Critical failure factors in information system projects
Introduction
Computerized information systems (IS) are pervasive in all forms of business organizations. Recent studies show that many of these projects have ‘failed’, in the combination of budget and/or schedule overruns and/or for not meeting users' requirements. The well known and now widely quoted Chaos Report by Standish Group [1] declared that software projects are in chaos. Table 1 provides a summarized report card on project outcomes based on the Report.
Type 1 projects are those completed on time and within budget, with all required functions and features initially specified. The “challenged” projects, though completed and operational, suffered budget overruns and/or program slips, and offered fewer functions and features than originally specified. The “impaired” projects are those cancelled or abandoned at some point during the development cycle. It is anticipated that many of the IS projects would continue to be ‘challenged’ or ‘impaired’. The truly ‘successful’ stories from the outset will be relative rare. The problem of systems impairment is more serious when projects are terminated or abandoned because of potential damages to organizations.
Unlike engineering projects, project impairment may not necessarily be due to technical faults. In information system development, an acquired or implemented system, even technically sound with specifications met, may still meet with resistance or rejection by the users or corporate management. The resulting under-utilization or abandonment of a system certainly represents a major failure. The issue of system acceptance may go beyond the usability and technical quality of the final product; extending to other more complex soft issues that are social and cultural in nature, including politics in information management.
It is important that the information technology community together with other stakeholders have a better understanding of the nature of software or information system projects and the special problems of the widespread systems failures. Checkland and Holwell [2] reckon that the study of information systems remains a crucial but confused field. Lyytinen and Hirschheim [3] suggested that the study of system failure still suffers from an inadequate conceptual clarity of the information system failure notions.
Section snippets
Definition and purpose of information systems
The term “information systems” has been defined to denote any of a wide combination of computer hardware, communication technology and software designed to handle information related to one or more business processes [4]. It serves to coordinate the work of many different organizational functions, from a back office administration support, to a company's strategic management tool. The payroll, sales orders, inventory control and personnel records systems are some examples of back office
Systems failure notions
Lyytinen and Hirschheim [3] define four major notions or categories of IS failures as follows:
- 1.
Correspondence Failure: When the systems design objectives are not met, the information system is considered a failure. It is generally believed that design goals and requirements can be specified clearly in advance, and that their achievements can be accurately measured. Performance measures mainly based on cost-benefit analysis are employed for managerial control over the systems implementation.
Critical failure factors
Flowers [4] defines an information system as a failure if any of these following situations occurs: (1) when the system as a whole does not operate as expected and its overall performance is sub-optimal; (2) if, on implementation, it does not perform as originally intended or if it is so user-hostile that it is rejected by users and under-utilized; (3) if, the cost of the development exceeds any benefits the system may bring throughout its useful life; or (4) due to problems with the complexity
In search of an integrative framework
To deal with the highly complex field of IS study in general and systems failures in particular, a soft systemic approach is proposed in search of an integrative and generic framework for analysis. The systemic approach simultaneously deals with the logical and cultural/social aspects of systems development and use. The POM (Processes for Organizational Meanings) model developed by Checkland and Holwell [2] provides an important conceptual reference model to make sense of the studies. The POM
Spheres and issues of influence
The identification and delineation of information system failure factors can be a highly complex task. The integrative triple-S framework is used as a basis to group and analyze a multitude of possible factors that may cause an information system to fail. The triple-S framework can be perceived as three spheres of influence (SOI) over project outcomes. The three SOI are further operationalised into 10 main issues of influence (IOI), as shown in the Table 2. These issues are in turn defined by a
Conclusions
The IT/IS industry and community continue to be plagued with extensive problems of systems failure. The field of IT/IS project management remains in “chaos”. The gap between theory and practice in IS studies, particular failure studies, remains. The study presented in this paper is another attempt trying to make sense of the somewhat ‘confused’ field of IS studies in general and IS project management in particular. The emphasis is on adopting a systemic approach in IS project planning and
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Thomas Lim CK, his research student, in the conduct of the survey.
References (11)
- The Standish Group. The CHAOS Report (1995), 1995....
- et al.
Information, systems and information systems
(1998) - et al.
Information failures—a survey and classification of the empirical literature
Oxford Surveys in Information Technology
(1987) Software failure: management failure
(1996)- et al.
Information system development: methodologies, technologies, & tools
(1995)