Introduction
Although project management is often said to have its roots in other traditional fields, such as construction, Morris (2002) asserts that modern project management practices have their origins in the 1950s US aerospace agencies. Much has been written about Information System (IS) / Information Technology (IT) project initiatives in both the public and private sectors. In fact, many information systems frequently fall short of their requirements, and are, more often than not, costlier and arrive later than anticipated, if indeed they are completed at all. For instance, according to a report for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), failures of major IT investments and key systems development projects have raised concerns for the achievement of service improvement through information technology. Additionally, it has been argued that failures in IT projects are more common than failures in any other aspect of modern business (Nulden, 1996). The widely-cited Standish Group (1994) study, carried out in the US, classified IT projects as follows:
• Resolution Type 1 (Project Success): The project is completed on-time and on-budget, with all features and functions as initially specified.
• Resolution Type 2 (Project Challenged): The project is completed and operational but over-budget, over the time estimate, and offers fewer features and functions than originally specified.
• Resolution Type 3 (Project Impaired): The project is cancelled at some point during the development cycle.
The report estimated the success rate was only 16.2%, while challenged proj ects accounted for 5 2. 7%, and impaired projects (cancelled) amounted to 31.1%. Since large complex projects in any area are difficult to organize, it could be said that the level of abstraction required often leads to a lack of understanding between all stakeholders involved with the project. Callahan and Moretton (2001) describe software design as being “in the code”. They assert that since it is not visible, it makes it hard to use software design as a focal point for development project coordination and integration, unlike many physical designs which can be made visible to all project participants. As a result of this “invisibility”, managing the development of an IS project is arguably more problematic than proj ect management within the manufacturing sector because software development is often a highly conceptual and complex process.
Indeed, a lack of adequate project management knowledge could be said to be a major contributing factor to unsuccessful IS projects. For instance, as project managers should be aware, unless specific objectives and clear-cut end points have been set, it can be difficult to know if a milestone has been reached and indeed if the required end-product has been produced. However, making use of proprietary tools such as Microsoft™ Project is sometimes mistakenly thought of as project management, whereas real project management expertise goes beyond the mere production of Gantt or Pert (Program Evaluation Review Technique) charts, which simply represent project activities in the form of bar charts or flow diagrams. As Mandl-Striegnitz et al. (1998) point out, important project management techniques include estimation of costs and explicit identification of risks. Clearly, there is a need for more in-depth research to gain a better understanding relating to the complex role of project management within the whole IS design and development process. This discussion considers how these problems affect contemporary IS project management research and explores the methodological approaches open to researchers carrying out investigations in this area.
background
In order to better understand the challenges facing researchers of Information Systems Project Management (ISPM), it is necessary to explore what is meant by some of these terms. As stated by the American National Standard for Telecommunications (2000), an IS is “an organized assembly of resources and procedures united and regulated by interaction or interdependence to accomplish a set of specific functions, whether automated or manual, that comprises people, machines, and/or methods organized to collect, process, transmit, and disseminate data that represent user information”. In its simplest terms, an IS can be described as a human activity or social system, which may or may not involve the use of computer systems; although, these days the former is more likely. According to Stoner et al. (1994), management can be regarded as a process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the efforts of staff and other resources in order to achieve organizational goals, and the Association for Project Management (2000) describes a project as a distinct set of coordinated activities “… with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individual or organization to meet specific objectives within defined time, cost and performance parameters”. By combining these terms, a definition for ISPM could be said to be the process of managing the creation of an IS through the establishment of project goals; organizing, leading, co-coordinating the efforts of staff processes and tasks; and controlling other resources to achieve a set of agreed objectives.
Since IS projects are frequently comprised of multi-disciplinary teams of people, a definition ofwhat is meant by a team in this particular context is called for. Geddes et al. (1993), regard a team as comprising those individuals who have a significant contribution to make to the successful achievement of the project, whether this is through technical or specialist expertise; sponsorship, political support or sponsorship; or expectation of, and interest in, outcomes. Programmers and associated staff are often selected according to their ability to demonstrate the appropriate technical knowledge, which does not guarantee proficiency in managing successful proj -ects. Despite the emphasis on team leadership ability, senior developers/project managers are often promoted from the programming team, with a continued emphasis on technical expertise (Mandl-Striegnitz et al., 1998).
In reality, IS project managers must not only be able to plan and break activities down into components that can be understood and to control tasks and monitor risks, but must additionally be able to consider people and process issues requiring significant team-building skills. Although IS may be implemented by staff with technical competence, they may well lack the necessary abilities to evaluate organizational contexts and analyze corresponding behaviors.
Nevertheless, since 1994 there has been an improvement in project management outcomes. By 2001, the Standish Group published another report stating that project time and cost overruns had reduced significantly. Although this improvement in project results was confirmed by a UK-based survey (Saur & Cuthbertson, 2004), the authors acknowledged that their sample could have been unrepre-sentatively experienced, signifying a continued need for further research.
criteria for ispm success
Referring to the Standish Group report “Extreme Chaos” (2001), it seems that lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of past projects which warrant further study. From extensive research, the Standish Group identified ten criteria for project success:
1. Executive support
2. User involvement
3. Experienced project managers
4. Clear business objectives
5. Minimize scope
6. Standard software infrastructure
7. Firm basic requirements
8. Formal methodology
9. Reliable estimates
10. Other criteria such as small milestones, proper planning, competent staff and ownership
In the UK based study, Sauer and Cuthbertson (2004) reported a higher project success rate than the US Standish Report (1994). Nevertheless, Sauer and Cuthbertson suggested that in order to continue this general improvement, the following recommendations ought to be adhered to:
• Project managers should:
• Structure projects into smaller units
• Select the right team and involving them in decision making
• Invest time and effort in self-development
• Senior IT managers should:
• Establish a project management focus in the organization
• Identify the right person for project management role
• Create appropriate career paths
• Be accountable through more effective performance management
• Senior business managers/sponsors should:
• Develop client understanding of proj ect management
• Engage more actively with projects for which they have responsibility
Some reasons for the improvements described above were costs being cut, better tools being created to monitor and control processes and, not least, project managers becoming better skilled with better management processes being used, giving rise to optimism for the future of proj ect management. Despite the change for the better as highlighted above, the Standish Group (2001) considered “Nirvana” still to be a long way off, indicating a need for continued research. In order to select more appropriate research approaches to investigate ISPM, it is necessary to explore some of the issues specifically related to this particular field.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT
management research issues
Prior to the 1950s, computing was primarily associated with scientific applications. Even after computer installation began in business environments for data-processing tasks, associated research had a tendency to be dominated by scientific approaches. Thus, despite the increasing importance of IS within modern businesses, for historical reasons the close association of IS development with IT induced many researchers to consider IS problems using methods from the natural sciences (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1996; Garcia & Quek, 1997) that are more suited to science laboratories. As a consequence of this scientific tradition, investigations within the field of IS appear to have had a predominance of both positivist and technical points of view, despite major criticisms (op.cit.) that may these research methods might be not always be wholly appropriate.
Keen (1984) stressed that IS is not simply the installation of a technical system in an organization. He suggested that successful implementation needs to consider institutional issues affecting its use in the ongoing context of jobs, formal and informal structures, as well as personal and group processes. Hughes and Wood-Harper (2000) concurred, rejecting the notion that the process is exclusively technical and rational. In their view, IS research should not merely pay attention to the technology and called for IS development to be understood in its situated context, i.e. to consider the domain, the organizational constraints, the social actors and the politics in situ.
ispm research methods
The debate as to whether to adopt quantitative or qualitative research methods is well-documented and will only be touched on lightly here. However, as described by Wilson (2002), one of the most contentious debates is whether to adopt the positivist view of the nature of social reality, in which social facts can be known with certainty and in which laws of cause and effect can be discovered, or whether to apply humanistic approaches which generally see social reality as constructed through social action on the part of people who undertake those acts because they have meaning for them. Conventional “scientific” research can run the risk of being reductionist (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), since complex problems are condensed in order to produce models that can provide a simplified simulation of reality. Bryman (1988) suggests that the basic choice of methodological approach is largely influenced by the type of research question being asked and according to Yin (1994) a researcher’s choice of methodological approach depends on the problem at hand and the control that the researcher has over the behavioral events. Given that many researchers now believe IS to be socially constructed in particular contexts, it is thought to be important to extend research methodologies for ISPM problems beyond the positivist paradigm in order to uncover rich qualitative data.
future trends
Mumford et al. (1985) argued for a methodological pluralism within IS research domains, asserting that scientific proofwas being regarded as the only valid method despite the fact that many IS problems were not susceptible to these systematic methods. A decade later, Allen (1995) agreed that research methods from different paradigms can be used simultaneously or consecutively and are equally valid. Despite the historical emphasis on positivist methods in IS research, there is increasing support for developing this type of methodological mix and this is equally applicable to project management research. This is demonstrated by the fact that although the data for the Standish Group (1994) project management research was primarily collected through a survey, focus groups were conducted to augment the survey results.
In fact, Myers (1997) argues that all studies are based on some underlying assumptions about what constitutes “valid” research and it is this which should dictate which research methods are appropriate. Avegerou (2000), writing about alternative reasoning for IS, notes that the development literature argues that developing societies need to recognize the limitations of the validity of techno-economic rationality and that they ought to pursue rationalities stemming from their own value systems. IS professional roles have been based and legitimated mostly on technocratic logic, without an obligation to consider the validity of the requirements, which are normally based on the social context (Avegerou, 2000). Morris (2002) concurs, stating that project management is not a science in the full or proper sense of the word. This is contrary to the view of Khazanchi and Munkvold (2000) who believe that methodological and philosophical diversity do not preclude researchers from making scientific inquiries into the fundamental nature of IS phenomena.
Nevertheless, Morris believes that it is a discipline worthy of theoretical study, with various questions susceptible to the methods of scientific enquiry, whilst other areas will always have a large element of unpredictability. He therefore considers that some knowledge of this field will always be personal and experiential. Following this line of reasoning, prominent researchers such as Galliers (1992) have proposed that an interpretative stance for IS research would be wholly applicable. Correspondingly, other researchers have explored and recommended various interpretivist approaches as being particularly suitable. These methodologies include case study research (Yin, 1994), where the researcher interprets data without direct involvement, and action research (Baskerville, 1999), where the researcher is actively involved.
However, Garcia and Quek (1997) stress the need for further critical awareness, stating that importing methods into the IS field is not a simple task. They warn that without critical awareness, there is a danger of methods becoming stereotyped or distorted. Nonetheless, they supported the use of multiple methods to correspond with the complexity of research investigation which will allow a better understanding of the different aspects involved in the constitution of the object under investigation.
conclusion
If one accepts that IS are socially constructed, as many researchers now appear to do, then it follows that evaluative research of IS projects needs to be situated in contextualized and authentic settings. It would therefore seem highly appropriate to set aside the positivist versus interpretivist debate, since Marcella and Knox (2004) suggest that “…it is only based upon a much fuller and more precise understanding of the complex and multifaceted needs of all users, internal and external, in all functional areas of the institution, that systems will be developed which are truly responsive and which function to meet overall . objectives”. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is worthwhile combining diverse research methods, as endorsed by Fitzgerald and Howcroft (1998), with a view to maximizing their complementary strengths. This would seem to be particularly appropriate to address many of the concerns and issues relating to ISPM as highlighted in this discussion.
key terms
Case Study Research: An in-depth investigation that attempts to captures lessons learned through studying the environment, procedures, results, achievements, and failures of a particular project or set of circumstances.
Development Literature: Literature about impoverished countries of the world that are trying to modernize or to find different ways of supporting their populations.
Focus Group: A small group interview, conducted by a moderator, which is used to discuss one or more issues.
Humanism: A philosophical approach that focuses on human value, thought, and actions.
Information Systems Project Management: The process of managing the creation of an IS through the establishment of project goals; organizing, leading, co-coordinating the efforts of staff processes and tasks; and controlling other resources to achieve a set of agreed objectives.
Interpretivism: A research approach that attempts to reach an understanding of social action in order to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects.
Positivism: A belief that natural science, based on observation, comprises the whole of human knowledge.
Project Team: All individuals who have made a significant contribution to make to the successful achievement of the project.
Project: A distinct set of coordinated activities with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individual or organization to meet specific objectives within defined time, cost and performance parameters.
Techno-Economic Rationality: Logical justification for making a connection between technical advances and economic growth.
