for researchers and practitioners. It shows that contradictions can be culturally or politically challenging to confront, and even when resolved, can have intended or unintended consequences. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified need to study ISD flow from the perspective of interrelated activity systems and beyond its initial implementation phase. Keywords Qualitative method, Case study, Activity theory, Information system development Paper type Research paper Introduction Flow[1] is a relatively new systems development method that has gained significant popularity amongst the systems development community (Anderson, 2013; Nord et al., 2012; Petersen and Wohlin, 2011; Poppendieck and Cusumano, 2012; Reinertsen, 2009). Flow is about managing a continuous and smooth stream of value creating activities throughout the entire systems development process (Anderson, 2010; Reinertsen, 2009; Petersen and Wohlin, 2011; Poppendieck, 2002; Beck, 2000). It emphasises the continuous movement of valuable work, rather than a sequence of discrete activities, performed by distinct teams or departments (Fitzgerald and Stol, 2015). An emphasis on managing queues rather than timelines, project phases or simple waste elimination distinguishes this approach from traditional project management (Power and Conboy, 2015; Anderson, 2013; Anderson et al., 2011). Essentially flow refers to the manner in which work progresses through a system, whereby “good” flow describes a system where work moves through steadily and predictably and “bad” flow describes a system in which work stops and starts frequently (Majewski, 2016). Despite its popularity, the suitability and effectiveness of flow in systems development has been questioned. First, the assumption that flow is suited to the unpredictable, multifaceted nature of systems development (Lyytinen and Rose, 2006) has been subject to harsh criticism (Ebert et al., 2012). Second, the effectiveness of flow has largely been Information Technology & People © Emerald Publishing Limited 0959-3845 DOI 10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0102 Received 25 February 2018 Revised 31 January 2019 3 June 2019 Accepted 6 June 2019 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-3845.htm This work was supported with the financial support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/ 2094 and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund through the Southern and Eastern Regional Operational Programme to Lero – the Irish Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie). A study of contradictions in ISD